“A jury sided with Greda, saying the plaintiffs failed to prove he discriminated against Farghaly based on her religion.”
But that doesn’t matter. He has offended the new protected class. Our moral superiors will keep putting William Greda, and others like him, on trial until they get the verdict they want.
“NJ landlord must stand trial again over accusations of anti-Muslim bias, judges rule,” by Terrence T. McDonald, NorthJersey.com, May 15, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
An Elizabeth landlord cleared by a jury last year of charges that he refused to rent an apartment to a Muslim woman must stand trial again, an appellate panel ruled on Wednesday.
The three-court panel ordered a new trial because, the judges say in their 36-page ruling, the landlord’s defense attorney improperly questioned the Muslim woman about her religious beliefs during the initial trial.
By asking her about references to “infidels” in the Quran and Islamic politics, the landlord’s lawyer elicited “highly prejudicial” testimony that had no value and impaired the woman’s credibility in front of the jury, the ruling says.
The judges also said the trial judge improperly declared a televised news interview with the landlord, William Greda, inadmissible as evidence.
“The only victim here is Mr. Greda, who was forced to undergo this malicious prosecution by New Jersey,” said Greda’s attorney, Vincent Sanzone. “The people will speak again in a retrial.”
The dispute at the center of the case dates to February 2016 and it is detailed in the appellate judges’ decision.
Fatma Farghaly alleges she visited Greda’s 17-unit apartment building in Elizabeth wearing a khimar, or head covering. Farghaly alleges Greda asked her if she is Muslim and then told her, “I don’t rent to Muslims” before asking her to leave. Farghaly captured a subsequent conversation with Greda on her phone.
Farghaly reported the incident to Elizabeth police, then to the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division followed up with two undercover visits. During the first, a division employee wearing a headscarf asked to see an apartment in Greda’s building and says he told her the apartment was “not good” for her. A second division employee not wearing a headscarf visited later and says Greda did not tell her the apartment was unsuitable.
The Civil Rights Division and the state Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint in October 2016 charging Greda with violating Farghaly’s civil rights. Then-Attorney General Christopher Porrino called Greda’s conduct “blatantly bias-driven.”
During the five-day trial, Greda denied Farghaly’s description of events and testified he believed she may have planned the encounter so they could “extort from him to support ISIS.”
A jury sided with Greda, saying the plaintiffs failed to prove he discriminated against Farghaly based on her religion.
The appellate judges took issue with several moments during the trial involving Sanzone. Sanzone repeatedly violated rules of evidence by asking Farghaly about Islam and at one point “gratuitously” suggested her accountant and doctor are Muslim, the judges say.
“Defense counsel’s questioning about Farghaly’s religious beliefs and the principles in the Quran constituted a clear and direct attack on her credibility,” the ruling says. “Indeed, the questioning sought information that had no substantive, probative value to any factual issue presented in the matter.”…
Honest Ali says
No good person wants to rent to someone who believes that religious genocide, slavery, kidnap and rape, child marriage and pedophilia, are good things.|
It is a public safety issue.
Rufolino says
It now seems it is legally “improper” to enquire about someone’s religious beliefs.
So if someone from a cannibal culture wants to rent a room, it would be illegal to ask if he is a practising cannibal. You will have to “respect his rights” and wait and see.
(On board ship from Africa he didn’t like what was on the menu and instead sent for the passenger list. It don’t look good.)
shortfattexan says
It is legally improper to question Muslims about their religious beliefs. Anybody else (for example, a Christian baker) is fair game.
Because tolerance.
CogitoErgoSum says
Hey, Muslims are told by their god to discriminate based on religion. It’s part of … guess what – their RELIGION. So wouldn’t a ruling for a Muslim in a religious discrimination case be a ruling in support of discrimination based on religion? Islam can drive a sane person mad.
James Lincoln says
I’m no attorney, but this is how I interpret the Fair Housing Act vis-à-vis religion:
The federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 and amendments 1988 prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.
Unfortunately, as long as islam is categorized as a religion, muslims have that protection.
