Would you rent to a gay person/pair?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Part of me says they are all sinners and I would allow them to continue renting the place. Then I also realise that by me allowing them to rent the home then I am aiding their sin. If I kicked them out though they will probably continue on in their sin and nothing will change.

I probably would not kick them out straight away but I would give them notice and tell them I would not renew their contract. You need to reasons to kick someone out here and I am not willing to go to jail or be fined a huge amount over it. Besides it could be a good witnessing time.

In the case actually mentioned one would have to be certain they are actually a couple before I see grounds to take strong action against them. I certainly would never give them the rent in the first place.
 
I would rent to them in the same manner that I would rent to a heterosexual couple who were unmarried, or to a married couple with both members guilty of adultery--even though it may be only in the heart.
If I were to refuse to rent to homosexual couples, where would I draw the line? Would I then refuse to rent to individuals who consistently broke the Sabbath? Or who didn't raise their children in the fear of the Lord?

:2cents:
 
Good article so why not post it. It is short.

PE189

Penpoint Vol. V:6 (July, 1994) © Covenant Media Foundation, 800/553-3938


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Landlady's Religious Liberty Upheld: Dr. Bahnsen Had Testified in Her Behalf
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen



According to the Law, God shows a special protection and concern for widows -- and His people should uphold them (and others who are socially disadvantaged) likewise. "Cursed is the man who withholds justice from ... the widow" (Deut. 27:19). To realize how serious this is to God, notice that this curse appears right alongside God's curse upon incest and bestiality (vv. 20-23).

God's protection of widows has particular application to their property rights. "Jehovah... keeps the widow's boundaries intact" (Prov. 15:25). Any attempt to restrict a person's freedom to use his or her own property -- or to dictate how and under what conditions he or she may choose to use it -- is to tamper with their "boundaries."

Thus in 1988 the case of Evelyn Smith, who lives in Chico, California, became a special concern of Dr. Bahnsen's. Mrs. Smith was a professing Christian and a recent widow who was hauled into court by the state of California, trying to control the terms under which she used the rental property left to her by her husband.



A Politically Incorrect Stand for Chastity

In 1987 Mrs. Smith, a devout Presbyterian, was attempting to rent out four one-bedroom duplexes which provide a significant portion of her income. Because she believes (quite correctly) that the Bible teaches that sexual relations should be pursued only within marriage, Mrs. Smith took the position -- on religious grounds -- that she would not rent to couples living together out of wedlock.

A young gardener and his girlfriend at first lied to Mrs. Smith to get her to agree to rent a duplex to them. When she found out the truth, she returned their deposit money and refused to rent to them. In retaliation, the gardener complained against Mrs. Smith to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which in turn filed charges against her for "marital status discrimination." The case came to trial in 1988.

By that time her lawyer (a legal counsel to the organization "Concerned Women for America") had contacted Dr. Bahnsen as a presbyterian and as an ethicist to present expert testimony in behalf of Mrs. Smith. (None of the local presbyterians was willing to do so.)

Often debating with a combative prosecutor over theology and exegesis, Dr. Bahnsen argued that the position taken by Mrs. Smith was both Biblical and established in presbyterian tradition. He testified both that sex before marriage is immoral and that facilitating the immoral acts of others is also sinful. He offered examples from Presbyterian history that consenting to, or complicity in, another's sin is condemned.

The administrative-law judge agreed with Dr. Bahnsen that Mrs. Smith was pursuing her sincere religious conviction in the matter, but cited "compelling state interests" in overriding her religious liberty. He required her to pay a fine to the couple and to post a sign in her rentals which confesses her offense and pledges not to do so again. She refused to pay or to post. "I don't answer to man, I answer to my God," she replied, saying she would be a "wimp Christian" if she gave in to fornicators on this issue.

A great deal was riding on this case for Christians (and indeed all citizens). Even nationally known commentator Pat Buchanan wrote in horror that, if this judgment were not overturned, "secularism has superseded Christianity as the faith of the United States." Whose values should define justice for the state? Here is a down-to-earth, nitty-gritty test case for the ongoing debate between pluralists and theonomists within the Christian community. Civil law will not, and cannot, be neutral. Discrimination is unavoidable. Now, Good News for Religious Liberty

Well, Mrs. Smith appealed the judgment against her, vowing to go all the way to the Supreme Court if it became necessary. Most believers in our "give-in-and-get-along" age would consider her stand futile and foolish. But Mrs. Smith chose to live by principle and to honor the word of God rather than the threats of men. We can all thank her for standing up to "compelling state interests" -- for in so doing, she has helped to preserve civil liberty for all believers (even her unkind detractors).

