Neighborhood HOA Openly Proseltytizing Christian Faith on Main Entrance Welcome Sign

[xylene]

Judging by the immaturity of the responses I will seek counsel elsewhere. Leave Texas? Hate god? Common. This is a serious matter. It obiously has nothing to do with my HOA establishing a religion. It has everything to do with discrimination and favortisim. A sign, paid for by the homeowners(a diverse group), should not show favor to only one particular religion. It affects my home value by limiting the type of person who will want to buy my house. You think a Muslim or Atheist will want to see this everyday on their way to and from work. I think not.

I gave you an atheistic perspective.

I don't like god, so I choose to live where more people feel as I do and very few people feel strongly about god.

If the sign was showing little league scores I would still be offended because it is a stupid waste.

Home Owners Association 0 Atheists 666

 

[wnachefski]

Your remedies are through the HOA.

There is nothing criminal happening. There is nothing happening that is in violation of your civil rights. There is not a breach of contract. There is not a tort. Your only solution is through the HOA process. Look to your organizing documents. Pay to put up your own message. Object to your neighbors so those on the board fear for their position. Or, do what zigner suggests and run for the board. Sheesh. This is NOT a serious matter. The only ones who care, or, with these types of messages who CAN care are members of the HOA.

Thats a prettty broad statement of fact. Ever hear of the FHA? Apparently not. My answer lies within its case law. This forum is pathetic.

 

[Zigner]

Thats a prettty broad statement of fact. Ever hear of the FHA? Apparently not. My answer lies within its case law. This forum is pathetic.

Why don't you inform the poor members of this pathetic forum how you feel the FHA applies to this matter.

 

[FlyingRon]

Thats a prettty broad statement of fact. Ever hear of the FHA? Apparently not. My answer lies within its case law. This forum is pathetic.

If you have "case law" that somehow applies, let us have the citation. I am certainly not aware of any. You making groundless accusations is the pathetic part.

The HOA is not selling,renting, or financing property, nor do they control who can live there. It's not clear why any espoused religious view they have would have any bearing in Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act. Nor do they likely receive Federal assistance requiring attention under Title VI. Nor do they likely take any sort of Federal support that would expose them to restrictions under HUD or other agency agreements.

Even if they were engaging in one of the covered housing activities (selling, renting, financing), the law doesn't require them to be atheistic in their views, nor give equal time to other religions. The fact that they have religious ideals doesn't mean they are being discriminatory.

As pointed out before, the government preventing HOA's from expressing opinions, political, religious, or otherwise will likely be unconstitutional free speech abridgement.

 

[CdwJava]

Thats a prettty broad statement of fact. Ever hear of the FHA? Apparently not. My answer lies within its case law. This forum is pathetic.

How is the FHA remotely connected to your homeowner's association? Even if some of the residents obtained FHA loans, that does not mean they cannot profess their faith or express most any message the board wishes.

As has been suggested, if you do not like what is being posted on the sign, run for the board, develop a consensus, and change the practice to something more to your liking.

 

[tranquility]

Thats a prettty broad statement of fact. Ever hear of the FHA? Apparently not. My answer lies within its case law. This forum is pathetic.

Um...do you mean:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13483758862463459886&q=fha+hoa&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5

1. You're not from Florida.
2. The change of HOA rules PREVENTED a previously allowed club to no longer use the facilities.
3. The sole issue was if the change violated:
"[t]o discriminate against any person in the 1226*1226 terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin?"
4. The discussion on the FEDERAL law showed (emphasis mine):

