Housing discrimination rules clash with religious beliefs

A coalition of 21 religious and civil liberties groups has asked the California Supreme Court to use that state's constitution as a basis for ruling in a case involving landlords who, on religious grounds, refused to rent to an unmarried couple.

The case involves John and Agnes Donahue of Downey, Calif., who, because of their Roman Catholic religious beliefs against cohabitation, refused to rent an apartment to an unmarried couple. The Donahues have been charged with unconstitutionally discriminating against the couple seeking to rent.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed May 15, the coalition takes no position on the merits of the Donahues' claim but urges the state court to give the religious liberty provisions of the state constitution a high priority.

"Our system of federalism rests on the fundamental principle that state courts are empowered to rely on their own constitutional provisions when adjudicating claims arising thereunder and to interpret those provisions independently in ways that afford greater protections than are available at the federal level," the brief says. It adds that "the federal Bill of Rights establishes a floor; it does not erect a ceiling" in urging the courts to consider the broader religious freedom provisions of the California State Constitution.

Groups participating in the brief include the American Jewish Committee, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Concerned Women for America.

Court permits leafleting near memorial

A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling that overturned a National Park Service ban on the distribution of literature on sidewalks near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington in a case brought on behalf of a street preacher.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia came in a dispute involving street evangelist David Henderson, who was prevented from giving away gospel tracts on the public sidewalks near the memorial in January and May of 1991.

A judge granted a temporary restraining order against the regulation in time for Henderson and others to distribute evangelistic literature near the memorial during the Operation Desert Storm parade in June 1991. A district court later granted a permanent injunction, and the National Park Service appealed.

Henderson's case was argued before the appeals court by his brother James, an attorney with Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, and by Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the organization.

"Every time a government bans free speech on a sidewalk it tries to dress its arguments up by urging that the disputed property is no longer a sidewalk," James Henderson said. "The court of appeals rejected that approach."

The appeals court gave the Park Service 90 days to decide whether to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

State upholds Jewish court's ruling

NEW YORK _ Rulings issued by a Jewish religious tribunal in civil disputes cannot be challenged in secular courts, according to a decision issued by the New York State Court of Appeals.

The case involved an agreement by two Jewish businessmen in Brooklyn to arbitrate a land dispute before a court of three rabbis, known as a Beth Din. After the Beth Din issued its ruling, the loser in the case took the matter to State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, where Justice Elliott Golden ruled last year that the Beth Din ruling was too vague to constitute a binding arbitration agreement under state law.

Golden's ruling was upheld by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court. But the Appeals Court _ which despite its name is a higher level than the State Supreme court _ ruled recently that the Beth Din agreement was properly drawn under state law and could not be overturned.

Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish group concerned with church- state matters, had contended in a friend-of-the-court brief that the ruling by Golden "misconstrued Jewish law" and "improperly intruded into the religious domain."

Homeowners oppose churches spread

Several homeowners in an affluent neighborhood of Washington, D.C., are urging city officials to adopt a zoning regulation to restrict church construction or expansion in the area, where a growing number of homes have been turned over to churches and charities during the past decade.

Nearly 50 houses in the 16th Street Heights neighborhood are used by religious groups, schools and embassies, according to a survey by the local civic association. Citing parking and sanitation problems, the association is calling for a ban on church construction, conversion or expansion in the area that would either demolish a house or result in more than two such uses per square block.

In response, Cardinal James A. Hickey has warned that such restrictions "will adversely affect all religious, charitable and human service communities citywide." And the city's Office of the Corporation Counsel has warned that such a restriction might be seen as impinging on religious freedom and could be overturned in court.

Gail Barnes, one of the supporters of the proposal, complained that she and other homeowners pay property taxes while the religious groups are excluded, "yet we have no rights."

A public hearing on the issue before the city zoning commission will be held in July.

Archdiocese accused of discrimination

DENVER _ The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver, accused in a lawsuit of illegal housing discrimination, defended on Wednesday its refusal to rent an apartment to a man who is unable to care for himself.

Officials said the decision was not based on the fact that he has the AIDS virus.

The federal government filed a suit this week in U.S. District Court here, alleging the archdiocese's public housing agency violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to a man who, according to the suit, "is infected with the HIV virus" and is considered handicapped under provisions of federal law.

The suit, however, did not specify what type of handicap the man has or whether it is connected to the virus that causes AIDS.

The man had sought to rent in a federally assisted building for low-income elderly and handicapped persons. He was denied an apartment because he stated he was incapable of living independently, said an archdiocesan spokeswoman, Colleen Smith Mason. Being able to live independently is a requirement for tenants in the building where he applied, she said.

Archdiocesan officials did not know the man was HIV-positive when they denied his application, she said. "We deny the (lawsuit's) allegations and will defend ourselves vigorously."