I'm with you, Amy. Move (what a headache it is to sue anyway).

I would hope for the sake of the integrity of their judicial system that this garbage gets thrown out. Can you imagine the damaging legal precedence will create with their Muslim population? And they are Jewish! Talk about the law of unintended consequences? Think people!

My question which came first the lawsuit or the offer to pay for an override switch. If they offered to pay for a switch first - I would be pleased, they did try and come to a comprise first. But if the lawsuit came first I am annoyed.

Now looking at the article, the couple did buy the property on a provision that no electronic sensor would be installed. Years later they where installed which is a breaking of the contract/understanding. But they should not SUE under that reason of human rights or discrimination but on that they broke a deal. I sure hope they had it under contract? Probably did not.

Have the also checked under the Jewish law. What does a Rabbi say about automatic lights. Just looked a little right now.
Actually by having a circuit completed aka press a button or flip a switch you are working thus breaking th sabbath. So even by just walking in front of the motion sensor the complete the circuit which is work aka forbidden.

No problem Amy, As I understand the argument John, light is considered to be fire(the fact that its not is not important to the religious) and if they by their motion cause the light to come on they are creating fire ie working on the sabbath.

As I understand orthedoxy though pushing a switch to overide the light from turning on would also be considered working.

If I were the management comapny I would take a look at the energy consumption of this couple on the 'sabbath' and see if it matches exactly the levels for when they are not occupying it.

After all by opening a fridge or a microwave they turn on a light, by using an oven or a heater they are creating fire.

Infact should this couple pass on street intersection with traffic and pedestrian lights on the way to temple are their movments not affecting the automated sensors in those lights?

Easy, sell and then go back to Israel where all think like them

"Now looking at the article, the couple did buy the property on a provision that no electronic sensor would be installed."

Is says, explicitly, that no such thing will be installed in the contract?

Light isn't some vain, selfish thing we use. It's important for people to be able to see.

Having working lights in common spaces of a building is a reasonable expectation to have for both safety and convenience.

If the management company installed this override switch and prevented the light from working at night and then someone was attacked while walking through the dark building to reach their own condo, or fell and hurt themselves, that seems like a really bad thing. Not to mention a lawsuit that is actually worth pursuing.

Imposing your religious beliefs on a group of people such that the result could be personal injury, in addition to a huge pain the fucking ass, seems really un-holy to me. Kinda makes it sound like god wants us to be a bunch of whiny ninnies without a care for other peoples' safety.

"Would you put that in a contract for an entire building? And for how long? In perpetuity? Until they die? Until their children's children die?"

Right. The mere idea is absurd.

It seemed like John Paulson thought that since they bought the place when there was no motion-sensor light installed they could "reasonably assume" nothing like this would be installed in the future.

I disagree that this is a reasonable assumption, unless it is explicitly agreed upon (which would still be an absurd thing, but people can agree to what they want. If the whole building said "sure" then do it up Orthodox style.). But it's a totally asinine expectation to think the entire building should walk around in the dark because god forbid these idiots from using electricity. Give them a ladder and tell them to go out the window.

The self-importance of religious zealots really pisses me off.

In my cousin's wedding invite she put "For our gift please donate money so we can go on a mission to Brazil for our honeymoon". Like, the fact it's for their church somehow makes their demand for cash less rude and obnoxious?

I thought it was fairly common for Orthodox families to employ at "Sabbath Goy" to do tasks that they themselves were religiously prohibited from doing. Isn't the motion sensor simply a robotic Sabbath Goy?...or a golem, if you will?

I try to not gratuitiously insult other people's rituals, but I've got to say that this whole Sabbeth thing, as implemented in the modern world, is a big joke. When we bought the appliances for our new house, and I read through the manuals, I was amused to find that the oven has a "Sabbeth mode" that, by various combinations of button pushes, permits most of the normal cooking operations -- but it blanks out the display and disables the in-the-oven light. So you can pretend to be observent while going about your normal business. What hypocrisy.

