U.S. Court Rules against Mezuzah on Condo Doorposts

Arutz 7 ^ | 7-15-08 | Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

[Nachum]

(IsraelNN.com) An American court of appeals has ruled in a split decision against the right of Jews to post the traditional mezuzah on the doorposts of a condominium apartment if the bylaws of the building prohibit signs and objects on outside doors. The mezuzah contains parchment with verses from the Torah and is an ancient tradition commanded by the Torah before the Exodus of Jews from Egypt. We cannot create an accommodation requirement for religion.

In the 2-1 decision, the court stated, "The hallway rule ... is neutral with respect to religion. It bans photos of family vacations, political placards, for-sale notices, and Chicago Bears pennants. We cannot create an accommodation requirement for religion. Our job is not to make the law the best it can be, but to enforce the law actually enacted."

Dissenting Judge Diane Wood 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.'"

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.

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Wood 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

[Yaelle]

Are you KIDDING me? I have never heard of such a thing. In some places like when I lived in Switzerland, they would not allow you to post the mezuzah with a nail. So we used that blue sticky tacky (gum-like) substance that held it up there but could come completely and cleanly off when we moved out.

This sounds truly like discrimination since Jews MUST post mezuzot. I mean, does it take up any more space than a doorbell or knocker??

[Yaelle]

It may be a case based on WHERE the common area begins. Perhaps the common area begins at the wall of the hallway. A tiny mezuzah within the doorway (on the inner jamb) might be still part of the individual’s condo. I think there is a case for it, and it does seem like discrimination.

Why does this condo board fuss over it? Don’t you think there are many condo buildings that are filled with Jews where certainly no one minds the mezuzah on the door? Who would would to die on the hill of making sure no Jews could live in a certain building? Jews talk... LOL.

[raygun]

Well, dunno, I s’pose it prevents people from hanging inverted pentagrams from their lintels too, eh? I guess everybody is protected from any sort of Islamic symbols also, eh? Why in fact we’re all protected from ANY religious iconagraphy whatsoever by this ruling.

Evangelism is already prohibited in the same vein as soliciting is probibited. Physical violence against the latter would be just as frowned upon as the former. I don’t attempt to evangelize anybody after the second admonition against it; they’re on their own.

[ladyjane]

Association documents outline what is owned. In many condominium associations the “owner” only owns the interior of their unit through the first two coats of paint. They do not own into the walls - even inside their own unit. It is common area. The door to the unit and the walls in the hallway are also common area and not owned by the individual.

What is individually owned and what is common area is explicitly spelled out in the association documents and known to all at time of purchase.

Why does the association board fuss over it? Because people push the envelope and it sets a precedent. If I want to hang something ridiculous, e.g., a porno picture on my door I can point to the mezuzah as a precedent. Then people will post pictures of Elvis or Jesus on their doors. You get the picture.

Some people are not cut out for condominium living. They want to expand their space and decorate the hallway outside their unit.

[Yaelle]

So in Jewish retirement condo areas, is there a bylaw allowing a small mezuzah, so no one has that problem?

[ladyjane]

Every condominium has its own association documents and its own rules and regulations.

I lived in a condominium once that had very strict association documents and rules about what is common area. However - they had no problem with mezuzahs. When I moved in there was one at my front door. I left it there. Every bit of extra protection you can get is helpful. ;)

BTW, they were very picky about what could be left outside your door, e.g., baby carriage, wet umbrella. The rule was: NOTHING.