At the end of May of this year (six years after the initial trial!) the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, California, ruled that the Fair Housing Commission's decision was itself a violation of Mrs. Smith's right to follow her religious beliefs, which is guaranteed by both the state and federal constitutions.

At SCCCS we thank God for this appellate judgment. We are glad to have had some part in the case. Above all, we commend the determined and God-trusting stand of Evelyn Smith. We commend her love for the Savior, her testimony to the holiness of His word, and her perseverance for the faith. We pray that all our readers would take encouragement from her example. "A city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14).
 
Originally posted by matthew
I would rent to them in the same manner that I would rent to a heterosexual couple who were unmarried, or to a married couple with both members guilty of adultery--even though it may be only in the heart.
If I were to refuse to rent to homosexual couples, where would I draw the line? Would I then refuse to rent to individuals who consistently broke the Sabbath? Or who didn't raise their children in the fear of the Lord?

:2cents:
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. "There is no one righteous, no not one..."

I voted yes.
 
Originally posted by joshua
I don't think anyone is claiming there's a righteous person. Is it not the prerogative of the owner to choose who they'll rent to, regardless of what ANYONE thinks? It's THEIR property. That's like the state telling business owners that can't have smoking in their own establishment!
Click to expand...

Well I agree with this as well. No doubt one should be able to rent out their property to who they want.

My point in bringing up the fact that no one is righteous was only to emphasize what Matthew said: what difference does it make if one rents out to a gay/lesbian or a person who breaks any other commandment.
 
Originally posted by matthew
I would rent to them in the same manner that I would rent to a heterosexual couple who were unmarried, or to a married couple with both members guilty of adultery--even though it may be only in the heart.
If I were to refuse to rent to homosexual couples, where would I draw the line? Would I then refuse to rent to individuals who consistently broke the Sabbath? Or who didn't raise their children in the fear of the Lord?
:2cents:
Click to expand...

:ditto: Matthew. Though religious liberty is important to uphold....I would not confuse it with the City of man.

Robin
 
hmmm...very challenging...

if we own a business would we sell to any unbeliever? Because any unbeliever is in sin. Or working for a unbelieving boss? I know homosexuality is a very 'high profile' sin, but according to prov 21:4 even the ploughing of the wicked is sin.

i am not arguing one way or another atm, and i certainly support the legal right of any christian to say no if that is where their convictions lead them to, but...
 
Originally posted by joshua
Originally posted by matthew
I would rent to them in the same manner that I would rent to a heterosexual couple who were unmarried, or to a married couple with both members guilty of adultery--even though it may be only in the heart.
If I were to refuse to rent to homosexual couples, where would I draw the line? Would I then refuse to rent to individuals who consistently broke the Sabbath? Or who didn't raise their children in the fear of the Lord?

:2cents:
Click to expand...

In such a case, maybe we shouldn't distinguish among sins. I mean, the Bible doesn't do that, or does it? I am reminded of, say, Romans 1 where it calls the sin of homosexuality unnatural and even inconvenient. Now, we know that sin, in and of itself, is natural. But the Scriptures say that God gave them over to it. But don't get me wrong. I understand that sin is sin. Just asking questions.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Sin is sin and separates from God, but there are varying degrees of sin. Jesus said that it would be better for some than others. Why do you think this is true? Because of what Jesus said concerning those who reject Him in comparison to Sodom. There are varying degrees of sin. In the line of sins in Romans 1 Homosexuality is at the bottom. But even lower than that is those who are shown the Glorious Lord and reject Him.

Mat 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Mat 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Mar 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Luk 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

Luk 10:14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you.
 
There are levels of sin that don't pull society down as bad as others. Homosexuality pulls down to heavily. I wouldn't rent to child molesters or dope dealers either.
My Kids are watching.


[Edited on 7-19-2005 by puritancovenanter]
 
Some thoughts....

One wonders HOW Christians might regain a hearing from the gay community if we show them less mercy than Christ showed us; how are we to truly demonstrate "eating & drinking with sinners" in an effort to model Christ, which, in turn might bring about opportunity to reach them?

