http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezuzah said:Legal battles in the U.S.
The widely-popular Jewish practice of affixing a mezuzah to the entranceway of a residential unit[7] has been rarely challenged in the United States or Canada,[8] and there was until recently no case law precedent on the subject.
In Chicago in 2001, the condominium association at the 378-unit Shoreline Towers adopted a rule banning “mats, boots, shoes, carts or objects of any sort… outside unit entrance doors”,[9] which by board vote in 2004 was interpreted to be absolute.[10] Relying on the Association rule, during 2004 Shoreline Towers management removed the hallway mezuzot of condominium tenants, resulting in letters from Jewish groups which unsuccessfully protested the rule. Complaints by Shoreline Towers tenants were subsequently filed with the Chicago Commission on Human Relations, Illinois Attorney General, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, alleging housing discrimination on the basis of religion[11] and seeking damages. Meanwhile, a newspaper report indicated that Shoreline Towers was not the sole condominium association in Chicago with such a restriction, although one of them soon agreed to modify its rule.[12]
On reading a news report of the mezuzah dispute at Shoreline Towers, Chicago alderman Burton Natarus, like other Jewish observers of the development,[13] was upset by the ban. He sat down and drafted an amendment to the city’s Municipal Code which made it illegal for a renter or owner of an apartment, house, or condo to be prohibited from "placing or affixing a religious sign, symbol or relic on the door, door post or entrance."[14] Although there was opposition to such a move,[15] it became law in Chicago that December.[16] The first such legislation in North America, it included a maximum $500 fine for its violation. In 2006, a more narrowly-focused amendment to the state’s Condominium Property Act was initiated by Illinois Senator Ira Silverstein, the first such state law.[17]
Notwithstanding this legislation, court action continued concerning separate complaints against Shoreline Towers for its rule affecting mezuzot. In 2006, a federal court judge determined that the condominium association’s rule did not violate the Federal Fair Housing Act;[18] the district court upheld the opinion on appeal in 2008;[19] in 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago reversed the 2008 decision,[20] and the case proceeded. Meanwhile during the dispute, records of the Chicago Jewish Star (which had been reporting on the case) were unsuccessfully subpoenaed,[21] and for the first time Illinois’ anti-SLAPP legislation was applied.[22] In 2011, a confidential settlement to the Shoreline Towers disputes was finally achieved.[23]
Controversies similar to the one in Chicago also occurred during this time in Florida and Texas. In 2006, a woman in a 16-story condo building in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was instructed to remove the mezuzah from her hallway unit and threatened with a fine. After a lengthy legal battle, the condo association was found guilty of discrimination. In 2008, House Bill 995, an amendment to the Florida Condominium Act modeled on the Illinois state legislation, became law.[24]
In Texas in 2007, a couple living in the Madison Park area of Houston was instructed to “remove the item attached to your door frame” to avoid violating association rules.[25] A legal battle ensued, during which a U.S. District Court judge ruled in 2008 on behalf of the condo association. Subsequently the couple turned to Texas House of Representatives member Garnet F. Coleman. His bill introduced in 2009 was not adopted, but in June 2011 a slightly revised version (HB1278) was signed into law by Texas Governor Rick Perry.[26]
A federal law to prevent mezuzah bans nationwide was proposed in 2008 by U.S. Congressman Jerrold Nadler (H.R. 6932). It never became law.[27]
"The declaration expressly prohibits unit owners from hanging or displaying anything on the outside windows or outside walls of any building, and also prohibits any sign from being affixed to or placed upon the exterior walls … without prior consent of the association's board of directors," attorney Kurt Ahlberg, said in a March 21 response.
but one she agreed to, just like posting in ME here. the rules are dumb but you agree to follow them when posting. she agreed to not place such objects on her property without board approval
and hopefully, that is how the board will see it when she makes that request of it
I've never heard of a mezuzah until now, and the wiki article doesn't say. But does it have to be on the outside of the doorframe?[/QUOTE
If I am not mistaken it is ON, attached to the doorframe. To say that this is not allowed is the same as saying that observant Jews are not allowed to give in this condo.
Here we go again. Take it all the way to the USSC. This crap has to be stood up against in the USA. Sick.
Connecticut Condo Owner Told To Remove Jewish Religious Ornament Or Face Fines | Fox News
With anal retentive home owner associations telling people they can't American flags, have to mow their lawns at a certain time, can't have certain types of Christmas decorations in their yard why would anyone in their right mind buy a home with a home owners association attached to it?
It's a dumb rule, when the size and nature of the object in question is not obnoxious or overtly offensive in nature.
I think we should all go stand on her front steps and read the Gospels. It's not preaching, and you can do whatever you want on someone else's private property.
I agree with you on this one because it's the owner's religious ornament on the owner's private property. That's the difference.
