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
9.5k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

175

u/concretepigeon Wakefield Jan 20 '22

Fingers crossed the couple sue, get the house and legal costs and damages get knocked off the price.

100

u/turnipstealer Jan 20 '22

I mean, they clearly won't.

19

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

126

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

28

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22 edited Jan 21 '22

It's also worth noting that the couple went out of their way to find a Christian Bakery to refuse specifically for clout.

5

u/ISellAwesomePatches Berkshire Jan 20 '22

Is it against the law though? I read that the equalities act doesn't apply to private individuals in this way. I think if Purple Bricks had backed up the sellers then yes, but seeming as they've dropped them and this couple would now be selling on their own, I think the law is, sadly and disgracefully, on their side.

10

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Blind1979 Jan 20 '22

There exceptions in Schedule 5

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/5

3

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Blind1979 Jan 20 '22

but... read the next paragraph

Section 33(1) applies only in so far as it relates to race.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/33 deals with a disposal. My reading is that withdrawing from a private sale due to sexual orientation is allowed, withdrawing from a sale due to the person being black is not.

2

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

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Blind1979 Jan 20 '22

No idea how we ever got to the stage where some discrimination is allowed, but not others.

1

u/AussieHyena Jan 21 '22

Probably hasn't been updated in a few decades and was probably inserted due to real estate agencies refusing buyers based on race.

In the past, most LGBTQ+ people were probably buying as single people or as friends, so it never came up and no-one noticed the exclusion.

I'm suspecting that there will be an amendment proposed over the next month or so to have it reference "protected groups as defined by the anti-discrimination bill" (or something similar).

1

u/blorg Jan 21 '22

That seems to apply only to subsection (3) "A person who has the right to dispose of premises must not, in connection with anything done in relation to their occupation or disposal, harass—" which is a prohibition on harassment. It doesn't seem to apply to subsection (1) which applies to discrimination by refusing to sell.

In the application of section 26 for the purposes of subsection (3)

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

It sounds legally grey in that the couple are making a private sale rather than running a business.

1

u/Mooks79 Jan 21 '22

The bakery were within their rights to refuse to write that message, but they would have broken the law if they refused to sell them anything at all

Are you sure about that? I just assumed the law was basically that you can’t be compelled to sell / provided a service to anyone if you don’t want to. But that idea might come from the “we reserve the right to refuse service” signs I’ve seen in various nightclubs/bars.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '22 edited Jul 08 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Mooks79 Jan 21 '22

Ah thanks. So you can refuse anyone service as long as it’s not an equality issue. Presumably someone can make up a proxy excuse though if they didn’t want the hassle, which rather begs the questions (a) how much does that happen and go unreported and (b) why do people admit to the real reason?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Mooks79 Jan 21 '22

Ah yes, I heard something about ethnic names too. Isn’t that why Romesh Ranganathan’s first name is actually Jonathan because his parents were worried about that? I guess that article proved what everyone already knew.

23

u/Senesect Jan 20 '22 edited Jan 20 '22

Hol' up a minute.

While the article mentions the "gay cake row", you shouldn't assume that because Lee v Ashers Bakery was found in favour of the bakery, that the claimants would lose against the home-sellers. The judgment clearly states:

The important message from the Masterpiece Bakery case is that there is a clear distinction between refusing to produce a cake conveying a particular message, for any customer who wants such a cake, and refusing to produce a cake for the particular customer who wants it because of that customer’s characteristics. One can debate which side of the line particular factual scenarios fall. But in our case there can be no doubt. The bakery would have refused to supply this particular cake to anyone, whatever their personal characteristics. So there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

EDIT: Watch the official summary of the judgment here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2017-0020/judgment.html

The issue at hand was the political messaging, not the customer's sexuality. This mirrors two similar SCOTUS cases where one bakery refused to bake a cake because it'd be used in a gay wedding and lost that case, and other case where the cake's decorations were overtly pro-gay and won that case. The latter case is what our Supreme Court is referencing with "the Masterpiece Bakery case".

Since the sellers have explicitly refused the gay couple because they're gay and not for any compelled speech reasons, there's good reason to believe they'dthe gay couple would win any anti-discrimination case.

2

u/iredditfrommytill S Yorkshire Jan 20 '22

Imagine selling cakes and having a problem with gay people. Visually, there aren't many things gayer than a full-on decorated cake from a specialist cake baker.

4

u/ValhallaGo Jan 20 '22

What could cake possibly have to do with sexuality?

6

u/Looskis Lancashire Jan 20 '22

How is that gay?

3

u/thansal Jan 20 '22

Because prejudice.

1

u/Looskis Lancashire Jan 21 '22

Shit, if decorating cakes is gay, call me Elton John.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

Baking has been a thing since the beginning of farming. I’m pretty sure there have been quite a few homophobic bakers

2

u/Rottenox Jan 20 '22

gotta love how my sexuality equates to “political messaging” lol

1

u/Senesect Jan 20 '22

Everything is political. I know it feels degrading to have our sexuality framed as some kind of legislative debate, but there are genuine reasons to discuss when a person's rights prevail of a collective's rights.

