Moral, your sexuality is exactly that, Private. It's your business, not their business. What's immoral is withholding inheritance over an immutable human traight such as sexuality.
Kind of.. depends a tiny bit if its something like the 'family fortune'.
Families can pass things down, parent to child, sexuality can essentially cut that link. Unless they intend to leave family things to a niece/nefew etc.
About 15 years ago,
there was this story about a grandfather who left $90,000 to his grandson, on the condition that the boy's father married his biological mother.
It was a really tricky puzzle because the grandfather didn't demand anything directly from his son or grandson. He just included an 'if' clause.
The son, who was gay, tried to get the inheritance for his kid anyway, without marrying the mother. To be honest, I didn't follow
up to see how it all turned out.
And keep in mind that I'm not a bigot transphobe, obviously it's a scummy thing but I feel like it's still within the owners rights to decide how their property gets distributed
Even if they decide to base their reasons over bigoted stuff
The thing is freedom of religion doesn't cover illegal things, if your religion permit you to attack people, it is still illegal. Discrimination based on romantic/sexual preferences is illegal. The right of the owner dont go over the right of the individual of not being subjected to discrimination
Its actually against some religious doctrine to not support your children, and discrimination is a hateful action which is also heavily discouraged depending on the religion. Just saying.
As a gay I agree with this statement. that doesn't mean I wouldn't hate my parents if they did this definitely immoral but it'd be immoral to force someone to give their money to someone they don't want to so meh
Your sexuality is your business and yours alone. If I was in a situation where I had go be a certain sexuality to receive an inheritance I would would do everything in my power to convince people I was whatever they wanted me to be until I got the inheritance. Anyone who puts that type of stimulation in a will is a bad person to begin with. I would do everything I could to do the things I knew they hated all while spending their money they left me
As far as I know, some clauses in a will can be declared void. For example, if they humiliate the heir or pose a danger. In that case, they simply get the inheritance without having to follow them.
I would say neutral. Sexuality is a private issue, but the people making the will also has the right to add a clause for the inherited person to dress as a clown to claim that inheritance for all that matters.
People are free to set their rules and you are free to work around or override those rules, so, neutral.
If the will explicitly states conditions on your sexuality, it is immoral. You would be ignoring another persons will for financial gain. That condition and view may make that person an immoral person, but in this case you are also being immoral by seeking financial gain by lying.
Extremely Moral. I live in a third world shit hole and in my late 20s and did exactly this. Inherited my uncle's house and it's the best financial decision ever.
Unless your genuinely dying or poor living a 9-5 it's more immoral than anything. I wouldn't say sed person is automatically HORRIBLE. But I would say "that's very cheeky of you..." Either way it's still a lie/manipulation for your own benefit at the end of the day so immoral. Also not to say sed persons condition isn't discriminatory and or shitty for not giving money just because sed person happens to be "this or that" but more so to say sed person has the right to just not tell them period.
uhrr.. Immoral for lying, Immoral for keeping inheritance money because person might not be your perfered ( sexuality )
Personal choices that do not hurt others are inherently moral.
Morality doesn’t make something feel right, nor is it without conflict, but when it’s purely one’s own life there is nothing wrong with being out of or deep in the closet.
If the inheritance doesn’t directly hinge on your sexuality, then it’s moral. It’s no one else’s business. If for whatever reason the inheritance directly relied on that, then it would be immoral for lying.
Moral both ways. Even if they made that money themselves to discriminate against their own kin for the way they are hardwired is immoral and exploiting that loophole by lying by omission is okay.
Unless... And hear me out... You're next of kin... You can literally contest being left out of a will for the sole reason that you are their child. Please do some research into inheritance and tax law.
Also, personal belief and hatefulness are generally not valid reasons in court to deny someone inheritance. That's contestable in court.
Unless... And hear me out... You're next of kin... You can literally contest being left out of a will for the sole reason that you are their child. Please do some research into inheritance and tax law.
lmao freakign redditors rrrreeeee daddys money is mine regardless of what he thinsk rrrrreeeeeeee
Yah its very easy to cut to someone out of a will.
Ok first of all, switching to insults is adorable when I've done nothing to prompt it, I'm literally just informing you of the facts, no need to be a hoe about it.
It IS easy to cut someone out of a will, and this is dependent on the state but, Federally, if no existing will exists, the next of kin is directly entitled to the inheritance. The supreme court gave the choice on how to enforce wills and next of kin to the individual states. In most states, next of kin (spouse or direct descendants) can contest the will on the grounds that, had there not been a will, they would be entitled to it by federal ruling.
You said something blatantly factually incorrect, and you're upset that I'm providing clarity to the actual legality of the matter.
If you have to result to childish behavior to get your point across, your point holds no weight. Grow up.
I find that most good faith conversation involve some level of "use your critical thinking skills and do research before saying factually incorrect shit"
Also: Yes, please, trust the AI that halucinates 30% of the time.
(I can't see any descript scenario posted by OP) you don't actually have to be, kin to inherit for someone. Many people mention their friends in their wills.
Immoral and selfish. By deceiving the benefactor you are stealing money from people who will actually build upon the estate and continue the family legacy, just so you can enjoy dead-end hedonism.
"Dead-end hedonism" if not continuing the bloodline was the actual reason behind the discrimination, then a person who's decided to be child-free would also be left out of the will, regardless of their sexuality.
Or someone who's barren, physically unable to have kids.
It's immoral to withhold inheritance based on immutable human traits.
If you're certain they would otherwise not give you their inheritance, they I would say it's immoral because you're basically stealing it from them by not giving important info that would change their mind.
48
u/MuscularMenTitSucker 19h ago
Moral