Religious Freedom, Housing, and Apostasy I was raised in the LDS (Mormon) church and am an official member. I am currently attending college and rooming in an apartment complex owned by said church. To make a long story short, I am now seriously considering formally resigning from the church and am worried about how this will affect my living situation. One practically has to be a church member for an application to reside in this complex to be considered: 98% of the tenants are members. If being a non-member is hard enough, I can't imagine how it would be for a former member (culturally referred to as an apostate, with the term practically being a curse word in Mormon theology). It's no secret that organizations cannot discriminate against individuals on religious basis. But when the time to renew my contract arrives, and I'm denied, or they terminate my residency immediately, do I have legal recourse? Also, I live in Michigan, with a state-level reinforcement of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Is enforcing religious neutrality in a housing complex owned by a church a 'compelling governmental interest'? I'm also generally unaware of the LDS church's handling of legal affairs or how they'd react to this situation. Any research I've attempted to do has lead me to extremely biased sites. Any solid information is appreciated, as I may just be worried over nothing. I also have the option to just fly under the radar and remain 'inactive' (but still on the records) until my economic situation changes and I can move out. However, I really don't want to feel like my hand is being forced. Amendment: Apparently students at BYU (one of the church's largest universities) are expelled if they apostatize. How is this even legal?
What that church is doing is legal. There is a statutory exception in the Fair Housing Act for religious and non-profit organizations. 42 U.S. Code § 3607 - Religious organization or private club exemption Nothing in this subchapter shall prohibit a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, from limiting the sale, rental or occupancy of dwellings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose to persons of the same religion, or from giving preference to such persons, unless membership in such religion is restricted on account of race, color, or national origin. Nor shall anything in this subchapter prohibit a private club not in fact open to the public, which as an incident to its primary purpose or purposes provides lodgings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose, from limiting the rental or occupancy of such lodgings to its members or from giving preference to its members.
Standing requirements are different in state and federal courts, and from one state to the next. A random individual would not have standing to object to a stranger's abortion in federal court, and likely not in any state court, under normal circumstances, as they are not injured in any meaningful way by the abortion. I don't know what the normal rules of standing are in Texas, but it is likely perfectly acceptable for the Legislature to wave its wand to grant standing to whomever it wants regarding any violation of the law it sees for. That seems to be what is happening here.
Both Title VII of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), and the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) as amended, provide that employer mandates are subject to &quot;reasonable accommodations&quot; for &quot;sincere religious beliefs&quot;. If any mandate was based on or subject to either of those laws, requests for accommodation would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The belief does not have to be a tenant of any church or organized religious group, but may be purely individual. State laws granting religious exemptions might also apply. However, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) the US Supreme court wrote: Thus, he [a parent] cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. People v. Pierson, 176 N.Y. 201, 68 N.E. 243. Prince was a case of a child labor law (selling religious pamphlets in the streets) not an actual vaccination case, so the above statement was not strictly binding precedent. Whether it would now be considered good law I cannot say unless it coems up oin a current case. To the best of my knowledge, no major religion or denomination objects to vaccines as such, although some do object to vaccines developed using fetal stem cells. I believe that at one time the Jehovah's Witnesses did so object (one of them was the appellant in Prince) but they no longer hold that view. At least some individuals have expressed such objections, but most expressed objections to vaccines or vaccine mandates have not been on religious grounds.
As stated, this is not a reasonable restriction and runs afoul of the Fair Housing Act. You cannot discriminate based on family status, with an exemption for &quot;housing for older persons&quot;, and the act &quot;does not limit the applicability of reasonable local, state, or federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling&quot; (let's leave aside HOA restrictions for a moment). The number of occupants can legally be restricted in terms of a reasonable relation to a legitimate interest such as parking availability, safety, noise or securing the property. A restriction based on square footage or number of bedrooms might be reasonable: a blanket rule &quot;no more than 4 people&quot; is not reasonable. This article notes some of the state complication in interpreting &quot;marital status&quot;, in terms of &quot;not being married to each other&quot;.
You inspected the property online and based on that inspection you signed the lease. You have a legally binding contract. Now, it is not at all like the pictures How? I mean, are these pictures of a different house? If that is so then your contract is void for fraud. However, if the pictures are of the actual house and you just imagined from them that the house would be other than it is then tough luck for you. the stairwell in the house is a huge safety hazard for children OK. Does it comply with relevant building codes? If not then the landlord needs to bring it up to standard: you cannot walk away from the contract. Is it in need of repair? If so, the landlord needs to repair it: you cannot walk away from the contract. If it is compliant and in good repair and you think it is a hazard notwithstanding then you need to manage that hazard: this is not the landlords problem. I refused to move into the house That's fine: so long as you keep paying the rent there is no obligation on you to move in. If you stop paying the rent then it would appear that you have repudiated the contract and the landlord can sue you for damages - probably the costs of finding a new tenant and the rent up until that tenant takes over.
