Room for rent - no heterosexuals

[Sliver]

My opinion - I'm not gay or religious, but I'm glad that the courts ruled in favour of the gay couple. Religion needs to move on with the times.

I'll drink to that. I'm not gay but I see them as equals. They should be treated as such. We shouldn't need to legislate these things as it costs a lot of money, it should be common sense. We should all be equal under the law regardless.

 

[estebanrey]

Stroking against the grain slightly, wasn't there a story only 1-2 years back when a Christian refused a gay couple to stay in their B&B?

Context is everything though. The B&B owners were refusing to offer their business service to someone based on their orientation which isn't the same as deciding who you will rent a room in a private house to.

 

[Angilion]

Well, it's your home... why tolerate anything you don't like. Better to be upfront and honest, I suppose. I agree with their quote:

"You are not being discriminated against by us, we just don't want to live with you".

I'm going to go there only a few posts (probably) in: this is different from 'no black people' because that has no basis on personality type, harder to distinguish from 'no muslims' though - probably the same.

Sexual orientation isn't a personality type, so your argument fails.

Arguing that people should be allowed to discriminate as they please when renting a room in a private house is internally consistent. Arguing that it's OK for some forms of irrational discrimination and not others isn't.

They want to share a house with someone who has the same views and prejudices they do. That's understandable, but dressing it up as something else isn't reasonable. "No muslims" or "no conservatives" or "no enviromentalists" or whatever would be far more reasonable because those are based on views, which is rational and relevant.

 

[Aldav]

Context is everything though. The B&B owners were refusing to offer their business service to someone based on their orientation which isn't the same as deciding who you will rent a room in a private house to.

But they weren't. They were refusing to offer a double room to any unmarried couples, gay or straight. Their objection was sex outside of marriage, under their roof, not to sexual orientation.

Not that it helped them, they lost anyway. And I think they sold the B&B rather than change policy in such a way as to compromise their religious belief.

As for the NZ flatmate thing, if I was a prospective straight flatmate, I'd rather the advert said not heteros than either waste my time going to see it when they knew I wouldn't be accepted, or far worse, actually get the room and find I was resented and had a lousy time because they didn't want a hetero but some stupid law said they couldn't decline.

As several people have said, their home, their rules. The couple here that lost the court case, it may have been their home too but it was also business premises.

 

[antijoke]

Seems like they saved people the hassle of living with a couple of complete fruit cakes.

 

[TommyV]

I'll drink to that. I'm not gay but I see them as equals. They should be treated as such. We shouldn't need to legislate these things as it costs a lot of money, it should be common sense. We should all be equal under the law regardless.

I completely agree, we also need to remove religious 'law' and all live by the same set of rules.

Exceptions made for people of particular faiths, in my opinion, is ridiculous.

 

[wordy]

Their house their rules.

Exactamundo!

We all came out* in support of those hoteliers in Devon who didn't want homosexuals staying at their guest house & said it was up to them as it was their business & property, well same thing.





*See what I did there!

 

[[TFU] Thegoon84]

"They described themselves as two "feminist/politically switched on adults" ".....

GT-FFFFO

"We want to live with someone who is relaxed, motivated, grown up, reliable, considerate, child friendly, LGBTQIA+ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex or asexual], pays the board on time with no stress, [is] vegetarian or vegan."

So basically a heterosexuals cant be any of the above.... God damn it!!! I have tried my hardest to be "child friendly" to my kids!

Fags (said in jest and in noway derogatory to LGBTQIA-ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ)

 

[EddScott]

My mother lives in a flat (nice harbour side one, not inner city hellhole) and one of her neighbours recently commented on the loud and clearly pleasurable noises coming from an adjacent flat. The flat in question is occupied by a young lesbian couple. Apparently the neighbour was so surprised, intrigued, jealous etc that she even rang her mum to tell her!

So, "Room to rent. Adventurous lesbians only"

 

[Hilly]

Stroking against the grain slightly, wasn't there a story only 1-2 years back when a Christian refused a gay couple to stay in their B&B?

Yup, found it: BBC news link



My opinion - I'm not gay or religious, but I'm glad that the courts ruled in favour of the gay couple. Religion needs to move on with the times.

Without wanting to drag that up again; Although yes it was a religion based argument. I do understand from the owners point why they would want to reject certain people - I'm not homophobic, just clear that up. But if they want to not allow children in, or hen / stag dos for example, for me there's no difference than saying no gay people allowed.

Part of me is happy the courts ruled in their favour, as obviously discrimination should be frowned upon and stamped out; But there's plenty of other problems in the world, much worse than allowing, or not allowing people into someone elses place of home, which the B&B and in this case, the flat share, is. It's their own home, they should be allowed to make their own rules.

 

[PMKeates]

I'm not homophobic, just clear that up. But if they want to not allow children in, or hen / stag dos for example, for me there's no difference than saying no gay people allowed.