The FHA makes it unlawful "Rio discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin." The FHA does 1228*1228 not define, and the Eleventh Circuit has not addressed, the issue of what constitutes "discrimination . . . in the provision of services." A majority of courts considering the issue have found that Section 3604(b) is limited to discrimination in provision of services as they are connected to the acquisition or sale and rental of housing. See, Cox v. City of Dallas Texas, 430 F.3d 734. See also, Woods—Drake v. Lundy, 667 F.2d 1198 (5th Cir.1982);Lawrence v. Courtyards at Deerwood Ass'n., Inc., 318 F.Supp.2d 1133 (S.D.Fla.2004); Walton v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass'n., Inc., 2004 WL 192106 (S.D.Ind.2004); United States v. Weisz, 914 F.Supp. 1050, 1054 (S.D.N.Y.1996); Halprin v. Prairie Single Family Homes 388 F.3d 327 (7th Cir.2004); Clifton Terrace Assocs. v. United Techs. Corp., 929 F.2d 714, 720 (D.C.Cir.1991); Laramore v. Ill. Sports Facilities Auth., 722 F.Supp. 443, 452 (N.D.Ill.1989); Gourlay v. Forest Lake Estates Civic Ass'n of Port Richey, Inc., 276 F.Supp.2d 1222 (M.D.Fla.2003).[8]

Most of those same courts have interpreted this to mean that this provision is not applicable to post-acquisition discrimination in the provision of services, unless the discrimination somehow deprives a person of their housing. This definition has resulted in the conclusion that, if the challenged discriminatory activity occurs after a buyer has already purchased his or her home, and if such activity is not one which results in either an actual or constructive deprivation of that property, then such activity is not prohibited by the FHA.

5. For the holding on the specific difference between the Florida (associated) and the Federal (sale) wording in the statutes, "This regulation uses the term "associated with a dwelling," not "related to the sale thereof.", the court framed the issue as:

With this distinction in mind, the Court turns to the Club's allegations. It does not allege that any of its individual Savanna homeowners have been unable to utilize Savanna's common areas for any purpose other than conducting religious services. Nor does it assert that the Association has prevented its members from engaging in their religious observance in their homes. It is undisputed that the Rule bans any and all religious services regardless of denomination, and that the Rule is imposed equally among all religions. Therefore, the crux of the claim is that the Club's members, who are fully entitled to assemble in Savanna's common areas for any non-religious purposes, are illegally being treated differently than other members who choose to assemble for non-religious purpose, and that such disparate treatment is a religion-based discrimination in the provision of services under the FHA.[14]

With the holding of:

None of the Club's homeowners have been denied access to Savanna's common areas. Rather, they have been denied permission to use the common areas to conduct their religious services. Just as clear is the fact that no other homeowner is permitted to conduct their religious services within Savanna's common areas. Applying the reasoning of the majority of Courts that have considered post-acquisition discrimination, their interpretation of the FHA's policy as being intended to provide access to housing, and further applying the relevant HUD Regulation and the few cases finding access to planned community facilities an incident of ownership, the Court finds that the FHA only applies to those deprivations in the provision of services which cause a complete denial of access to such services. The Application of a Rule barring all religious services from a community's common areas without impeding a homeowner's right to practice his or her religion, and without denying access to the common areas for all other purposes is not sufficient to established that the club is being treated differently from persons of other religions.

Now, please explain how that affects you.

 

[wnachefski]

How is the FHA remotely connected to your homeowner's association? Even if some of the residents obtained FHA loans, that does not mean they cannot profess their faith or express most any message the board wishes.

As has been suggested, if you do not like what is being posted on the sign, run for the board, develop a consensus, and change the practice to something more to your liking.

Not a FHA loan. The FHA. Easy: Bloch v Frischholz
QUOTE=FlyingRon;3102010]If you have "case law" that somehow applies, let us have the citation. I am certainly not aware of any. You making groundless accusations is the pathetic part.

The HOA is not selling,renting, or financing property, nor do they control who can live there. It's not clear why any espoused religious view they have would have any bearing in Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act. Nor do they likely receive Federal assistance requiring attention under Title VI. Nor do they likely take any sort of Federal support that would expose them to restrictions under HUD or other agency agreements.

Even if they were engaging in one of the covered housing activities (selling, renting, financing), the fact that they espouse a religious view doesn't require them to be atheistic in their views, nor give equal time to other religions. The fact that they have religious ideals doesn't mean they are being discriminatory.

As pointed out before, the government preventing HOA's from expressing opinions, political, religious, or otherwise will likely be unconstitutional free speech abridgement.[/QUOTE]

Bloch v Frischholz Do I hear an echo?

 

[ecmst12]

I don't see how that applies. The sign does not interfere with any resident expressing their own religious views.

