Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

"Muslim only" rental advert. Would this be allowed with anyone else? Watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miscounted_time)
    Loads of Muslims do the at least one of the above, infact you don't know that he himself doesn't do those things.
    Not all non-Muslims do those things

    If a white person was to put up an advert and didn't want to deal with cultural differences so stated "whites only" or "non-Muslims only" you know as well as I do the **** would hit the fan.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They didn't say Asians only though they said Muslims only. It's only the equivelent of a white person saying 'Christians only' which is not that bad...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vickidc18)
    I get why Muslims would only want to live with other muslims, due to not eating pork, not allowed to drink alcohol etc but we could turn this around and say if a christian put up a sign saying christians only would there be such an uproar?
    Would there though? I don't think it would be that bad as it's not the same as saying 'whites only'
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    There are non-Muslims who don't get drunk, smoke or eat bacon and there are Muslims who do all these things.
    If those are the issues, make them clear.

    Those adverts are breaking the law against religious discrimination.
    Yeah exactly, put those requirements down and its fine, but stating a specific group of people only and discriminating against others for not being Muslim isn't imo. A white nationalist landlord wouldn't be able to say 'white nationalists only' or 'atheists only', so why should this be any different just because of a few religious beliefs? I'm sorry, but if you're going to be a landlord in this country, you're going to have to accept its laws and if not then you shouldn't be a landlord, maybe in a other countries they'd get away with discriminating based on religion, but they shouldn't in this one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miscounted_time)
    Loads of Muslims do the at least one of the above, infact you don't know that he himself doesn't do those things.
    Not all non-Muslims do those things

    If a white person was to put up an advert and didn't want to deal with cultural differences so stated "whites only" or "non-Muslims only" you know as well as I do the **** would hit the fan.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Saying no muslims is much much worse than saying muslims only
    One is saying you want muslims ie people who dont drink eat bacon
    Another is you want anyone but muslims
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by civilstudent)
    They didn't say Asians only though they said Muslims only. It's only the equivelent of a white person saying 'Christians only' which is not that bad...
    One advert was mentioned as stating Asians only.


    I would agree however that I see no real issue with the religious preference thing. According the the regulations however you cannot state explicitly that do do not accept a certain group due to religious or racial grounds, you can however state that you would prefer "ABC" group.

    People are also angry at the current double standard in society. You know aswell as I do that if an advert stated No Muslims there would be a huge kick off and it would be in all the papers etc.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by civilstudent)
    They didn't say Asians only though they said Muslims only. It's only the equivelent of a white person saying 'Christians only' which is not that bad...
    Well all right, perhaps when its a question of religion and not race its not as bad, but I still don't believe it should be allowed here.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James222)
    Saying no muslims is much much worse than saying muslims only
    One is saying you want muslims ie people who dont drink eat bacon
    Another is you want anyone but muslims
    It is not.
    By saying "No Muslims", you are only discriminating against 5% of the population.
    By saying "Muslims Only", you are therefore discriminating against 95% of the population.
    This is actually 19 times worse!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James222)
    Saying no muslims is much much worse than saying muslims only
    One is saying you want muslims ie people who dont drink eat bacon
    Another is you want anyone but muslims
    Its not worse!
    You cant argue a Muslim would prefer not to live with a non-Muslim due to cultural differences.

    Then disagree when a non-Muslim chooses not to live a Muslim due to cultural differences.

    These are the total double standards I refered to in my previous post.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zen Baphomet)
    So you think the Church of England should allow non-Christians to be Ordained Ministers?
    What the C of E does has no bearing on a landlords activities.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    There's a bit of a fine line because it states 'Muslim only'; it doesn't specify a particular ethnicity or race. I do think though there would be an uproar and accusations of racism if somebody advertised 'British-born only'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't think this is a big issue, I've read plenty of places where the landlord has explicitly stated a preference for a particular group of people. I read an ad once saying Oriental Asians only, no biggie, find another room to rent out.
    • Offline

      0
      (Original post by Old_Simon)
      What the C of E does has no bearing on a landlords activities.
      I mentioned employment as well, you also seemed to disagree with the fact that people can be employed based on their religion.

