If they are going to be exempt from our Civil Rights Laws, they should not be allowed to take advantage of any of the laws that benefit a church. Including tax exempt status. They should receive no government benefits or financial support.
Sounds like we need to establish a litmus test for religious organization based on behavior, not merely name. If they don't receive public funds and are a religious organization then they are exempt. Ed, interesting point you bring up. Ability to not pay tax could be seen as "funding" I suppose. I wonder how funding is defined, or could be defined by a court?
To what degree did our forefathers (religious believers, not athiests) intend for us to be "free to do" as we please? Freedom has a price and responsibility, is it not intended to be all for one and one for all? Granted, not all want to share in maintaining the status quo. Consider that religion is in some ways similar to water, some need more of it to survive and some need less however without water you shrivel up and die. Without religion is a choice you chose to make or not. Each church...
We theoretically still have religious freedom. However, there was a contract formed many decades ago that in trade for tax-free status, the church would not interfere in politics. That agreement is no longer adhered to. Seems to me that if churches want to change the agreement, we should start over. No tax free status and they can do what they want and negotiate a new agreement. Seems best for the country, let's do it.
California, when adopting the ADA as its base language for the 2013 CBC, chose to keep the requirements in for religious facilities. For those of you designing in California, 2013 California Building Code Section 11B-244 states: "Religious facilities shall be accessible in accordance with the provisions of this code. Where specific areas within religious facilities contain more than one use, each portion shall comply with the applicable requirements for that use." I've had a few design...
I don't think the author meant that the ADA applied to the owners per se. What I think his meaning is that the HOA could be found to be discriminatory in this case. Since the HOA would not be insured the judgement would have to be paid as an assessment against the owners. Therefore, the owners would be responsible financially and in an indirect way the ADA would be applied to the owners. Mele kalikimaka.
bradley: that is indeed an extremely roundabout way of interpreting that the ADA would apply to the HOA. i'm not sure i buy that logic since what standing would an owner in the CID have under the law since owners are not members of the public and therefore would not trigger any Title III obligation? btw, i have written the author of the article for an explanation and will be glad to share any reply i receive.
HOAs, when they build or remodel, do have to comply with the disability laws in the building code in California. Although I don't know the answer for sure about how people with disabilities are treated otherwise, as a Board member and an owner in an HOA, I can tell you that members do feel strongly that their rights to hear what is going on in meetings, to read and understand the legal materials that are published, and to communicate with the board and management must be respected. They are...
does anybody agree with the author of this article that the ADA applies to an owner within a common interest development? http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-associations-20151220-story.html
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .