Realtors Group Hearing "Hate Speech" "Ethics Complaint" Against Pastor-Realtor …

for saying "LGBTQ+" "Pride" message is "against our biblical doctrine."

Late last year, the National Association of Realtors adopted a policy forbidding members from engaging in supposedly "harassing speech" or "hate speech" even in their private lives, entirely outside the context of real estate transactions. The Realtors are a private organization, so this isn't a First Amendment violation, just as blacklisting of supposedly "un-American" employees in the 1950s wasn't a First Amendment violation. But it strikes me as potentially quite dangerous, especially given that National Association of Realtors membership appears to be quite important professionally to real estate agents (more on that below).

In any event, we're seeing now the potential scope of the policy: The Missoula Organization of Realtors (which is the Missoula County affiliate of the National Association) has concluded that a member of the public's complaint against Montana realtor Brandon Huber "if taken as true on its face, constitutes potentially unethical conduct [under the prohibitions on 'harassing speech' and 'hate speech'] and will be forwarded to the Professional Standards Committee"; Huber now faces a disciplinary hearing on Dec. 2, 2021. According to Huber's lawsuit against the Missoula Organization of Realtors,

Penalties for violating [the speech code] include a $5,000 fine and suspension or termination of membership privileges, including denial of access to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), a searchable online database that sorts available real estate properties by parameters such as square footage, acreage, and architectural style.

The complaint was apparently based on the following incident (to quote the lawsuit):

[31.] Brandon Huber also serves as lead pastor for Clinton Community Church in Clinton, Montana….

[34.] For many years, the Church had partnered with the Missoula Food Bank for the "Kids Eat Free" summer lunch program, which involved the distribution of free lunches throughout the summer to families with children.

[35.] In June 2021, the Church discovered that the Missoula Food Bank included an LGBTQ "Pride" insert in its lunches that was contrary to the Church's teachings.

[36.] After discussing the matter with the Missoula Food Bank, the Church declined to participate further in the food bank's program.

[37.] Instead, the Church began providing a separate lunch program for the community.

[38.] The Church announced its reasoning for this change on July 2, 2021, in a letter distributed to congregants as well as on the Facebook page of a local Clinton community group.

[39.] This announcement included the following paragraph:

This year, as well as the past two years, we have partnered with the Missoula Food Bank for the "Kids Eat Free" summer lunch program. This has been a great honor for us to be able to support the kids and families in our community with these meals throughout the summer months. This past week we found printed material in the lunches that we were handing out, that went against our biblical doctrine. After conversations with the food bank, we have found out that our beliefs and that of the Missoula Food Bank do not align. Due to this, Clinton Community Church has decided to end our partnership with the Missoula food bank effective today July 2, 2021.

The complaint opined that, based on this, Huber "cannot separate his religious bias from his entire person and will continue to be inherently biased against the LGBTQIAS+ community in any and all circumstances." (The complaint also alleges that Huber referred to "gays being an abomination" and "defilement of scripture," but Huber's lawsuit claims that he had never made any such comments.)

Now naturally members of the public can criticize Huber, if they want, for his religious views (or secular views), and can decline to do business with him. But I think it's dangerous and improper for an important professional organization such as an Association of Realtors to threaten to expel members for expressing such views—just as it would be to threaten to expel them for (say) speech that praises or makes excuses of rioters, or expresses hostility to capitalism and capitalists, or (as the hate speech ban itself might do) sharply criticizes conservative Christianity.

Huber is suing the Association for a declaratory judgment that (1) punishing him for his speech violates the Montana Constitution, which provides that, "Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas" (emphasis added), and that (2) the Association of Realtors' speech code is too vague under contract law. I'm not sure whether his claim will prevail under Montana law, but I'm glad he's fighting this.

I should note that the National Association of Realtors and its state affiliates get various benefits under laws and regulations in various states, including Montana. A Montana regulation, for instance, provides

Each active licensee is required to complete a minimum of 12 hours of continuing property management education every licensing year … in property management continuing education courses that are:

(a) approved by the Association of Real Estate License Law Officials' (ARELLO) Distance Education Certification, or a state real estate licensing regulatory agency or real estate commission; or

(b) endorsed by a national, state, or local Association of REALTORS®, or any national, state, or local real estate, landlords, or property management association.