The difference is that being gay doesn't make you irresponsible or immature like a child, or noisy or boisterous like a hen / stag do. You could have a gay person stay at a bed and breakfast and you would not know they were gay, and as such you are discriminating based on a belief that doesn't stand up to reasonable criticism.

You can argue that children and hen / stag parties cause noise or damage, but you cannot argue that gay people negatively affect your business. You would be discriminating against gay people based on something irrational, and this is homophobia.

 

[estebanrey]

But they weren't. They were refusing to offer a double room to any unmarried couples, gay or straight. Their objection was sex outside of marriage, under their roof, not to sexual orientation.

I somewhat suspect that had gay marriage been legal at that point in time their defense may have been have been somewhat different.

But that's neither are nor there, the point I was making is there is a difference between refusing to offer a business service for X and refusing to rent a room in a private house for X

 

[Hilly]

The difference is that being gay doesn't make you irresponsible or immature like a child, or noisy or boisterous like a hen / stag do. You could have a gay person stay at a bed and breakfast and you would not know they were gay, and as such you are discriminating based on a belief that doesn't stand up to reasonable criticism.

You can argue that children and hen / stag parties cause noise or damage, but you cannot argue that gay people negatively affect your business. You would be discriminating against gay people based on something irrational, and this is homophobia.

Of course it doesn't, you're absolutely right. I'm not homophobic in the least, my wedding had a gay of honor, rather than a maid of honor as my wifes best friend is gay. I've heard stories from him where he's been discriminated against and it's awful.

I understand where you're coming from - playing devils advocate here - you could perhaps argue that having gay people stay could potentially negatively affect your business, as it might put off people who are homophobic? Of course, it would be absolutely ridiculous.

Only playing devils advocate of course.

If we're going down the discrimination route, there should be no discrimination to anyone.

However, it's their place, it's their rules imo. If they don' want you, or I to stay, then that's entirely in their jurisdiction.

 

[adolf hamster]

I guess if theyre not renting as a business then it seems fair enough, its a different story if it was a commercial enterprise doing this, that's not on.

Them saying it up front is practically speaking easier for them than Having to turn down a lot of people (i dont know the statistics but im guessing it would be safe to say without them saying up front that theyd get a large number of hetrosexual candidates)

 

[ttaskmaster]

In principle, what they're saying is fine.
There are ways to go about *how* you say it, though...

You can't outright say "NO STRAIGHTS ALLOWED" as it's discrimination... but you can say something like, "Our household is heavily into the lesbian feminist lifestyle and applicants outside of that may find us incompatible"... or something like that.
Basically saying the same thing, by making it an unattractive prospect so the applicant themselves decides against it... no different to me saying, "All applicants are welcome, but be warned that I am a single and VERY crazy cat lady with over 40 felines and the house STINKS of cat ****. Applicants will be expected to contribute to cat litter and air freshener"!!

 

[PMKeates]

I understand where you're coming from - playing devils advocate here - you could perhaps argue that having gay people stay could potentially negatively affect your business, as it might put off people who are homophobic? Of course, it would be absolutely ridiculous.

Only playing devils advocate of course.

If we're going down the discrimination route, there should be no discrimination to anyone.

However, it's their place, it's their rules imo. If they don' want you, or I to stay, then that's entirely in their jurisdiction.

I think that argument is a stretch of the imagination, especially since you'd have to discover how they are a gay. This isn't something that's embroidered on your shirt

People should have a considerable say over what goes on in their private space and the people they invite in to it. However, if you are soliciting business from the public at large, then we can't have the exclusion of certain segments of the public based on irrational hate and fear.

 

[bazzabear]

In their rebuttal:

"Contrary to popular opinion, heterophobia and cisphobia do not exist."

Yeah, they're cretins.

 

[Tefal]

im more offended by the must be vegetarian

 

[craig_t]

Personally I think it's a fair statement. They could feel uncomfortable, if say they left their underwear lying - This could be erotic to someone who was gay. Or if they were to catch a glimse of them naked etc.

I don't think it's wrong to feel comfortable in your own home.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

A room-for-rent advertisement in Wellington that specified 'no heterosexuals' has been criticised by the Human Rights Commission.

However, it's not illegal.



Now aside from the fact that the both flatmates sound like every caricature of a triggered Tumblr wreck of a human being, this is creating a bit of news here as NZ is generally fairly laid back and accepting of others' views.

The flatmates then responded to the flack they were getting and the comments section of this article also had to be closed down.

So GD, are they being specific and direct in the type of flatmate they want and thus saving straight people (and couples and party-hards) from wasting their time or are they being negatively discriminatory? Would it make a difference if they were straight and would not consider homosexuals, transgenders and so forth?

in November/December last year when I was looking for a flat share in the Oxford area there was a ad saying Gay men only in a house which listed 3 other males in it. I though it was odd imagining the **** storm if the ad said "No gay men".