There are several reasons people wish to get a marriage annulled. I'll try to list them in order of frequency -- though I'm unaware of any statistics that confirm that my ordering is correct. Money. As per Nij's comment, when people are divorced, their property is subdivided 50-50. If one person can get away with an annulment, and keep the property which he earned, then it will be in his interests to do so. Religious reasons. As per SJuan76's comments, several churches, including Catholic, Mormon, and Russian Baptist, do not allow a person to marry if his previous spouse is still alive. An annulment is a way around that. Fraud marriages. This is rare, but under Trump it happens more often then you might think. People (usually women) come to the US illegally, marry someone (generally significantly older), and after the wedding day they are never again seen by their spouse. They use their marriage certificate to ensure permission to stay in the US -- but, they were never interested in marrying that person in the first place. When found, often such people are living with another illegal alien "as a boyfriend", with kids born before the fraud marriage even took place. It is in such cases, that their new spouse often tries to attain an annulment of the marriage -- to make sure that the illegal alien doesn't get rewarded for cheating them. Personal reasons. For some people, having never been married means it's easier to get a spouse who also has never been married -- and being able to check the "Single -- Never married" box on a form is always a plus in such cases. Now, don't ask me why people prefer to marry someone who's never been married, over someone who's been divorced. :) Incest. Under the US law, if you marry someone who's your close relative, then you are guilty of a felony -- even if you didn't know they're your close relative at the time of marriage. However, if you annul the marriage, then you can avoid prosecution.
united-states Since &quot;lying&quot; is not a clearly-defined legal concept, we need to look at a specific kind of (non)statement. Some lies are plainly illegal, for instance saying in the context of a sale that &quot;this column is made of pressure-treated lumber&quot; when in fact it is make of sand and Elmer's glue is fraud. A receptionist being told to say &quot;Mr. Smith is at a conference in New York&quot; when he is actually drunk in Chicago is a legal lie. Now the question is, who can refuse to tell this lie (without suffering employment consequences), and on what grounds? Generally, in the US you can be ordered to tell such a legal lie as part of your employment duties. If I refuse, I can be fired. If you refuse, you can request a reasonable accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since you proffer that your religion requires you to tell the truth / forbids you from telling a falsehood. If you make a claim for a religious accommodation, then the issue becomes whether there is a reasonable alternative. Such an accommodation might be that you instead say &quot;Mr. Smith is not available&quot;; or perhaps someone else who does not have a religious objection will be forced to act as receptionist for the day. This is specifically about religion. &quot;I don't want to&quot; or any similar idea does not provide protection against being fired. However, bear in mind that there is no official list of approved religions and their beliefs which the courts will refer to in determining whether your refusal was protected. If you claim &quot;As a Pastafarian, I can't lie&quot;, the courts will not accept the premise that declaring yourself to be Pastafarian (a parody &quot;religion&quot;) is valid. The available governmental resources on the fine line between general moral code and religious beliefs are quite sparse.
The First Amendment essentially prohibits the establishment of a list of approved vs. not-approved religions. There is a large body of First Amendment case law that relates to claimed religious beliefs, and the restriction that the government cannot prohibit a person from exercising their religious beliefs. The courts therefore avoid bright-line answers to the question. You can look at Friedman v. Southern Cal. Permanente for an example where a court found that a belief is not a religious belief, finding that veganism is not a &quot;religious creed&quot; within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiff was told to get a mumps vaccination (which involves chicken embryo) as a condition of employment, refused, and the offer of employment was refused. The law, §12940a makes it unlawful &quot;because of the religious creed of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person...&quot;. Subdivision (l) says that Religious belief or observance, as used in this section, includes, but is not limited to, observance of a Sabbath or other religious holy day or days, reasonable time necessary for travel prior and subsequent to a religious observance, and religious dress practice and religious grooming practice as described in subdivision (q) of Section 12926. §12296(q) further contributes a definition of religious terms: “Religious creed,” “religion,” “religious observance,” “religious belief,” and “creed” include all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice, including religious dress and grooming practices. “Religious dress practice” shall be construed broadly to include the wearing or carrying of religious clothing, head or face coverings, jewelry, artifacts, and any other item that is part of an individual observing a religious creed. “Religious grooming practice” shall be construed broadly to include all forms of head, facial, and body hair that are part of an individual observing a religious creed. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission then created a regulation California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 7293.1 that defines &quot;religious creed&quot; ‘Religious creed’ includes any traditionally recognized religion as well as beliefs, observations, or practices which an individual sincerely holds and which occupy in his or her life a place of importance parallel to that of traditionally recognized religions. The court notes that religious creed extends beyond traditionally recognized religions to encompass beliefs, observations, or practices occupying a parallel place of importance “to that of traditionally recognized religions” in an individual's life. The court then points to the leading cases from the Supreme Court related to deciding what a religion is: US v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 and Welsh v. US, 398 U.S. 333. And the court points out that government agencies are granted wide latitude in interpreting enabling legislation (under which the government might allow or disallow an action). It us noted that as of 2002, there were no California cases deciding what constitutes a religious creed w.r.t. FEHA and that regulation. The court then recited various statements from other California cases regarding the characterization of a religion – the main relevant point is that a religion does not have to be theistic to be a &quot;religion&quot;. The court also reviews federal employment discrimination laws, and again considers the difference between traditional and non-traditional religions. There are many snippets in the review of the law section saying things such as that the court should find beliefs to be a religion if they ‘occupy the same place in the life of the [individual] as an orthodox belief in God holds in the life of one clearly qualified.’ We can now move to the question in §6, Is Veganism a Religious Creed For Purposes of the FEHA. This court states that The test we apply is that set forth in Judge Adams's concurring opinion in Malnak which has been adopted by the Third, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits which they say presents the best objective method for answering the question whether a belief plays the role of a religion and functions as such in an individual's life At this point, we can't reasonably guess how some individual would object on religious grounds to the vaccination mandate, but we do at least know what aspects of the law would be relevant and where the &quot;rules&quot; are laid down. Until someone actually alleges that they have a religious belief that prohibits vaccination, we can't analyze those arguments. The gist of the &quot;veganism is not a religion&quot; is it is too narrow a belief to constitute a religious belief. The court found that did not find that it is a &quot;belief system (which) addresses fundamental or ultimate questions&quot;, and that it does not a address fundamental questions such as &quot;the meaning of human existence; the purpose of life; theories of humankind's nature or its place in the universe; matters of human life and death; or the exercise of faith&quot;.