Oklahoma law appears to give the Oklahoma Association of Realtors and the National Association of Realtors an even more special role in this process (since it doesn't mention any other real-estate-related association). Laws in other states, such as Utah and West Virginia, give state Associations of Realtors the power to nominate members of various government boards.

It seems to me that state legislatures could and should provide that any such government-assigned powers will extend only to associations that don't discriminate in membership based on the members' race, religion, sex, constitutionally protected speech, and the like. Such nondiscrimination conditions attached to government-provided benefits are constitutional even as to purely ideological groups that seek, for instance, the sorts of benefits that universities routinely provide to all student groups, see Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010). They should be even more clearly constitutional and proper as to commercial professional groups, especially ones that get special benefits beyond those that other groups get.

Comments

[bevis the lumberjack]

What the letter said was a nothingburger. And it certainly appears that what the Realtors are doing violates the plain language of the Montana constitution. But when the lawyers start parsing commas who knows what it actually says.

Side note - it would be nice for us sixtysomethings with slowing memory if the LBQs would stop adding letters.

[Longtobefree]

LGBTQ = Let's Go Brandon; Totalitarians, Quit.

[Commenter_XY]

Let's Get Biden To Quit = LGBTQ

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Or let's just keep shaping American progress against the wishes and works of archaic clingers.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's meant to be hard, looking up today's version and using it is a way of broadcasting your loyalty to them.

If they really meant for it to be used they'd sneak in a few vowels, so I don't even bother. I just call them the alphabet soup people.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

LGBTQWERTY is your friend.

[Jacob Grimes]

I'm sure the realtors will respond just like the lawyer disciplinary boards and say "we won't discipline anyone over frivolous complaints like this, trust us."

[RhymesWithRight]

One has to ask, though, if the provision of the Montana Constitution does not itself infringe upon the First Amendment right of freedom of association guaranteed as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Must the state association of realtors allow membership to those whose political ideas are those of Nazism, or can they reject/eject such persons?

[AmosArch]

Once an organization gains a monopoly on a vital life/business function, the expectation (at least whenever it benefited the Left) has been that it should not be able to freely cut off people at will.

Many places have denied individual cake shops freedom of association, and they don't monopolize a vital function anywhere near as much as a state sponsored national Realtor association does.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you extend that standard to a Catholic hospital (funded in large part with public dollars) that conditions medical care on congruence with silly dogma?

[Bored Lawyer]

Since there is no such entity in America, your question is purely hypothetical snark.

If some hospital wanted to do that, they should be entitled to. So long as they announce it to the world, and don't take public funds to do so.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which Catholic hospital does not run on public funds?

[Michael P]

There is plenty of precedent that anti-discrimination statutes are not vulnerable to facial First Amendment claims for freedom of speech or association. There needs to be some improper animus in either drafting (pretty clearly not the case here), to strike down the law as written, or in enforcement (certainly not apparent here), to invalidate a particular application of the law.

[AmosArch]

Funny thing is, its hard to tell whether you are arguing for the Association or the pastor.

[Michael P]

Did I miss some part where the Realtors' association is trying to apply a law? I thought the plaintiff was the only one doing something like that. The association is just claiming that it can arbitrarily enforce a totalitarian membership agreement.

[ReaderY]

The Jaycees case, which upheld a New York anti-discrimination law requiring the Jaycees to admit women, held that state law can be applied to organizations that provide commercial services to their menus. The Jaycees served meals. Realtors have listings, insurance, and other services. This distinguishes them from purely provate asssociations and provides a commercial nexus making anti-discrimination laws applicable.

Just as the Jaycees were forced to admit women, however evil and completely inimical to its mission it may have found association with them to be, exactly so this Realtor’s association can, consistent with the 14th Amendment, be forced to admit conservative Christians, however evil and inimical to its mission it may find them and association with them to be.

[ReaderY]

Sorry, commercial services to their members.

[Commenter_XY]

Was that Roberts vs US, ReaderY? The NY Jaycees case?

[ReaderY]

Roberts v. US Jaycees. That last word is important.

[ReaderY]

This has nothing to do witj political ideas. This is about religion. Religion is as much a protected class as race. One may as well call black people “political” and say the first Amendment permits you to ban them because they are “too political” or something like that. You can’t do that. You can’t do that here either. The law sharply distinguishes religious doctrines from political ideas.

