If you’re in the market for a condominium that
can promise an abundance of brilliant sunshine, slow-swaying palm trees, and
restrictions on religious practice, then the Cambridge House in Port Charlotte,
Florida is the place for you. On February 6th, 2018, the board
members of the Cambridge House voted to ban all prayer, religious service, and
religious meetings within the common areas located within the complex.
Following the vote the board proceeded to place a sign on the lobby organ that
read “Any and All Christian Music is banned,” removed a statue of St. Francis
of Assisi from the property, and requested that all crosses and religious artifacts
be removed from the door of each resident. While the enactment of these
preliminary decisions proceeded without much contestation, Donna Dunbar filed a complaint against both the Cambridge House and it’s management company, The
Gateway Group Inc., stating that both parties violated the Fair Housing Act by
not allowing their residents to practice their religions freely. Dunbar, a lay
minister of The Seventh Day Adventist Church, held women’s bible studies
gatherings every Monday morning within the common rooms of the condominium
complex until the board members issued their decision to prohibit her from
holding future meetings in the public space. Following the board’s decision,
Dunbar has decided to continue holding the bible study meetings within her own condo
as it is not considered a public space within the complex.
The first issue that is addressed within this
case is whether or not the Cambridge House violated the federal law which
prohibits discrimination in home sales, financing, and rentals based upon race,
color, sex, national origin, or religious belief, otherwise known as the Fair Housing Act. Pursuant to the complaint filed by Dunbar, she outlines that the
actions taken by the board violates the Fair Housing Act as the law explicitly
protects renters from discrimination of their religious affiliations and she
was actively trying to exercise her beliefs. The plaintiff states further
within her complaint that while religious gatherings have been prohibited from
the common areas, there are frequent secular gatherings that are deemed
permissible by the board in the same location. This effectively raises an issue
regarding the face neutrality on the matter as those who hold religious
affiliations feel as though they are facing extreme adversity for something
that is protected within their First Amendment rights while secular practices
are freely allowed and encouraged. Also cited within the complaint is the
argument that the members of the board did not properly notify the residents
that they would be holding their vote in the first place. Dunbar argues that
this is important for had there been more notice then more residents would have
been likely to contest the decision and formulate their own arguments against
the board as well as elicit what a “religious practice” would be considered as
in the eyes of the board. Finally, Dunbar is bringing forth the fact that she
was required by the members of the board to get insurance if she desired to
continue her religious meetings in the public areas while other residents who
frequented the space with events such as movie nights and game nights were not
required to get any form of insurance whatsoever.
The issue raised through Dunbar’s complaint brings
forth a contestation of the Free Exercise clause outlined within the First Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution. However, I would argue that because the Cambridge
House is a private complex and is owned by the Gateway group which is a private
company, then they have the jurisdiction to decide what practices their common
spaces may be used for. To tie in more foundation for my argument, I would like
to bring in the decision made in the case of Widmar v. Vincent, although it was ruled in the favor of the
religious organization. Briefly explained, this case sought to determine whether
or not the religious group known as Cornerstone could use the public spaces
provided within University of Missouri – Kansas City (a public institution) to
practice their religious beliefs. In this situation, the court ruled that the
school’s decision to not allow the members of the Cornerstone organization to
freely exercise their religious practices was a violation of their First
Amendment rights as it had little burden on anyone else and the spaces could be
used by both secular and religious organizations. However, a fundamental
difference that must be noted between these two cases is that in Widmar v. Vincent the disputed location
was within a public institution and public building, while the complaint filed
by Dunbar was located within a private compound. This difference holds
significant weight as those who own private property and allow their shared spaces
to be used by anyone still maintain the rights to that area and have the final
say regarding what practices may occur within that specific area. I do believe,
however, that the board should have given proper notification to the other
residents within the complex for they should have been granted enough time to
contest the decision made by the board for it affects many different parties
and they should all be granted an equal say in the matter. I must say, though,
that I anticipate following this case in the future for not only for the
dispute over the Free Exercise clause but also because the complaint was filed
on the grounds of the Fair Housing Act rather than another applicable
condominium act. This sets a precedent in the field as normally the fair
condominium cases are upheld frequently during their appeals as the private
property argument trumps a majority of the other arguments presented.
6 comments:
I agree that the board should have notified the residents in order to give a chance for resident’s voices to be heard about the issue involving common areas and religious practice, although the decision is ultimately up to the board. As a private organization, the board members have the authority to make rules against particular uses of the common space in their apartment buildings, despite its favorability towards secular activities. Because the company is not discriminating on the basis of religion when it determines who can and cannot be a tenant in the building, the Fair Housing Act is not being violated in the way the act protects against.
Although I agree that the board should have notified the residents of the vote, I disagree that the board members should be able to ban religious meetings in common spaces. When I was doing additional research on the case, I found that the condominium offers two swimming pools, tennis and various meeting rooms for social activities. In order to satisfy both religious and non-religious residents, it would seem appropriate that the condominium allowed religious groups to schedule time where they can use a closed meeting room for religious activities. This way, anyone who wants to participate has the freedom to, but anyone that does not can also choose to use the other meeting rooms or common spaces. The condominium has several meeting spaces, so it seems fair to me that religious groups can use one of the many spaces for weekly meetings as long as they sign up. Not allowing religious groups to use common spaces infringes upon the Free Exercise Clause and although the condominium is privately owned, these rights still stand.
The two most compelling components of this case, that offer evidence to support either side, are the issues of private property and religious and non-religious neutrality. For starters, the fact that this condominium complex is private property allows the board and its members to have executive ruling; their rights are just as important as those advocating for the freedom to practice their religion. However, the fact that the board is allowing the common spaces to be used for non-secular meetings is extremely compelling to me, as does this constitute as discriminating based off of religion? The rights of the board members along with the rights of the religious affiliated group members have equal opportunities to be disrupted and violated in this case. The best solution would be to allow no groups to use the common spaces to hold meetings, however it is entirely up to the board member's discretion.
I think that while the board has the right to prohibit the use of common areas in the condominium complex for religious activities and religious meetings, I do not think that the board has the right to prohibit expression of religious beliefs on individual doors. Prohibiting the use of the common areas for religious activities is acceptable because there is public interest in keeping the condominium complex secular. However, prohibiting the expression of religion on an individual's door does not seem to have a secular purpose. Once someone moves into the complex, the door of their particular condominium is no longer fully associated with the complex as a whole, and therefore it would be an individual expressing their religious beliefs as opposed to the condominium complex as a whole professing a religious belief.
I feel as though private institutions should have the right to prohibit behavior. If patrons take issue with the institutions rules, then they should choose not to support the business. As a result, private institutions who decide to discriminate, like this condominium complex, will likely struggle financially; however, I do think a compelling argument could be made that since the complex has created a public forum, the content of speech cannot constitutionally be restricted. I agree with Ciara's solution that if the condominium complex does not want any religious meetings in common spaces, they ought to prohibit organizations from meeting all together.
I agree with the Boards Ruling and I do not think they had any obligation to give more notification to the building's residents. As the owners of the property, they have a right to determine what behavior is appropriate in the public areas of the building. If the association had prevented Dunbar from practicing her religion in her private condo I would have issue with their ruling. However, this is simply preventing the use of communal messaging from being spread in any public area. I would also like to point out they are still technically being neutral to religion and non-religion in the building. The other organizations allowed to meet are not religion in any nature, that does not mean they are anti-relgious. If the board stilled allowed atheist groups to meet in the public areas then I believe neutrality would be violated. However, the facts presented give no indication atheist or other anti-religious groups will still be allowed to meet.
Post a Comment