 

[CdwJava]

Not a FHA loan. The FHA. Easy: Bloch v Frischholz

You haven't read it, have you? At least, not all of it.

And, of course, Texas is not IN the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals which makes the matter not strictly applicable even if it were on point.

More to the point, how much are you willing to spend to try and make a federal case out of a sign?

 

[wnachefski]

You haven't read it, have you? At least, not all of it.

And, of course, Texas is not IN the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals which makes the matter not strictly applicable even if it were on point.

More to the point, how much are you willing to spend to try and make a federal case out of a sign?

I have. And it’s an example of federal case law. It could be used to argue a case in the 5th CCOA.
It depends, how much are ones principals worth? I am not a virulent atheist (not atheist at all), I don’t really care what religion someone is or how many Christmas trees or Menorahs they have in their yard etc. But when you try to force your religion upon me, I get mad. Let alone use a medium that I help pay for and then deny my request to post messages from a different religion. How many cases have there been when one had to ask how much was it worth? To me it is worth a great deal.

 

[Zigner]

I have. And it’s an example of federal case law. It could be used to argue a case in the 5th CCOA.
It depends, how much are ones principals worth? I am not a virulent atheist (not atheist at all), I don’t really care what religion someone is or how many Christmas trees or Menorahs they have in their yard etc. But when you try to force your religion upon me, I get mad. Let alone use a medium that I help pay for and then deny my request to post messages from a different religion. How many cases have there been when one had to ask how much was it worth? To me it is worth a great deal.

Run for a spot on the board...


(tap tap tap...is this thing on?)

 

[Antigone*]

Run for a spot on the board...


(tap tap tap...is this thing on?)

Or pass the Bar and argue in front of the 5th Circuit.

 

[tranquility]

The case, which does not cover Texas, said there is possibly an action if there is a violation of (Ignoring the first issue the court said there was no possibility of a cause of action.):

§ 3604(b)'s protections extend to prohibit “[l]imiting the use of privileges, services or facilities associated with a dwelling because of race [or] ․ religion ․ of an owner, tenant or a person associated with him or her.”

In the case the plaintiff wanted to put a religious symbol on their door that they claimed was required by their religion and the HOA prevented it. How is that relevant to you? Does your religion prevent you from staying in a place where there are people who post religious quotes?

For the final possibility of if an action can take place, the issue was framed:

 So the § 3617 question in this case becomes whether the defendants coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with the Blochs' exercise or enjoyment of their right to inhabit their condo units because of their race or religion.   To prevail on a § 3617 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is a protected individual under the FHA, (2) she was engaged in the exercise or enjoyment of her fair housing rights, (3) the defendants coerced, threatened, intimidated, or interfered with the plaintiff on account of her protected activity under the FHA, and (4) the defendants were motivated by an intent to discriminate.  East-Miller, 421 F.3d at 563.  “Interference” is more than a “quarrel among neighbors” or an “isolated act of discrimination,” but rather is a “pattern of harassment, invidiously motivated.”  Halprin, 388 F.3d at 330;  cf.  DiCenso, 96 F.3d at 1006;  Honce v. Vigil, 1 F.3d 1085, 1090 (10th Cir.1993).

With the discussion showing that there must be specific discriminatory intent against a person(s) to be actionable. Since you have not alleged any discriminatory intent against you, again, how is this relevant to you?

 

[wnachefski]

Or pass the Bar and argue in front of the 5th Circuit.

lol. Thanks.

Here is a toned down one from today.

http://s7.postimage.org/vyzr17yor/HHS.jpg

With the discussion showing that there must be specific discriminatory intent against a person(s) to be actionable. Since you have not alleged any discriminatory intent against you, again, how is this relevant to you?

Firstly the court found the FHA does not stop being applicable post sale.

Secondly

SEE THIS>>>>>>>>>>

Let alone use a medium that I help pay for and then deny my request to post messages from a different religion.

 

[ecmst12]

I wouldn't want to live in a place like that, but they're still not interfering with YOUR religious expression, so the case you posted is not on point, even if it was in a relevent jurisdiction.