[Longtobefree]

What could possibly be more ethical than discrimination against Christians?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ah, such a victim is the poor, put-upon Christian!

[Bored Lawyer]

Do you think that snark impresses anyone?

The man is being threatened with losing his livelihood for expressing what appears to be standard religious doctrine. And not during his professional role, but in his second (or first) role as a pastor. Whether or not he is a victim, this is absurd and outrageous.

I don't know what profession you are in, but would you like to have your license potentially revoked because, in your private life, you expressed an unpopular opinion?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The man is a bigot.

A cloak of superstition does not improve the ugliness of a gay-basher.

Can you admit that he is a bigot? Or is your soul too dark to permit that simple decency?

Carry on, bigots . . . so far as your betters allow.

[Bored Lawyer]

If "homosexual behavior is sinful" is bigotry, then you have consigned thousands of years of religious belief, and the faith of billions of many different religions, to "bigotry."

Sorry, not playing your game. It's a sin. Period. As a clergy, he is entitled to say so, and not have his livelihood affected. No one said he discriminated as a realtor against gays or anyone else. I doubt he would, either.

[bernard11]

If "homosexual behavior is sinful" is bigotry, then you have consigned thousands of years of religious belief, and the faith of billions of many different religions, to "bigotry."

I think this depends on whether those who thought so believed homosexuality was a choice or an inborn trait.

Still, even if you thought it was a choice, the penalties meted out during those thousands of years were certainly vastly more sinful than the act could ever be.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I doubt he would, either. "

You seem quite bigot-friendly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or, worse, a popular opinion. Remember, those need to be suppressed much more than unpopular opinions, unpopular opinions mostly suppress themselves.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Bored said:
"Do you think that snark impresses anyone?

The man is being threatened with losing his livelihood..."

Not trying to impress anyone. And my comment was in reply to LTBF's comment, rather than a comment on this particular case. I agree with you that this particular person was wronged. But the whole 'Christians in general are victims' trope is ridiculous and tiresome.

[AmosArch]

Throughout history there is a lot more systematic and organized and intense discrimination against Christians than some of the current groups that are fashionable to cry over these days.

Not very many LGDFIKJOEFRJLDJLFDIKJJIFJIOJFOJIEIJRFJFLDFNVLKDMNFIOFLENFOILQENMIOFRNIFODVILOAS672347e19823x10-2324324 equivalents to the Diocletianic Persecutions, Reign of Terror, Mexican anticlerical campaigns etc etc

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Says a half-educated person unfamiliar with the Heretic's Fork, the Judas Cradle, the Pear, and other historical implementation of Christian love, understanding, and decency.

Childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for gullibility, superstition, and ignorance at roughly age 12. By adulthood -- which includes ostensible adulthood, even in desolate backwaters -- it is no excuse.

[Sarcastr0]

Even if I thought your oppression Olympic analysis was right, past oppression does not absolve future oppressiveness.

[bernard11]

Can we exclude persecution of Christians by other Christians from your catalog?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Religious advocates are poor debaters. Perhaps this is because anyone who concludes that 'just because' is a legitimate, persuasive argument is ill-equipped for reasoned debate among competent adults.

[kkoshkin]

So, the offending line is this: "This past week we found printed material in the lunches that we were handing out, that went against our biblical doctrine."

What about that line is necessarily anti-LGBT? Might it be that the church disagrees with handing out literature to kids that touches on sexual issues, irrespective of gay-straight topics?

The real problem, of course, is that "hate speech" always comes to mean speech that doesn't agree with me.or my.fashiomable views.

[ReaderY]

I don’t think that matters. I wouldn’t for example contradict Southerners who claimed that Martin Luther King’s speeches made them feel uncomfortable, threatened, and harassed and hence constituted discrimination against them.

[Longtobefree]

And the glorious part is that now Rev. King is a white supremacist for saying all people should be treated equally.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"The real problem, of course, is that "hate speech" always comes to mean speech that doesn't agree with me.or my.fashiomable views. "

Or, on a conservative-controlled campus or at a conservative-controlled institution, speech that doesn't agree with unfashionable (obsolete, bigoted, nonsense-based) views.

[kkoshkin]

You've made my point for me. Administrators at a conservative-controlled campus (how many are there? a dozen, maybe?) should not be trusted to police "hate speech," any more than administrators at any other campus. That is to say that "hate speech" is a standardless concept subject to predictable abuse.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A dozen? You are comically uninformed. At best.

