Posted July 15 2008
Where Does the Separation Begin?
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” (the Establishment Clause) or that prohibit free exercise of religion (the Free Exercise Clause), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
An American Court of Appeals in Chicago, Illinois decided in a split 2-1 decision against the right of Jews to Mezuzot on the doorposts of a condominium apartment if the bylaws of the building prohibit signs and objects of the outside of doors. This provision is mainly for the ban of family vacations photos, political placards, for-sale notices, and Chicago Bears pennants.. The court stated that the hallway rule “is neutral with respect to religion.”
The case involves the Shoreline Towers of Chicago and condominium owners Lynne Bloch and her two children, who live in three units. Building managers had removed the mezuzot from their doors while the family was at a funeral for Lynne Bloch’s husband in 2004. The family put them back on the doorposts several times until the city passed a law allowing religious displays on doors. The family sued for damages, but the court backed the right of the condominium group to establish its own laws. The Blochs are considering appealing to the Supreme Court, claiming there was an intention to discriminate against observant Jews.
Honorable Diane Wood, the dissenting judge, said that leaving the rule in tact would amount to “constructive eviction” of observant Jewish residents. “Hallway Rule 1 operates exactly as a red-lining rule does with respect to the ability of the owner to sell to observant Jews,” she wrote in her opinion. “The [condominium] association might as well hang a sign outside saying ‘No observant Jews allowed.’” Judge Wood also noted that the condominium association’s brief charged that the Bloch family was trying to get a “pound of flesh” from the group. She pointed out that the phrase appears in a literary work by Shakespeare and refers to the character Shylock, a moneylender who was punished by being forced to convert to Christianity. “This is hardly the reference someone should choose who is trying to show that the stand-off … was not because of the Blochs’ religion, but rather in spite of it,” she wrote.
[From Israel National News]
Add This Blog to Your Technorati Favorites
Jewish Blog, Jewish, Jewish Leadership, Jewish News, Jewish Values, Jewish Events
4 Comments currently posted. 
Confused says:
Tzioni says:
David Gertler says:
So the answer to the proposed question is “at the door”?
Dave Weinberg says:
[From Yeshiva World News]
OU Disappointed with Court’s Ruling in Mezzuzah Case
July 16, 2008
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, expressed its disappointment with a ruling issued today by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit against Orthodox Jewish apartment owners in Chicago whose condominium association had temporarily banned them from affixing a mezuzah to their apartment doorpost. The appeals court, in the case of Bloch v. Shoreline Towers Condo. Assn., ruled that the federal Fair Housing Act does not require a condominium association or landlord to accommodate an Orthodox Jewish tenant’s need to affix a mezuzah to his/her doorpost, as required by Jewish law.
The case arose when Shoreline Towers adopted a rule banning materials of various kinds outside of tenants’ doors and the Bloch’s mezuzah was removed during repainting and not allowed to be re-affixed. After the Bloch’s filed suit against Shoreline in response, Shoreline adopted a religious exception to the hallway rules, and both the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois adopted laws guaranteeing the right of a tenant to affix religious symbols to their doors. Nonetheless, the lawsuit proceeded as the Bloch’s sought monetary damages from Shoreline due to the incident.
In upholding the rejection of the Bloch’s claim, the Court of Appeals held that the hallway rule was a general rule not targeted against a particular religious practice and therefore not an act of discrimination against the Blochs. One member of the appeals panel dissented from the ruling, and reasoned that, given an observant Jew’s obligation to affix a mezuzah to her doorpost, the hallway rule was a “constructive eviction” under the Fair Housing Act.
Nathan J. Diament, public policy director for the UOJCA, issued the following statement commenting upon the court ruling:
The Orthodox Union is disappointed with this ruling by the Court of Appeals. We believe that irrespective of the facial neutrality of the condo association’s rule, that to ban a Jewish tenant from affixing a mezuzah ought to be viewed as a constructive eviction from their home and thus illegal under the Fair Housing Act. We are grateful that this is not a practical issue at the moment in the Shoreline Condominiums, nor in Illinois or in several other states which have passed similar laws protecting religious liberty in their dwellings. We will, however, consider appealing to Congress to make clear that such rules are outlawed by the Fair Housing Act.
I don’t get your point. The First Amendment prohibits CONGRESS from making such laws. While the Fourteenth Amendment effectively extends the prohibition to the states as well, such Amendments do not and cannot control private actions.