I would love the opportunity to refuse a rental property to a devoutly religious couple,[[citing a disaproval of their religious belief system) preferably a couple of eighty somethings, to give them a taste of their own vile medicine. Considering high divorce rates, and that we can only speculate there is a supernatural being that requires a marriage ceremony-a ritual that probably evolved for some cultural-societal benefit, as opposed to knowing for a fact that in the natural world humans need shelter to protect them from the elements, it is unreasonable to allow the religious to claim that their religious freedoms are violated when they are not allowed to discriminate against unmarried couples. When my sons mother and I rented an apartment years ago she wore a ring and we introduced ourselves to the old landlord as a married couple, using the same routine twice. Second time around after we moved I made sure the landlords knew we werent married, they seemed shocked so they probably would not have rented the place had we been upfront.

On children born outside of religious ceremonies, wives sometimes commit infidelity so a religious ceremony does not gurantee legitimacy. It infuriates me to hear the religious refer to small human beings as 'illigitamate'. Medical science determines parenthood.What if a couple has a civil ceremony with no mention of God, or they go through the routine of a religious ceremony to 'keep the peace' or out of respect for family,lying to the religious figure about believing, or simply just not taking the event seriously,is the child still not the real deal?

Ive read several cases involving landlords who discriminate based on marital status,and the landlords have actually won a couple surprisingly. Cant remember all the names of the cases, but I remember the fair housing commission in Alaska ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The issue strikes a nerve with me I think because of the antagonism and judgement I encountered dealing with oppressive religious individuals. Live and let live...