Get an education. Backwater, nonsense-based schooling does not count.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, why WOULD the food bank be putting such a thing in the lunches? Is it maybe published on edible paper? Somehow relevant to the meal? Do they routinely insert paid advertisements?

The church teamed up with them to distribute food, not propaganda. It really was a violation of trust to put those inserts into the meal.

Just another case of the left infiltrating an organization, and subverting it to advance their goals instead of the organization's goals. I'm sure for the cost of the inserts they could have thrown in a brownie, or upgraded the condiments, or just supplied more meals.

But, no, they spent money donated for feeding the poor distributing unrelated propaganda instead. You SHOULD cut off people who pull stunts like that.

[ReaderY]

Does the pastor have a state law claim against the Realtor’s association for religious discrimination? It is rather blatant.

The collapse of the status/conduct distinction works both ways.

[ReaderY]

Realtors associations aren’t simply private associations. As professional organizations, they provide services to their members such as national listing services. It seems to me that the Jaycees case is easily broad enough to cover application of anti-religious discrimination laws to such associations.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaking of professionalism -- should a rural pharmacy, or the only hospital nearby, be permitted to shirk its professional responsibilities to provide proper, science- and reason-based medical care (providing prescribed medications, offering comprehensive care) based on religious dogma?

[Josh R]

If the Realtor's association would equally kick out someone who expressed anti-LGBT ideas from a secular viewpoint, I don't think the association is discriminating on the basis of religion.

[Cal Cetín]

I thought *only* religious nuts were against the pro-LGBLT political stance.

[ReaderY]

Of course the two case are different. One is a religious doctrine, the other a political doctrine. If the Realtors prohibited members with blackface, the white person with a painted face wouldn’t have a case, but the black person would. No matter how similar their faces might appear, no matter how rediculous it might seem to treat visually indistinguishable faces differently, nonetheless the law would treat the two differently.*

This is exactly the same.

* Maybe after Bostock this is no longer the case. Nonetheless, for religion, the law distinguishes religiously motivated behavior from the same behavior motivated by some other means.

[Krayt]

The complaint opined that, based on this, Huber "cannot separate his religious bias from his entire person and will continue to be inherently biased against the LGBTQIAS+ community in any and all circumstances."

Tbh the idea your religion is a quaint lifestyle choice that can (and should) be ignored in other areas of your life is a conceit to politicians who want to hurt religion in favor of their own secular religion, as a rallying cry.

Unfortunately, that in turn is the exact reason for separation of church and state, the exact secular religion jamming itself down everyone's throat.

Both sides are wrong. Both sides attack the other with the approval of their own conscience using identical forms, just one has "for God", the other "for the people", both promise to make your life better well down the road, and you will go to Hell if you disobey, and are sinful for even questioning them.

The other side is lead by actively and knowingly evil demons, and their masses are hellbound dupes.

[ReaderY]

The Constitution of the United States may be “quaint.” But its guarantee of freedom of religion is bedrock law of the land.

No matter how evil you think the other guy’s religion may be, it not only prevents you from establishing yours, it prevents you from interfering with the other guy’s free exercise of his.

[ReaderY]

Saying that the other religion is led by demons is extremely common in Western religious disoutes spreading back over history. Such rhetoric was well known to the Framers. It’s precisely the sort of claim the First Amendment was intended to prohibit basing government policy on.

[BillyG]

Reread what was posted. Pretty sure "secular religion" refers to atheism or government, not an actual religion.

[Vaclav Matthess]

It seems like this is a simple case of applying the reasoning in Shelley v. Kraemer. Once the Realtors decide to try to enforce their petty speech codes in court, they are in violation of the First Amendment.

[Josh R]

I'm pretty sure the Realtor's enforced the code through their own, private committees.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"But it strikes me as potentially quite dangerous,"

As dangerous as Catholic schools that won't hire a basketball coach who doesn't attend mass or declare a particular flavor of religion?

As dangerous as school clubs that require a statement of faith of those who wish to be members or officers?

As dangerous as schools that require faculty members to sign loyalty oaths?

As dangerous as employers who condition health care on congruence with particular alleged beliefs?

As dangerous as hospitals that withhold services based on dogma?

As dangerous as schools that condition faculty research activities on compliance with dogma?

