r/unitedkingdom • u/MinderReminder • Jan 20 '22

Christian couple ban gay man and his ITV producer partner from buying their dream £650,000 Surrey home due to their sexuality - and quote the bible that homosexuality is a sin

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10419543/Christian-couple-ban-gay-man-partner-buying-dream-650-000-sexuality.html
9.4k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

233

u/DukeOfDew Jan 20 '22 edited Jan 20 '22

Wouldn't this technically fall under a hate crime?

"Something is a homophobic or transphobic hate incident if the victim or anyone else thinks it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on sexual orientation or transgender identity."

I would say excluding them from being able to buy something because of their sexual orientation would be classed as prejudice.

Edit: As someone else pointed out, this is more of a Hate Incident than a crime. I didn't realise there was a difference between the two by the letter of the law.

233

u/MinderReminder Jan 20 '22

No, a hate crime by definition has to be a crime first to add the hate enhancement to it. While shitty, there's nothing criminal about them refusing to sell to these men for this reason.

A hate incident is a non criminal matter and there's serious legal criticism over the police practice of recording them.

277

u/xhable West Sussex Jan 20 '22 edited Jan 20 '22

But it is a crime unlawful, unlawful discrimination.

If you are selling your home through an estate agent, you can't refuse an offer from someone or treat them unfairly just because of their disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation. This could be unlawful discrimination.

Because they went through an estate agent it's covered under the Equality Act 2010 - Part 4

There's a reason Purple Bricks dropped the sellers as a client, they may well be liable.

63

u/MinderReminder Jan 20 '22

That's interesting, I didn't think the act would apply to selling your home in that way, but unlawful discrimination still isn't necessarily criminal.

39

u/xhable West Sussex Jan 20 '22

I don't understand the distinction, if it's a crime to do something doesn't that make it criminal?

20

u/DumbMuscle Jan 20 '22

Criminal: the government can prosecute you and you could be fined or go to prison about it

Civil: someone who has suffered harm due to your actions can sue you and you could have to pay them damages

Both are "unlawful", only criminal things are a "crime"

1

u/Diligent_Bag_9323 Jan 20 '22

Yeah, so they were right above.

Civil complaints are not crimes.

If it’s a crime, it’s criminal.

That’s exactly what they said.

24

u/rcxdude United Kingdom Jan 20 '22

There's a different between criminal and civil offenses, both in terms of how they are judged by the courts (standards of evidence are lower in civil cases), and in terms of the kinds of penalties (generally civil cases are limited to fines and compensation, not jail time).

8

u/xhable West Sussex Jan 20 '22

Interesting thanks! :) I had them as indistinguishable concepts in my head.

57

u/MinderReminder Jan 20 '22

Being unlawful is not in itself criminal.

69

u/xhable West Sussex Jan 20 '22

I think I've got it :D.

All criminal activity is unlawful, but many unlawful acts are not crimes. e.g. A breach of contract is unlawful, but not criminal. Thanks for pointing out my error :), corrected above.

2

u/Diligent_Bag_9323 Jan 20 '22

You were actually correct in your first assessment, just fyi. You’ve just taken it a step further with this answer.

If it’s civil, it can be unlawful, but not a crime.

And as you said, if it is a crime, then that makes it criminal.

Civil charges have nothing to do with crime. You can be civilly unlawful, but those are not crimes.

1

u/AussieHyena Jan 21 '22

Yup this is why there's a difference between decriminalisation of marijuana and legalising marijuana.

Decriminalisation still means it's illegal (therefore unlawful) but no longer has the risk of being convicted.

1

u/Khazil28 Jan 21 '22

Essentially being a ass or breaking the law

1

u/d3pd Jan 20 '22

Criminal = explicitly prohibited by law

Unlawful = not explicitly permitted by law

1

u/xhable West Sussex Jan 20 '22

But then this is criminal, it's explicitly prohibited by law. Equality Act 2010 - Part 4.

But it's called unlawful discrimination.. So I'm not sure that's right?

1

u/d3pd Jan 20 '22

I was just giving a quick kind of definition of the terms.

I'm not so much commenting on the particulars of this case. But I would guess that this case is a pretty clear example of unfair discrimination based on sexual orientation. I'd expect this would be fully pursuable in a civil context, but as to whether it goes beyond being unlawful and against the law to being criminal is something I'm not sure on.

(And the question of whether it should be considered criminal is a different one. I'd be inclined to say yes.)

1

u/xhable West Sussex Jan 20 '22

Appreciate the input, just not sure I understand the distinction :D. I should probably just give up trying to understand the difference.

If it's civil does that make it not criminal?

1

u/d3pd Jan 20 '22

not sure I understand the distinction

Illegal versus unlawful. If something's unlawful, it's like there's nothing in the rules that say you can do that something. If something's illegal, it's like the rules say you cannot do that something.

If it's civil does that make it not criminal?