But, this isn't the government cracking down...this is a private company. So the First Amendment doesn't apply as it only restricts the actions of the government.
Yes, but property and contract rights as they are; one can argue that she knew the terms.
So you agree with the segregation laws of the south before 1963. Perhaps as a libertarian you feel that people can do whatever they please with their personal property, which is OK if that is what you really believe. Just not the America we live in today.
That's kind of a bad analogy, isn't it? AFAIK this isn't a case where people can display Christian stuff on their doorways but not Jewish stuff. Isn't it just a general prohibition against decoration?
So you agree with the segregation laws of the south before 1963. Perhaps as a libertarian you feel that people can do whatever they please with their personal property, which is OK if that is what you really believe. Just not the America we live in today.
Yes, but property and contract rights as they are; one can argue that she knew the terms.
You are right about contractual rights. When you sign a contract, you should be bound by that contract. No different than committing to an auto loan then deciding that you no longer want to make the payments.
Another point. In a condo situation, the tenant/owner does not own the walls. Only the space between the walls. Therefore there are no property rights involved other than the collective rights.
Yes, but property and contract rights as they are; one can argue that she knew the terms.
Simplistic and wrong. For example if you signed a contract with a loan shark at 10,000% interest then do not pay. Could the loan shark take you to court and say although the contract violates usury laws since it was signed it must be enforced.
And again, terms are not absolute - if you have the time, effort, and money, it is possible to challenge them - it being a contract, it being a term doesn't make it un-challengable, nor does it make term absolutely legal/etc.
If they're not allowed to do that, but are allowed to hang Christmas related items, wouldn't that in of itself skirt into murky, and **potentially** illegal areas based on religious discrimination?
Slightly O/T, but isn't it amazing that after the 1996/7 FCC law regarding what restrictions can / can NOT be placed on placement of antennas and satellite dishes by condo associations, and HOAs, that with a Google search you can find HOA rules/terms thats try to monkey around this, defining the allowed dish diameter's 1 meter as 18" and no more when the FCC defines it as 39.37", which is actually how it is mathematically.
Seriously, we need some pulling on the reigns, while HOAs have good ideas, intentions, quite often they seem to go way to far so far as what powers they grab for, try to control. You know it's bad when a federal law like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has provisions SPECIFICALLY TARGETING HOA/condo association behavior.
i don't see your comparison to the fair housing provisionsReading your posts reminds me why we have fair housing laws in the first place. Else you could write codes as was done in many communities to blatantly keep out Jews and blacks. Now it is not so easy, but people like you can keep trying.
It seems to me that HOAs should be recognized and treated as forms of very localized government, rather than as private contracts. As such, they should be held to the same standards as any other level of government, with regard to the degree of authority they may be given to restrict the rights of anyone living under them, and what degree of responsiveness and accountability they must meet to those under them.
The function of HOAs seems to rest entirely on telling property owners what they may and may not do with and on their own property. This isn't completely illegitimate, of course. It is legitimate, in some instances, for government to impose such restrictions, in order to prevent one person from violating the rights of another. An HOA would be entirely within reasonable bounds, for example, to impose a rule that states that one homeowner cannot play music at his home that is so loud that it disturbs the peace of his neighbors and substantially impacts their ability to enjoy their own homes.
But when it comes to dictating what color one may paint his house, what kind of landscaping one may have in his yard, what decorations one may display, and such, then I think that's out of bounds. We wouldn't think of letting a state or city government dictate such things; I don't see why a neighborhood-level of government should have that power either.
The OP is about a small item that observant Jews feel compelled by their religious beliefs to mount on a door frame. I do not see any case that can possibly be made that by mounting this object on a doorframe, a Jew is in any way violating any rights of any of his neighbors, or in any way detracting from their ability to make full use of their property; therefore, I see no reason why any level of government ought to claim the power to deny him the right to mount this item according to his religious requirements. This amounts to an instance of a government sticking its nose where no government has any business doing so.
i don't see your comparison to the fair housing provisions
please explain that similarity
we have a jewish woman who knowingly signed a contract to purchase her condo, which contract established that she could not expect to place any ornament on the public/association owned portion of the property without board approval
this jewish woman lived there without a mezuzah until she received one as a gift. that tells me it was not an essential aspect of her religiosity, but it was something she would want to use to adorn her home in keeping with her culture
but in all of this i fail to see any aspect of the condo contract which appears to dissuade jews or blacks from living there. please point that out
but one she agreed to, just like posting in ME here.
| Moderator's Warning: |
The article talks about people putting up wraiths and crosses. It doesn't specify if the crosses are limited to certain times of the year but I'm not sure that matters?That's kind of a bad analogy, isn't it? AFAIK this isn't a case where people can display Christian stuff on their doorways but not Jewish stuff. Isn't it just a general prohibition against decoration?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?