There were homosexuals in the Corinthian church STILL when Paul wrote to them (for habitual sin dies a hard death.) They weren't excommunicated, were they? Didn't Paul appeal to and exhort them to consider what they WERE - even though the evidence of sin yet flourished? Paul used the Gospel to affirm the mercy God has on sinners -- even for the homosexual -- even for the homosexual struggling to walk in Christ.

Christians are simultaneously sinner and saint. Do we dare discriminate in judging sin when it involves our role in Redemptive history as being messengers of the Good News?

My sins of gossip, greed and hatred are certainly NO different than the horrendous offense of fornication. The Amazing Grace Christ has showered on me finds obligation in a noble duty: mercy and compassion that go beyond what the world can offer. If this is done in faith - Christ will honor His name and may grant grace unto repentance.

(off soap box)

r.
 
There were homosexuals in the Corinthian church STILL when Paul wrote to them (for habitual sin dies a hard death.) They weren't excommunicated, were they? Didn't Paul appeal to and exhort them to consider what they WERE - even though the evidence of sin yet flourished? Paul used the Gospel to affirm the mercy God has on sinners -- even for the homosexual -- even for the homosexual struggling to walk in Christ.
Click to expand...


Where did you get the notion of practicing homosexuals being members of the Corinthian Church?

I am not saying don't be merciful. I have ministered to Homosexuals. A very good friend of mine died about 10 years ago because of AIDS. He was repentant. He found out after the fact that he had AIDS. I have had some significant friendships with people who were gay. I didn't promote their lifestyle though. I didn't bash them either. I wouldn't rent to a gay couple living together either.
 
A reason I eventually voted no (I would not rent a house to them to start of with) is that I would be aiding them in living together. I could rent the house to a murder or a rapist but if I knew they were using the house as a base of operations to commit their crimes then I would not rent them the house.

To conclude: my problem is not that I would rent the house to 'sinners' (and who isn't?) but rather that certain people I would be aiding in their sin.

I hope this makes sense.
 
I voted "yes".

Granted that homosexuality is a heinous sin, and those that practice it damage society and the nature of the family and so on more than certain other sins; however, if the "couple" was found credit-worthy and had secure jobs and an excellent rent history, I would much rather have them renting from me than a couple of "Christians" who left their last place in shambles, forfeited their security deposit, and has left every place they've been worse than when they first got it.

Its like a shoemaker saying: "I won't sell this sinner a pair of my shoes. I worked hard making them: I sweated, labored, and used my God-given talents and abilities making the best pair of shoes I could at this price. And now I'm going to give them to this man so he can use them to run after sin, and support and comfort his feet as he hastens off to commit his evil acts??? Shall it never be!"

Shouldn't we rather serve society, a society made up of sinners and saints, good and bad? If our neighbor's roof is leaking, should we not help them mend it even if they're non-Christians and are "worshipping idols"? If someone's car breaks down on the side of the road, do we take their spiritual pulse before we help them fix it? No. We should do all the good we can to all the people we can. In the meantime, we have the witness of our actions and good deeds to further them down towards the road of redemption. Perhaps it will be their first "helpful" interaction with a Christian.
 
You may debate this in the sterile environment of a forum but you must also consider the law. If you are going to rent out a house or apartment, it would be nice if a sweet old saintly lady applied for it. In reality it's going to be someone who may have a very different world view than you and here in Wisconsin the rights are definitely on the side of the renter. Been there, done that, paid over a thousand dollars in 'stupid' tax.

I'm not going to be landlord again. Ugh!:banghead:
 
I am going to repeat again that I do not have a problem renting apartments/homes to sinners (as we all are). The problem with a gay couple is you are aiding them in their sin.
 
Yea, we are all sinners, so why not turn our homes and apartments into whorehouses? Why confuse the two-kingdoms? Why not rent it to Pee-Wee Herman and Ferris Beuller's Principle? We are all sinners. Dahmer, I believe, would make a good tenant. I heard he always paid his rent on time and had good credit. After all, there is no one righteous, so what makes a difference if they are pedophiles, crack-whores, or participate in bestiality. I mean, if a man "loves" his horse, why not rent it to them?

And, for the record, I wouldn't rent to a known Klansman or Neo-Nazi. I must be self-righteous, confusing kingdoms, and a host of other things if I don't rent it to them, huh?

openairboy
 
Originally posted by Robin
There were homosexuals in the Corinthian church STILL when Paul wrote to them (for habitual sin dies a hard death.) They weren't excommunicated, were they? Didn't Paul appeal to and exhort them to consider what they WERE - even though the evidence of sin yet flourished? Paul used the Gospel to affirm the mercy God has on sinners -- even for the homosexual -- even for the homosexual struggling to walk in Christ.
Click to expand...