      Also the CoE houses many Priests and workers and provides them with accommodation.

      Employment is just a business transaction the Church says "You provide a service(preach to my congregation/spread the gospel) I will provide you with financial and physical goods(A pay check and a home)"

      How is that any different than looking for a land lord

      The landlord says "You provide a service to me(I.e Pay me money) and I will provide you with physical goods (Accommodation).

      What's the difference?
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Zen Baphomet)
      I mentioned employment as well, you also seemed to disagree with the fact that people can be employed based on their religion.

      Also the CoE houses many Priests and workers and provides them with accommodation.
      Employment also has no bearing on this case. But employment in general certainly may not be offered / withheld on the basis of religion (obvious exceptions).
      • Offline

        0
        (Original post by Old_Simon)
        Employment also has no bearing on this case. But employment in general certainly may not be offered / withheld on the basis of religion (obvious exceptions).
        Why have exceptions?

        Why not allow landlords to be exceptions?
        Hummans are social beings, we should be able to choose who we socialise with/allow to live with us.
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Zen Baphomet)
        I mentioned employment as well, you also seemed to disagree with the fact that people can be employed based on their religion.

        Also the CoE houses many Priests and workers and provides them with accommodation.

        Employment is just a business transaction the Church says "You provide a service(preach to my congregation/spread the gospel) I will provide you with financial and physical goods(A pay check and a home)"

        How is that any different than looking for a land lord

        The landlord says "You provide a service to me(I.e Pay me money) and I will provide you with physical goods (Accommodation).

        What's the difference?
        Employment is also covered by the Equality Act 2010, but there are some exceptions to the rules such as Religious organisations being allowed to discriminate based on religion.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by presidential_)
        have you not considered that the person might not be comfortable with drunk roommates who smoke, eat bacon, and bring girls over. so instead of making a long list of requirements they simply stated "muslim only"?
        Thank you for justifying why muslim immigration should be banned
        Offline

        10
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by QE2)
        It is not.
        By saying "No Muslims", you are only discriminating against 5% of the population.
        By saying "Muslims Only", you are therefore discriminating against 95% of the population.
        This is actually 19 times worse!
        Lol!
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        I get the reasons as to why they would want this, but it would never be allowed to happen the other way around. I don't think it's a huge deal and would just find somewhere else to live, though. The problem is when many people begin asking for people to only get in contact if they're a certain religion, race, nationality, etc. It's a slippery slope to be going down.
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by presidential_)
        i don't think they meant it in a discriminative way, but they were trying to find someone who shared similar interests and habits.
        by definition it is. After all he has assumed that non muslims are getting drunk bring over guys/gals. That is assuming what they are doing is based on what you are saying. After all it is a pretty large assumption to make, that they are doing it for the reasons you have given.

        Think of it from another minority. If it said whites only and i was to say. They dont mean it in a discrimiatory way, they just dont want anti social drug dealing yobs who carry guns and **** *****es in their flat. Would that not still be discrimiatory. It requires steroetyping a massive catagory of people.


        To answer the op i have no issue with this. Or any other requirements being posted for total private things such as this. I think it is generally a poor decsion to make given that it a targetting a minority group whilst totally isolating a majority one. So the only way i see it making financial sense is if they are trying to make themselves a one group thing that goes out of its way to look after muslim residents. Which i find so what doubtful.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        Jews live in their segregated communities yet it's not racist. Whites have to live in multi-ethnic land where they mix it up and destroy their gene pool. It's kind of like how our Zionist leaders support Israel as a JEWISH state while supporting multiculturalism for all WHITE EUROPEAN people. Who are the real racists? the people who are demonised as privileged when they are the one's being robbed of a future?
       
       
       
      TSR Support Team

      We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

      Updated: January 4, 2017
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
      Useful resources
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.