My sympathies with any landlord that has to rent to a muslim – nothing but trouble.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/renters-rights-book/chapter5-2.html
Wellington says
Yeah, James, this is another example where Islam has us by the balls. I think it clearly is a religion but it is an evil religion and the Fair Housing Act, numerous other laws, and even the Constitution itself doesn’t take into account what to do with an evil religion, just as the Constitution did not anticipate the creation of political parties.
Now, I do contend that the Constitution is better suited to deal with an evil religion than virtually any statutory law by way of allowing belief in a malevolent faith while not allowing many actions sanctioned by such a faith. But the absolute key to solving this enormous problem, i.e., the rank parasitism of an evil religion using freedom to eventually destroy freedom and other good things like equality under the law, is to accurately identify it as wicked, rotten, evil, etc. Minus proper characterization of Islam as a highly warped and disgusting belief system, Islam will continue to “magnificently” hide behind its religious veil.
This is a deuce difficult dilemma and I know some embrace the idea that Islam is not a religion at all and that this is the way to treat with it, but I find this route far less efficacious and far less probable than “pursuing” the route of America and other Western societies acknowledging in their legal system that mankind is fully capable of producing evil religions and the #1 Exhibit here of this verity is Islam. Then adjust to this reality and go from there, difficult and multifarious in the steps that must be taken to deal with this tragic reality while keeping free societies free.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Wellington, yes, well-captured and in a nutshell, too. Now we just need someone to put that in legalese.
The bottom line here, to support what you’re saying, is that semantic trickery is not the way to go. Deal with the reality. As inconvenient as it might be, there are no shortcuts around the fact that Islam is a religion (I’m so tired of making this point) and that it is indeed evil. Finding clever ways of “redefining” Islam as not a religion will ultimately come back to haunt us, the reality having been left intact.
End PC says
Even accepting Islam as a religion it is illogical to believe the Constitution provides 1st Amendment protection to a religion that clearly & absolutely calls for its destruction and for the end of the free practice of any religion not Islam. The 1st Amendment should not be viewed as contradicting itself.
PRCS says
Well, unfortunately–or fortunately–as one group or another sees it, the First Amendment says ‘religion’: without distinction.
Those who think Islam is NOT a religion are as wrong as those who think it’s ONLY a religion.
Yes, it’s a religion, but more than that…it’s a theocracy which–like all theocracies–is utterly incompatible with our secular system of government.
CAIR, which IS lawyered up, reports this situation from their point of view:
“CAIR-NJ Applauds Tossing of Court Case That Put Islam on Trial”
https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-nj-applauds-tossing-of-court-case-that-put-islam-on-trial/
‘Good’ Muslims definitely don’t want Islam to be put on trial, of course.
gravenimage says
The Constitution offer protection to worship and to aspects of the creed that are not harmful to others, such as Wudu.
But the Constitution *does not* protect Muslims raping or slaughtering people in the name of their vicious faith, as some appear to believe.
LB says
I’m not too familiar with the American Constitution, but isn’t there a law where you can’t be judged for the same crime twice? 5th amendment speaks about that, I think. So why is the landlord getting put on trial for the exact same crime he was previously acquitted of? Or is this another case where leftists “bend” the law to suit their agenda? I bet CAIR is behind this.
mortimer says
Muslims who engage in this sort of lawsuit are proving again why it is risky to make a contract with someone who hates KAFIRS.
Islam does, in fact, have a discriminatory teaching of hatred directed from Muslims towards the dirty KUFAAR (disbelievers) ‘for the sake of Allah’. Muslims are actually required to HATE kafirs or they will not be admitted to Islamic paradise.
While many Muslims do not practice AL WALAA WAL BARAA (Islamic apartheid and discrimination), there are many who do and it is often impossible to see a outer difference between the highly pious Muslims and the more moderate, non-practicing Muslims.
It is reasonable to expect to have trouble from about half of Muslim tenants. Real estate agents would know the actual percentages.
gravenimage says
New Jersey landlord, acquitted last year of anti-Muslim bias, must stand trial again
………………..
So the accuser hating Infidels like the landlord somehow isn’t an issue? Why would *anyone* want to rent to someone who openly expressed hatred of them?