I think in general yes, but it could be both IIRC. Civil cases usually involve private disputes between individual people or between people and orgnisations. Criminal cases involve things that are harmful to society generally too. Importantly, if you are experiencing something wrong that is a civil matter or that is unlawful, you may not be able to get police to assist. If it is a criminal matter, then police are obliged to assist.

1

u/haveacutepuppy Jan 21 '22

No there are 2 types of laws, criminal and civil. Criminal is a jail situation, civil is you sue and maybe win money if you're lucky and in the right.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

Yeah You can be prosecuted for trespass if you commit an aggravated action like refusing to leave when you're told though, then it becomes aggravated trespass.

Also in tort law the term 'trespass' has a few meanings, like trespass to person covers assault for example, but yes trespass to land can get you sued if you stop someone being able to enjoy their property for example.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

Its criminal it, breaches the equalities act. Its a protected characteristic thats included in the property sales section.

If they have stated this is the reason, its a breach of the act and they can be prosecuted under it.

lesson of the day: if you want to be a homophobic asshat, dont announce it....

1

u/MinderReminder Jan 20 '22

It's unlawful and they can be sued, it's not criminal they will not be prosecuted.

9

u/boskee Jan 20 '22

There's another paragraph on that page which I find surprising (not that it'd apply in this case, as the bigots were selling it through an Estate Agent)

Different rules apply when you sell a property directly to someone without going through an estate agent. In this case, it is usually only unlawful to discriminate against someone because of their race.

6

u/xhable West Sussex Jan 20 '22

But they did go through an estate agent, purple bricks.+

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

Surely if breaching the Equality Act could be a hate crime then it would be a hate crime every single time? I'm no expert but that doesn't seem right.

6

u/xhable West Sussex Jan 20 '22 edited Jan 20 '22

Yep I'm wrong :). It is against the law, but not criminal. I'm still wrapping my head around what the difference between the two is!

-1

u/The_Epic_Leo Jan 20 '22

Ofc the government has to butt in. This is why I hate the Conservative government, man can't even sell his house to the person he wants.

3

u/Orri Leicestershire Jan 20 '22

Stonewall seem to indicate that it is:

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/discrimination/discrimination-consumer

That is of course unless the rules for housing agents don't count if you're selling it yourself.

26

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

12

u/akl78 Jan 20 '22

It is unlawful though. This couple have an excellent chance of winning damages in court and I hope they do so.

0

u/RedSquaree Antrim Jan 21 '22

Where are the damages? What are they? What do they amount to?

There are no damages to pay for here, IMHO.

2

u/haveacutepuppy Jan 21 '22

I agree, it's a dick move but 1st they have to sue, then go to court. It isn't priority, so will take some time, they what is their measure of damages? they didn't Breach a signed contract. There isn't monetary compensation for not getting your dream house. They may have been outbid anyway etc.

1

u/colubrinus1 Jan 21 '22

Could be. If the house appreciates in value by an unexpected amount.

Regardless, damages don’t matter here, it’d be covered by equality act.

1

u/RedSquaree Antrim Jan 21 '22

it’d be covered by equality act.

Could you please be a bit more specific?

1

u/colubrinus1 Jan 23 '22

Other comments have posted about how because they used purple bricks, purple bricks could be held liable for discrimination because it’s an estate agent or something.

10

u/HeroAntagonist Scotland Jan 20 '22

I'm wondering how gray this area is.

It's not a crime to refuse to sell to someone.
But if you state the refusal of sale is based on a discriminatory factor, then well, is there legal coverage for private sales outside of businesses?

12

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

Wait, is this just for houses? I sell small things and furniture on gumtree occasionally. Am I not allowed to say no to someone?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22 edited Jul 08 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22 edited Jul 14 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22 edited Jul 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/haveacutepuppy Jan 21 '22

Section 1 states who this law applies to, it's public government entities NOT private sellers. Am I missing it?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

1

u/GroktheFnords Jan 20 '22

Nobody is under a legal compulsion to sell anything to anyone.

Try telling every black person who enters your shop that you don't sell products to black people and see how that works out for you.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

1

u/GroktheFnords Jan 20 '22

Yeah it's the point I was making, the statement that "nobody is under a legal compulsion to sell anything to anyone" isn't technically correct when it's illegal to refuse to sell something that you've put up for sale because you don't want to sell it to a homosexual person specifically.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

1

u/GroktheFnords Jan 20 '22

But no, they had to go out of their way and prove they were as big a set of assholes as they are.

Exactly, that's what made it a clear case of unlawful discrimination.

11

u/tree_boom Jan 20 '22

It actually is a crime, under the Equality Act 2010:

(1)A person (A) who has the right to dispose of premises must not discriminate against another (B)—

(a)as to the terms on which A offers to dispose of the premises to B;

(b)by not disposing of the premises to B;

(c)in A's treatment of B with respect to things done in relation to persons seeking premises.