Carry on, clingers.

Well, so far as the reasoning mainstream enables you to push this 'we can discriminate against anyone we choose, but no one can discriminate against us, because superstition is king' standard in modern America.

[ReaderY]

Sorry, and hate to break this to you, but your efforts to delete the Religion Clauses from the First Amendment failed, and it passed with them in despite your best efforts.

[ReaderY]

And this was exactly the argument made against Catholics in the 19th Century. Everybody knows Protestant people are enlightened and tolerant, Catholics superstititous and bigoted. Why should the enlightened and tolerant people have to tolerare the superstitious, bigoted, intolerant people? Why should such people be permitted to vote or hold office?

Most of what you write on this simply recycles 19th Century anti-Catholic diatribes, pretty much unchanged except for the set of people you direct them against.

[Cyclops]

I wonder if the rationale in Shelly v. Kraemer would be applicable here. The SCOTUS in Shelly found that while racially restrictive covenants restraining the alienation of property were not per se illegal and could be adhered to by private parties, courts, being state actors, could not use their power to enforce such covenants.

Here, the religious beliefs of the pastor are being infringed upon by the NAR's interpretation of its speech codes. Under an extension of Shelly's reasoning, the NAR may find that courts may not enforce whatever "contract" (be it the bylaws, membership contract or whatever) because its terms violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Would the NAR be willing to accept the consequence that its membership contract or bylaws are unenforceable as a result of their discriminatory terms?

[VinniUSMC]

Why is the Missoula Food Bank inserting anything besides food into the food for the children? What the fuck does LGBTBBQ have to do with feeding children?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you similarly object to churches that distribute their ostensibly charitable offerings with heavy-handed servings of attempted indoctrination?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, they shouldn't be inserting those fliers into the food packages, and not just because they promote alphabet soupism. Because they're not food! And all the resources that have been donated to the food bank were donated for the purpose of distributing food.

But this is how the left works: They infiltrate organizations, and then subvert them, diverting their resources to furthering the cause, instead of the organization's own goals. Eventually the organization gets run into the ground, if it doesn't have access to coercively obtained resources.

[ReaderY]

If I were Huber, I would request specific performance on the Realtors’ policy, including,

1. Enjoining members of the Realtors Association from using Realtors Association stationary to send screeds against his religious views such as the ones he received, and,

2. Judicial enforcement of the policy expelling members of the Association who continue to do so.

Pastor Huber should perhaps clarify that Realtors remain to express whatever opinions of Pastor Huber’s views they want, so long as they do so in their personal capacities. But they cannot use Realtors Association stationary for their attacks.

I would suggest pleading in the alternative, adding a deeivative action claimon behalf of the Association frontally challenging the idea that the correspondence he received in any way represents or is an action of the Association. The efforts to harass him are such blatant violations of the anti-harassment policy that they should be treated as misappropriation of Association property for private use, and not as genuine Association actions. He should argue that the efforts to use Association property and facilities to harass him are completely ultra vires and not Association actions at all, and represent a misappropriation of Association property and goodwill for purely private religious vendettas. His dervivative action should also sue the responsible individuals in their private capacities, on the association’s behalf. These imdividuals’ claim that their behavior somehow represents the Association should not simply be accepted at face value.

[alexsaunders790]

They were proactive in sending me listings that aligned with my preferences, saving me countless hours of searching. Their attention to detail was impressive, and they truly listened to my needs, ensuring that every property they presented was a potential fit, you can also read more reviews on https://72-sold.pissedconsumer.com/review.html . When it came time to negotiate and close the deal, 76 Sold Real Estate proved to be exceptional. They skillfully negotiated on my behalf, securing a fantastic price for the property I ultimately purchased. Their professionalism and expertise were evident throughout the entire process, and I couldn't be happier with the outcome. Overall, my experience with 76 Sold Real Estate was nothing short of outstanding.

[ErwinsCat]

As a realtor, I’m guessing Brandon Huber sells houses for or to people whose beliefs or behaviors go against his biblical doctrine. He does so because his desire/need to make a deal exceeds his commitment to his biblical doctrine (he could after all chose to be a baker, not a realtor). So it appears in commerce he is willing to make an exception and compromise his morals but when it comes to being associated with a non-profit that feeds the hungry, we’ll, that’s a bridge too far.