Wellington says
Seconded, gravenimage.
keith O says
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was led to understand that attacking a witnesses credibility is how the US law system works! And that “double jeopardy” laws prevent retrial on the same charges.
If this is so, then he shouldn’t be going back to defend his rights.
Apathy Rules the World says
What happened to double-jeopardy?
owensgate says
“I’ll take ‘Stealth Jihad’ for $2000, Alex…”
somehistory says
So, moslims can express their hatred and wish to murder non moslims, but the infidels must still rent to moslims…those who wish to kill the infidel. And if the moslim doesn’t “win” in court due to the jury using their brains and thinking ability, the infidel will be tried again and again…on the same charges…till the moslim “wins” their case and is given the apartment to rent…where he/she can hate the landlord all he/she wishes without prosecution.
One is prosecuted for “bias,” but the moslim is given the freedom to ‘hate” and openly say they hate and wish to murder the infidel…because their book of hate cannot be used as “evidence” in court.
This landlord should appeal to the Supreme Court if he loses in this farce of “due process” and “rule of Law.”
End PC says
Would Love for SCOTUS to rule on the issue that the 1st Amendment does not protect a religion that calls for the removal of itself, and the Constitution as a whole.
somehistory says
For some cowardly reason, the Court doesn’t like to make decisions on religious matters. Such as when they made only a partial ruling in the case of the cake maker in Colorado. If the Court had done as they should have done, the Phillips guy wouldn’t still be fighting the same people on the same issue in lower courts.
If this landlord takes his case…if he loses at trial…to the Supreme Court, they may choose not to hear him. The way things are now, moslims can have all of the biases, all of the hate, the threats, their book that encourages rape and murder, but the rest of the population has no rights at all if opposing islam and moslim’s goals.
The freedom to speak, to have opinions opposed to islam, ideas about ‘right and wrong,’ are all being attacked.
One of the worst aspects is that the Truth about islam is being squashed by law enforcement and the Courts. Wondering if the moslim judge c. christi put on the bench in N.J. had anything to do with this case.
NJ. was also where the moslim was on trial for rape and the judge in his case said he was not wrong because it was his “culture.” That case was overturned, but justice seems in short supply in N.J…the innocent have to really fight for it.
Anjuli Pandavar says
“Defense counsel’s questioning about Farghaly’s religious beliefs and the principles in the Quran constituted a clear and direct attack on her credibility,” the ruling says.
—
Really? There is something about adherence to Islam that undermines one’s credibility? Well, I never. This looks like a perfect own goal to me. I hope that Greda’s lawyers examine this angle. Any thoughts, Frank?
notnolib says
Not a landlord, but an employer. We don’t hire muslims either. It’s not islamphobia, but a safety issue. Sometimes (not always) they become splodey-dopes. It’s just not worth the risk to our safety.
End PC says
The core problem is that Islam, being labeled a religion, is given 1st Amendment protection as such. But it is illogical to believe our Constitution protects an ideology dedicated to its destruction, as if the 1st Amendment implies it’s allowable to have itself done away with by an outside belief system. It’s clearly absurd. This issue should somehow be brought up to the SCOTUS.
Rick Phillips for U.S. House of Representatives is right about this. Hope he wins.
James Lincoln says
End PC,
You are correct.
Rick Phillips, a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, is already receiving the predictable flack from CAIR.
Not a particularly polished speaker, but he does know the basics about islam.
https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-calls-on-iowa-national-gop-to-repudiate-candidates-call-to-eliminate-islam-from-u-s/
Giacomo Latta says
If I were a landlord, Christian or otherwise, I would argue that Islam discriminates against me (by obligating its followers to slit my throat) so I have every right to defend my throat by refusing to allow it on my property.
jbeckeratheist says
Doesn’t double jeopardy come into this at all?
AnnChristine says
Does Mankind need this hassle with Islam who are determined to get the better of The Christians they come into contact with?——— All Christian societies need new Rules and Laws to deal with any backlash from these Medieval Obnoxious beings!
PRCS says
The flaws in your post:
1.Islam is determined to ‘get the better of’ ALL other religions. Not just Christianity.
2.If you’re referring to the U.S. as a Christian society: we’re not.
But we’re definitely NOT an Islamic society.
Yet.