• 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

Wait, they are allowed to have a cross or Christmas wreath, but nothing else?
 
It is not unusual for condo associations to bar any sorts of decorations -- even in the windows. The fact that Christmas wreaths etc. are allowed most likely means that there are dates during which period of time when they can be displayed -- and dates on which they must be removed.

I'm not sure about this Jewish religious symbol -- when it is displayed...if it's displayed all the time. But I did read in your link that some associations have faced lawsuits regarding this particular issue in the past -- and some of those have permitted these symbols be displayed.

I think the whole thing is nonsense If it's a religious symbol that is displayed at a particular time of the year, it should be allowed. If it is a religious symbol that is to be displayed all the time, it should be allowed.

People are stupid. If I were a member of that association, I'd be absolutely furious if any of my association dues were spent pursuing this in court.

Find a damned compromise. You can't forbid religious symbols.

These restrictions are a good thing, for the most part. Who wants Christmas wreaths on front doors in June? Who wants Christmas lights lighting up someone's home in July? So regulations aren't unusual...but stupid ones? What are they thinking?
 
private property rights?

some will be relinquished when executing acceptance of the condo association bylaws
"The declaration expressly prohibits unit owners from hanging or displaying anything on the outside windows or outside walls of any building, and also prohibits any sign from being affixed to or placed upon the exterior walls … without prior consent of the association's board of directors,"
did she follow protocol and seek the consent of the board to permanently affix her mezuzah
i am guessing 'no', otherwise she would have cited the disparate religious treatment when recognizing "According to an agreement with its condo owners, the display of items like Christmas wreaths and crosses on doors is allowed ...".
somebody wants to be a victim; they are special
 
some will be relinquished when executing acceptance of the condo association bylaws
"The declaration expressly prohibits unit owners from hanging or displaying anything on the outside windows or outside walls of any building, and also prohibits any sign from being affixed to or placed upon the exterior walls … without prior consent of the association's board of directors,"
did she follow protocol and seek the consent of the board to permanently affix her mezuzah
i am guessing 'no', otherwise she would have cited the disparate religious treatment when recognizing "According to an agreement with its condo owners, the display of items like Christmas wreaths and crosses on doors is allowed ...".
somebody wants to be a victim; they are special

You said it yourself, Christmas wreaths and crosse on doors is allowed. She is simply asking for equal rights. That's doesn't make her a "victim" or "special".
 
private property rights?

The question is who's? If she rents and she signed a contract agreeing to these stipulations; then one could clearly argue that it's not her property and that she agreed to those stipulations. If she owns it, then I'd say she can do as she likes. Though that goes against things like HOAs, which I think are horrible in practice.
 
Lesson:

Don't buy a condo. Apartments are the same.

I'd rather be in a trailer too. But not in a park. Same crappy rules.
 
You said it yourself, Christmas wreaths and crosse on doors is allowed. She is simply asking for equal rights. That's doesn't make her a "victim" or "special".

did not see any indication that she followed the prescribed process: seek board approval
which is what causes me to find her someone who expects special privileges, likely because she thinks she is special
if it is learned that she sought the board approval and was declined, despite the precedent of religious ornamentation, then i will rescind my castigation and will be in her corner
 
If they allow crosses and wreaths, they should allow a mezuzah.
 
It's a dumb rule,
but one she agreed to, just like posting in ME here. the rules are dumb but you agree to follow them when posting. she agreed to not place such objects on her property without board approval
... when the size and nature of the object in question is not obnoxious or overtly offensive in nature.
and hopefully, that is how the board will see it when she makes that request of it
 
but one she agreed to, just like posting in ME here. the rules are dumb but you agree to follow them when posting. she agreed to not place such objects on her property without board approval

and hopefully, that is how the board will see it when she makes that request of it

Sure, but the board could be cool and realize that being that harsh will not yield any positive result.
Simply warning her for the first incidence and then allowing it, would be the way to go.
 
Here we go again. Take it all the way to the USSC. This crap has to be stood up against in the USA. Sick.

Connecticut Condo Owner Told To Remove Jewish Religious Ornament Or Face Fines | Fox News


With anal retentive home owner associations telling people they can't American flags, have to mow their lawns at a certain time, can't have certain types of Christmas decorations in their yard why would anyone in their right mind buy a home with a home owners association attached to it?
 
Last edited:
If the board says "no", I'd keep it up and call their bluff.
 
but one she agreed to...


Of course the fallacy in your argument is that it assumes contracts are contracts -> that signing it ==that's it, and provisions can't be challenged, or outright illegal in whole or part, which common sense, IMO, dictates is not always the case.
 
Of course the fallacy in your argument is that it assumes contracts are contracts -> that signing it ==that's it, and provisions can't be challenged, or outright illegal in whole or part, which common sense, IMO, dictates is not always the case.

here is a hint: contracts ARE contracts
nothing has been indicated that the resident signed hers under duress
which allows me to conclude that by her execution, she knowingly agreed to the terms of the contract
terms she now opposes
she has the opportunity to seek board approval to authorize her exception - especially recognizing one has been authorized for the exhibition of Christian decorations
then, if her request of the board is rejected, she will have the opportunity to seek relief in the courts
no one is denying that. but she will be expected to have exhausted her administrative remedies before seeking the court's indulgence
 
Back
Top Bottom