Column
Dilemmas arise from rental
ruling By ROBERT F. DRINAN
Kevin Thomas and Joyce Baker own
some rental apartments in Anchorage, Alaska. Theyre fundamentalist
Christians and refuse to rent to unmarried couples.
State officials told Thomas and Baker that they couldnt
discriminate against renters on that basis. The two sued, seeking an exemption
from the states Fair Housing Law that prohibits any denial of rental
property to persons because of ... marital status.
They won. On Jan. 15 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1
that Thomas and Baker are constitutionally excused from the Alaskan law denying
landlords or sellers any right to discriminate on the basis of race, age, sex
or marital status.
The law resembles ordinances in every state that restrict the
rights of property owners to reject renters or buyers on the basis of personal
characteristics. Such laws have their roots in the civil rights movement, in
efforts to eradicate discrimination in housing on the basis of race.
The majority view, written by Judge Diarmuid OScannlain,
overruled contrary decisions by the California and Alaska Supreme Courts. The
decision is applicable to nine other states, including Hawaii. Most of these
states have statutes like Alaskas banning discrimination on the basis of
familial status.
The two judges who formed the majority in this case sided with the
owners, who argued that facilitating cohabitation is tantamount to
facilitating sin. The judges said that the state has no compelling reason
to insist that owners rent to persons whose conduct would, as the owners see
it, involve them in wrongdoing. If prospective renters are inconvenienced, only
a slight adjustment is needed to acquire another rental property.
But the dissenting judge, Michael D. Hawkins, saw the case
differently. He wondered what would happen if the court allows a property owner
to deny access to his home to prospective renters who are divorced, interracial
or gays or lesbians. The claims of such groups to equal protection under the
law should, the judge asserted, trump the scruples of the owner. Moreover, the
judge said the inconvenience to renters is not so slight if the property in
question is, for them, uniquely attractive.
The ruling illustrates the highly controversial question of what
to do about neutral laws that have the effect of infringing one persons
religious beliefs or practices.
Before the circuit court intervened, the Supreme Court of Alaska
ruled that owners who decided to rent their property did so as a matter of
choice and had no right to impose their religious views on tenants. Living
together without being married is not illegal in Alaska and most other states,
the judges said, and hence should not be a bar to renting an apartment.
Conservative religious groups are pushing aggressively to secure a
right for property owners to follow their consciences. The thrust of most civil
rights enforcement over the past generation, on the other hand, has been to
deny any exemptions or excuses to those who rent or sell. The long history of
discrimination in housing cautions against creating exemptions because of the
desires of those who control the transaction. If you can discriminate on the
basis of marital status, why not race or gender?
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress in 1993
was an effort to insist that in any case where the plaintiff complains of an
infringement on the free exercise of religion, the burden shifts to the
defendant; if the government makes out a compelling reason to insist on the
infringement of the free exercise of religion, the government must then still
prove that the proposed restriction is the least restrictive way of enforcing
or achieving that compelling reason.
The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act as applicable to the states. It is still valid law in the
federal courts. Congress is seeking to re-enact a modified form of the law.
The preservation of religious freedom has always been one of the
great objectives of American jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has regularly
protected the religious freedom of Jehovahs Witnesses, Amish children and
Seventh-Day Adventists. But as American society becomes more fragmented and as
the number of nonadherents to organized religion increases, the courts and the
country will have to reassess the claims of persons like Kevin Thomas and Joyce
Baker.
Catholics and other believers are almost by instinct sympathetic
to the claims of conscientious objectors. But the claims of those who will be
hurt if religious freedom is maximized must also be listened to. No Christian
should want to see religious freedom used as a club to restrict the freedom of
others.
In the end, the law may not have any satisfactory resolutions for
these dilemmas. Tolerance, patience and love offer better answers.
Jesuit Fr. Robert Drinan is a professor at Georgetown
University Law Center.
National Catholic Reporter, March 26,
1999
|