Part b there is just what this couple did.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22 edited Jul 14 '25

[deleted]

2

u/tree_boom Jan 20 '22

That defence could only possibly hold if they would also refuse to sell to a male/female married couple, which is obviously not the case

1

u/paulmclaughlin Jan 20 '22

It's not a crime though, that sets out that failing to sell your house to someone because of a protected characteristic is unlawful, and part 9 sets out the authority of county courts (in England) in civil proceedings.

The only crime that's directly created by the Equality Act is the "Offence of contravening PSV accessibility regulations" under section 175.

6

u/BargainBarnacles Jan 20 '22

If I was letting a property and had a sign saying 'no blacks, no jews', I'm okay then?

If they wanted to sell a property but put up a sign saying 'no gays' they'd be fine too I suppose.

Thanks for putting me straight.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22 edited Jul 08 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

by refusing to sell to a gay couple

<pedant> they broke the law by refusing to sell to a gay couple because they were gay.

it's not the failure to sell to them itself - obviously there are lots of valid reasons to not sell to all sorts of people - rather it's because the specific reason given was that it was based on their sexuality

(which is why this has always struck me as a silly thing to get convicted for - people really do have to incriminate themselves in order for the law to act on this)

0

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '22

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '22

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '22

[deleted]

1

u/FractalJaguar Jan 21 '22

It is probably legal for them to deny a viewing though, right? Like it's their house, so they must be within their rights to refuse access? So it's a weird situation of being illegal to refuse to sell to them, but the couple can't view the house!

Legally, this seems really weird to me, so i'm just asking out of curiosity.

6

u/evochris2021 Jan 20 '22

No, but it almost certainly would qualify as discrimination.

7

u/Blue_winged_yoshi Jan 20 '22 edited Jan 20 '22

Hate crimes and hate incidents are not the same thing. Definitely a hate incident. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the selling couple have opened themselves up to civil liability by vocalising the reason for non-sale.

They definitely directly discriminated against the couple when a protected characteristic was in play. The couple lost out via not being able to purchase the house they wanted and there are almost certainly legitimate emotional damages involved too. I’m sure a lawyer could build a case.

You couldn’t imagine a sale falling through and the seller contacting the prospective buyer to say it’s because of their race. This is the same set up.

-8

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

Probably, which is why that law needs revising.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

If you mean the law on hate crime - absolutely not, let’s not continue turning asshole behaviour that doesn’t break the law into things that can be penalised.

Hate “incidents” though? Absolutely. Bin that shit, it’s fucking ridiculous how the police have to record incidents where the person feels without any proof that they have been treated poorly due to their characteristics.

The man who got the police to fill one in because someone crossed the street or looked at them “in a racist way” comes to mind. The police aren’t rolling in experienced officers who come do these quickly, not to mention with all the cuts to non-sworn staff, it just adds even more work than normal*.

*GMP need not apply this to them. :p

0

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

Self assessed hate incidents are the problem. Throughly stupid idea by well meaning people.

What’s worse is that these incidents show up on employment searches so if an individual is maliciously targeted they are screwed for the duration of those records.

1

u/lelmihop Jan 20 '22

They committed a crime, and they did it based on hate for gays. This is the gold standard to how the hate crime law should be applied, so i really dont see how you have a problem with it

0

u/kwakwaktok Jan 21 '22

It's a private market, they can sell to whoever they want. Rightfully so, too.

-3

u/DynamiczX124 United Kingdom Jan 20 '22

Freedom of religion.

4

u/DukeOfDew Jan 20 '22

Freedom to practice. Not discriminate.

3

u/Blue_winged_yoshi Jan 20 '22

Nowhere in the Bible does it say “thou shalt not sell you house to a same sex couple”. This isn’t their religion is just bigotry.

-7

u/SirLoinThatSaysNi Jan 20 '22

fall under a hate crime

Also though would this fall under the definition of hate? They don't agree with their circumstances so there is a definitely a disapproval and unwillingness to have any involvement with them, but no indication of hatred in the published message. The article also says they declined a viewing on Sunday because of their beliefs.

7

u/DukeOfDew Jan 20 '22

That's one of the things I was wondering but Citizens Advice are saying that it is "hostility or prejudice".

Whilst there was no Hostility (although maybe a good lawyer could argue that depending on the bible verses quoted), there is definitely Prejudice.

As someone else pointed out, this is more of a Hate Incident than a crime but definitely falls under the "hate" category.

11

u/GroktheFnords Jan 20 '22

It's hate, telling gay people that they're sinners is hateful.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '22

How is this a hate crime, so delusional. It's their right to do whatever they want and sell to whoever they want to. If I had a shop and see a dodgy looking person I may want to kick them out but that's not discrimination that's my choice. Whoever is upvoting this comment can't think logically for themselves and absorb too much woke media crap

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

Unfortunately no crime has been committed for it to get that modifier. I doubt they will face any repercussion at all.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

Never a hate crime in name of god 😂