Condominiums: The Modern Day Church

     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 6^th, 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.