I don't care how fancy one gets, but Paul tells me not to be deceived into thinking that a homosexual (yes, other sins as well) will inherit the Kingdom of God. I won't be deceived into thinking they will be.

If a professing Christian is practicing homosexuality, then they should be handed over to Satan that they might be saved on the Final Day.

openairboy

openairboy
 
Originally posted by openairboy
Yea, we are all sinners, so why not turn our homes and apartments into whorehouses? Why confuse the two-kingdoms? Why not rent it to Pee-Wee Herman and Ferris Beuller's Principle? We are all sinners. Dahmer, I believe, would make a good tenant. I heard he always paid his rent on time and had good credit. After all, there is no one righteous, so what makes a difference if they are pedophiles, crack-whores, or participate in bestiality. I mean, if a man "loves" his horse, why not rent it to them?

And, for the record, I wouldn't rent to a known Klansman or Neo-Nazi. I must be self-righteous, confusing kingdoms, and a host of other things if I don't rent it to them, huh?

openairboy
Click to expand...

Keith,
I think there's a difference between renting to one who is "dangerous", or who practices open, gross, vile sin and renting to a person who is a sinner and "tries" to do the right thing in society, although their skewed worldview may lead them to not get it quite right.
A man's reputation preceeds him. There is no reason to expect all "sinners" to be treated the same. A known Klansman, Nazi, pedophile, Dahmer, etc would certainly not have a shot in ANY of our buildings (unless I knew the roof was going to soon fall in. Hee hee)
 
Originally posted by openairboy
Originally posted by Robin
There were homosexuals in the Corinthian church STILL when Paul wrote to them (for habitual sin dies a hard death.) They weren't excommunicated, were they? Didn't Paul appeal to and exhort them to consider what they WERE - even though the evidence of sin yet flourished? Paul used the Gospel to affirm the mercy God has on sinners -- even for the homosexual -- even for the homosexual struggling to walk in Christ.
Click to expand...

I don't care how fancy one gets, but Paul tells me not to be deceived into thinking that a homosexual (yes, other sins as well) will inherit the Kingdom of God. I won't be deceived into thinking they will be.
openairboy
Click to expand...

:ditto: of course, in the end at The Judgment, God holds the right to separate the sheep from goats.

Understand though, Paul wrote to the Corinthian church mainly because of sexual impropriety. Corinthian culture was particularly decedent; those saved (while yet sinners) were utterly unschooled in Jewish religion; they didn't care about nor understand the Law of Moses. This caused a huge amount of unrest in their fellowship (a mix of Jews and Gentiles.) It is unreasonable to imagine, given the context of the letters, that those "formerly" in sin maintained a clean-repentance record once they "walked the aisle and asked Jesus into their hearts" (sarcasm.) Their struggle with sin was a daily, gradual, earthy, experience (Romans 7.) There is no doubt the Corinthian church (as did all the others, down until TODAY) struggle with on-going sin.

Do we have any maturity? Isn't it obvious, a Christian would not engage in business to promote evil (whorehouses, Etc?) And it is good that a Christian not expose himself to temptation; and should be considerate towards others weaker in conscious. Allowances are good and right to make. Likewise, the mature Christian understands a freedom enjoyed in America: to operate our business according to personal beliefs/convictions - a freedom in danger of being lost!

Rash and broad judgments honor not the whole Message of the NT. The Good News is: God saves the wicked! It is NOT "you better not fall of the wagon and commit sin XYZ...or you won't make heaven."

What can be said to the struggling, professing, truster of Christ WHEN they fall under the weight of sin? Do we speak differently to the gossip and the homosexual? To the slanderer and the adulterer? How many falters in sin constitute a "tare" within the church? Thus is the difficult and reverent work of the church's officers/church discipline.

We might be surprised who is in heaven after all. Christ came to save the wicked; the righteous have no need of Him.

Selah

r.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Robin]
 
What is the difference between turning your house into a whorehouse - where by you provide your property for the committing of sexual immorality and provide a place for people to commit these crimes - compared to renting your house to an unmarried or homosexual couple?

In both case you are providing people with a place to commit their sins in an easy environment.

This is different from a 'casual' sinner who will continue lieing, being angry... etc... whether he is in a house or not.
 