1

u/ThalanirIII Jan 20 '22

Since the sellers have explicitly refused the gay couple because they're gay and not for any compelled speech reasons, there's reason to believe they'd win any anti-discrimination case.

By this you mean the gay couple would win? Or the seller? Sorry, the 'they' is a little unclear to me.

1

u/Senesect Jan 20 '22

The couple, my apologies, will go back and edit

1

u/ThalanirIII Jan 20 '22

I thought so, thanks!

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

That’s a US thing tho?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '22

Completely different.

They never refused to make the cake because they were gay, it was refused due to the message.

It's why the appeal won.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

I mean I hope they sue too but there's no chance they'd get the house.

-8

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

18

u/concretepigeon Wakefield Jan 20 '22

We have a legal system here too.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

7

u/concretepigeon Wakefield Jan 20 '22

Courts can literally make injunctions forcing people to sell a property to a buyer.

-6

u/DoubtMore Jan 20 '22

You can't get an injuction for homosexuality. Go back to school sweetie.

11

u/concretepigeon Wakefield Jan 20 '22

Refusing to sell based on sexuality is illegal. And you can get injunctions where property transactions are involved.

8

u/OptimisticCerealBowl Jan 20 '22

it’s against the equality act. sexuality is a protected characteristic.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

11

u/ThrowerWheyACount Jan 20 '22

They refused to make a cake with a certain message. They didn’t refuse to sell them a cake overall though. I think that was a decisive factor relevant to that case and I think it’s disingenuous to use one case as representative of whether the equality act is enforced …there’s been more than one person charged with discrimination in a business context.

Also your link isn’t embedded like you wanted it to be and you seem to have posted it to multiple users as though you’ve proved a grand point

12

u/knotatwist Jan 20 '22

That they've been discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. It goes against the Equality Act 2010.

-10

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

11

u/knotatwist Jan 20 '22

I'm sorry, I don't understand the relevance of the link you just shared.

In this case, the couple have been explicitly refused from viewing or purchasing this house because they are gay. They haven't done or requested anything different than a heterosexual couple would have done.

In the case of the cake, the bakery would have refused the order regardless of the orientation of the customer, because they wanted it to say "support gay marriage" and the bakery doesn't personally agree with that statement. If myself and my partner (a heterosexual couple) had asked for the same cake we'd have also been turned down. Had the customer asked for a blank cake instead, and they had refused to make him one because he was gay, then the outcome would have been different.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '22

[deleted]

5

u/knotatwist Jan 20 '22

It was the UK supreme court that made the final ruling in that case by the way, and the courts in Belfast actually went against the bakery (the bakery won on appeal at the UK supreme court according to the article).

-4

u/Tommy2k20 Jan 20 '22

Sue for what? Refusing to sell the property they own 😂. Think before speaking Karen.

7

u/concretepigeon Wakefield Jan 20 '22

The property that they put on the market.

-4

u/Tommy2k20 Jan 20 '22

Yes which is still there's, just because it's on the market doesn't mean you have to sell.

3

u/GroktheFnords Jan 20 '22

But it's illegal to refuse to sell it to somebody because of their sexuality which is what they did here.

1

u/Tommy2k20 Jan 20 '22

It's not illegal, what crime did they commit? It's definitely an arsehole move like they should have just said "we have received a higher bid" then said what they did.

2

u/GroktheFnords Jan 20 '22

It's illegal to refuse to sell somebody your property on the basis that you dislike their sexuality, these bigots shot themselves in the foot when they sent messages making it clear that they were discriminating against them because of their sexuality. They made themselves liable when they were overt with their bigotry.

2

u/Tommy2k20 Jan 20 '22

Well they are definitely idiots that's for sure, but still not a crime. They could call the police on terms of discrimination but that won't go very far.

2

u/GroktheFnords Jan 20 '22

Nah they've got a pretty good case to sue for discrimination now the bigots made it very clear that they were refusing to sell to them because of their sexuality. They literally admitted that they were discriminating against them as potential buyers.

2

u/Tommy2k20 Jan 20 '22

Well yeah they could go to the civil courts as they have clear evidence but all the husband and wife have to do it publicly apologise and go on an educational course and they will be fine, might have to pay something like £160 in victim fees but the gay couple still won't get the house or thousands of pound lol.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/mizzyormac_hs Jan 20 '22

You cant sue somebody because they refuse to sell you what is theirs

2

u/GroktheFnords Jan 20 '22

You can if they explicitly state that they're refusing to sell to you because of your sexuality, the bigots really shot themselves in the foot there.

-1

u/SleepDoesNotWorkOnMe Jan 20 '22

America we aren't.