• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Connecticut condo owner told to remove Jewish religious ornament or face fines

Interesting-
When a teen son is murdered some of those who decry the parents and their advocates that are 'trying this in the media' want the Jewish lady's lawyers to do just that. :confused:

Throw in some references to a commie state, compare it to barring blacks from the building and away the over-hype goes.

I am all for debate but this type of posturing doesn't do much for advancing rational thought and sounds alot more like that Nancy Grace style of dis-CUSS-ion.

The lady didn't put this religious symbol up when she moved in, she did so after being gifted one.

She didn't ask if it was ok, she just did it.

Some on the Right want to make this a rallying point for decrying the sh*thole our Nation is descending into, (in their very partisan minds)

I have enough confidence that after leaving behind all the wild eyed rants over this, cooler heads will figure it out and everyone will be satisfied, well those who are actually involved in it anyways.
 
There can be issues to which the government may get involved; I'm not saying that absolutely there can be no government involvement. But I think that your example doesn’t work well with the construct of the hypothetical which was that people can enter a contract expecting not to uphold their end of contract; but rather running to the government in order to get the terms changed. As this hypothetical is well more general and not specifically speaking to the outside chances of government intervention being a necessity.

All in all, a man has right to contract. What some are looking to avoid is the two-way nature of that right. You can sign contract and agree to terms you desire. True. But you enter into contract and then are legally obligated to hold up your end. Of course there are exceptions, let’s not run down that road. What you want to say here is that this display of property on someone’s not-property when agreed to terms is one of those exceptions. Perchance, perchance not. My point is that the argument can be made that she knew the terms she was agreeing to and exercised her right to contract. Now she can try to get the terms changed and both parties can agree to do so; but that doesn’t alleviate her obligation to the current contract as written. She has right to contract and exercised said right, yes? Such an argument in fact isn’t necessarily out of libertarian political philosophy either.
Federal Fair Housing laws are also part of that contract - at least in the USA they are. If this display is covered under those laws then, yes, she is abiding by the terms of the contract but the HOA isn't.
 
She is wrong. I live in a condo and I do not want to see politics and or religion displayed anywhere. It is MY home as well as hers and eveyone elses. We all agree to abide by the condo laws or pay the price. Your right to freedom of expression is simply not permitted anywhere where others find it offensive or disturbing. Don't scream whereever to desire or you may go to jail. She should moe out to a place where she is not OBLIGATED to an association but I hope she has tolerant neighbors in her new neighborhood!!
That state, by itself, is not correct.
 
She is wrong. I live in a condo and I do not want to see politics and or religion displayed anywhere. It is MY home as well as hers and eveyone [sic] elses [sic]. We all agree to abide by the condo laws or pay the price. Your right to freedom of expression is simply not permitted anywhere where others find it offensive or disturbing. Don't scream whereever [sic] to desire or you may go to jail. She should moe [sic] out to a place where she is not OBLIGATED to an association but I hope she has tolerant neighbors in her new neighborhood!!

Do you have any idea how similar this sounds to “I don't want any niggers living in my complex!”?

It sounds like you have a serious bigotry against people with certain religious or political beliefs; of a sort that ought not be catered to any more than racism.

And your statement that “Your right to freedom of expression is simply not permitted anywhere where others find it offensive or disturbing.” is factually incorrect, and appears to entirely miss the point of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and related freedoms.
 
Harpsichord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



350px-17th_Century_French_Harpsichord_after_%22Vaudry%22_by_Yves_Beaupre.jpg



World..... Renowned.

That would cover non-nations too. :lol:
 
There is a right way of dealing with things like this. A Mezuzah (sp?) can be really, really small and plain.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/p...F821LQQXaSAPY2PPtkk0bY_4KNKJlI19kRtAFHn=s90-c
or it can be elaborate and obvious.

If you wanted to put a cross on your doorpost and you used a tiny one, nobody would notice or care.

I just wonder how noticeable this mezuza was.

And I'm NOT taking a side here. As they say, I don't have a cat in this race.
 
She is, by the US Constitution, allowed to have her religious ornaments on her doorpost. End of story.

don't know what Constitutional provision you are relying upon, but the resident can certainly install the mezuzah upon her own doorpost. (her property begins at the point of the interior paint, and includes everything that paint encloses. notice that does NOT include the exterior wall where she fastened the mezuzah)
what she wants to do is install it on the community-owned property
the community's HOA board has advised her that to do so violated the HOA agreement she agreed adhere to upon buying the property

i suspect your confusion is the wrong belief that the front of her condo unit is her own property to do with as she pleases. that location, where she has affixed the gifted mezuzah, happens to be commons area. which is why her request must be submitted to and approved by the HOA board

there is nothing to indicate this resident has sought such authorization from the HOA board
 
Back
Top Bottom