Originally posted by alwaysreforming
Keith,
I think there's a difference between renting to one who is "dangerous", or who practices open, gross, vile sin and renting to a person who is a sinner and "tries" to do the right thing in society, although their skewed worldview may lead them to not get it quite right.
A man's reputation preceeds him. There is no reason to expect all "sinners" to be treated the same. A known Klansman, Nazi, pedophile, Dahmer, etc would certainly not have a shot in ANY of our buildings (unless I knew the roof was going to soon fall in. Hee hee)
Click to expand...

Christopher,

I agree. I was being a bit absurd, because we all draw the line somewhere. The "we're just sinners" is terribley impractical.

openairboy
 
Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih
What is the difference between turning your house into a whorehouse - where by you provide your property for the committing of sexual immorality and provide a place for people to commit these crimes - compared to renting your house to an unmarried or homosexual couple?

In both case you are providing people with a place to commit their sins in an easy environment.

This is different from a 'casual' sinner who will continue lieing, being angry... etc... whether he is in a house or not.
Click to expand...

I may rent my place to a closet homo, but never to people openly/flauntingly committing sodomy.

I definitely believe in degrees of sin, and judge accordingly.

openairboy
 
What is the difference between turning your house into a whorehouse - where by you provide your property for the committing of sexual immorality and provide a place for people to commit these crimes - compared to renting your house to an unmarried or homosexual couple?

In both case you are providing people with a place to commit their sins in an easy environment.

This is different from a 'casual' sinner who will continue lieing, being angry... etc... whether he is in a house or not.
Click to expand...

Oh for crying out loud. Renting my property out for the intent of it being a whorehouse (a business conducting this very business) is entirely different than supply a place to live. NO renter rents his/her property for the purpose of sexual intercourse, just living quarters. Is that so hard to grasp. Nobody advertizes in a newspaper, "Two Bedroom Apartment for Rent, fully furnished kitchen, 1 and 1/2 bath, so that an honestly married couple can have proper sexual relations - asking $750 per month plus utilities."

L
 
Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih
What is the difference between turning your house into a whorehouse - where by you provide your property for the committing of sexual immorality and provide a place for people to commit these crimes - compared to renting your house to an unmarried or homosexual couple?

In both case you are providing people with a place to commit their sins in an easy environment.

This is different from a 'casual' sinner who will continue lieing, being angry... etc... whether he is in a house or not.
Click to expand...

then what about a heterosexual couple that was not married? or a single person who was fornication? How do we draw the line? Are we to keep checking up on the moral activities of our tenants?

If we own a restaurant do we before serving them have to check whether each couple is unmarried and having sex? Or whether each same sex couple is gay?

I too would never rent my house to be a whorehuose... and i agree that active homosexuality is worse than being a mere unbeliever in certain ways. But i don't know if this extends to commercial transactions so much.
 
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
What is the difference between turning your house into a whorehouse - where by you provide your property for the committing of sexual immorality and provide a place for people to commit these crimes - compared to renting your house to an unmarried or homosexual couple?

In both case you are providing people with a place to commit their sins in an easy environment.

This is different from a 'casual' sinner who will continue lieing, being angry... etc... whether he is in a house or not.
Click to expand...

Oh for crying out loud. Renting my property out for the intent of it being a whorehouse (a business conducting this very business) is entirely different than supply a place to live. NO renter rents his/her property for the purpose of sexual intercourse, just living quarters. Is that so hard to grasp. Nobody advertizes in a newspaper, "Two Bedroom Apartment for Rent, fully furnished kitchen, 1 and 1/2 bath, so that an honestly married couple can have proper sexual relations - asking $750 per month plus utilities."

L
Click to expand...

The question has been blurred. Maybe I am taking it to serious. But an openly Homosexual couple would not be allowed to rent one of my properties if I owned any. The reasons have been stated above. I wouldn't rent to a young couple who were sexually active and not married either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
who would you rent out your building to?
Replies
18
Views
2K
Gregg
G
shackleton
  • Locked
How would you handle a gay brother-in-law?
2 3
Replies
73
Views
13K
shackleton
shackleton
Puritan Sailor
  • Locked
To buy or rent?
Replies
11
Views
3K
exscentric
E
SpiritAndTruth
  • Locked
Who Would YOU Listen To?!?!?
Replies
17
Views
2K
Scott Bushey
Scott Bushey
JM
  • Locked
How would you respond to these statements?
Replies
5
Views
1K
JM
JM
Back
Top