If the branches of Judiasm and Christianity are going to maintain this Sabbeth ritual, they need to go look at a calendar, see what year it is, and then spend some serious time thinking about the original purpose of the ritual and what it really means in the modern world. As implemented today, it's just mindless ticket-punching.

I agree that it is absurd. Actually I even lke the idea of giving them a ladder to climb out the window!

The one thing that popped into my mind was from the the book "Shakedown" bu Ezra Levant. The books is about the abuses of "Human Rights Commissions" in Canada. One case that went before them was of a Muslim family that moved into a townhouse complex. The townhouse complex had bylaws that said "No Satillite Dishes". This family wanted to get some Islamic Channels which they could get from a service but used a HUGE satillite dish which was installed into the common area of the townhouse complex.

In the end the family was told to take it down as it was against the rules. So they used the Human Rights Commisson to block the removal. It took a few YEARS to make its way thru the kangaroo courts (I mean it Kangaroo Court). I forget what happens in the end if the dish was taken down. Know I would support the family if that it was NOT against the rules I would support them to a degree. BUT when its against the rules set by the townhouse complex - tough shit.

As to the Orthodox Jews. If they had it UNDER contract I would support them as it is a contract and viable to sue and fight for. But to use other corrupt laws to FORCE people to ignore other laws is wrong.

As to how long it depends on the CONTRACT if there is ONE. It is up to the real estate or what ever company to be one the ball that the company does not get caught with a contract that is not to their benifit.

'The lessees also allege in the claim that when they purchased their flat in the spring of 2003 it was on the basis of assurances from selling agents that that movement sensors would not be installed at Embassy Court.'

"The salesman said" doesn't get you anywhere if it's not written into the sales contract.

Why couldn't the override switch turn the lights on rather than off? The lights could stay on from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. If that had been suggested before the lawsuit, this may have been able to be settled amicably and the additional electricity would be a lot cheaper than the lawyer's bills.

I wonder if the company representatives who decided to install the automatic light switch were aware of the agreement (be it in writing or not) not to do so. I suspect not.

It seems like the simplest solution is for the family to break their lease and leave. Presumably there is some reason they can't do that.

It surprises me that the company feels so strongly about having an automatic light switch that it is willing to spend all kinds of money to fight for it in court. Surely the electricity saved costs less than the court costs and lawyer fees will. It sounds like there's more to it than that.

Quite frankly I could care less how people want to waste their lives or do in the privacy of their homes, but once they expect me to change my life to conform to their veiws of what god wants, well then, they better be able to prove that their god exists

And so if they win, are they going to be able to sue he managers of the apartment if they get mugged because they are in a poorly lighted space? And considering they just advertised to every thug in the country where they live.. I would say they have a real good chance of being met at the door by someone who needs their money more than they do..

Ok question: do people practicing the Sabbath go in complete darkness during that time?

Do you go to bed at like 6:00 in the winter? I'm not making fun of it, I really want to know.

No, they buy special shabbos ovens that don't turn themselves off automatically, and they turn them on before sundown Friday. The elevators in hotels that cater to the orthodox are put in "shabbos" mode which stops at every floor continuously from sundown Friday through sundown Saturday. And they leave whatever lights they need on the entire time.

There's also the whole "Shabbos Goy" thing. So all these people really need to do is plan their time out with a non orthodox neighbor. Since the light turned on for the neighbor, then they aren't violating the rules.

Thanks, Brian.

Nothing contradictory.

This sounds like the kind of thing that could easily be gotten around with the help of a canny rabbi. There are endless exceptions to Jewish law - Ambulance drivers can drive on the Sabbath, doctors can operate on emergency cases, etc. The overriding rule is if an action is done to save or otherwise protect a life, it's permissible. That doesn't apply in this case, but still.

Jews will buy ovens that run on timers so they're technically setting the "fire" to start itself the day before. This strikes me as a similar automatic action.

This seems much more like people Trying To Make A Point. Yes, they offered to install a bypass switch, but it seems more like they want people to change their actions to appease theirs, when I'm sure any number of perfectly acceptable Talmudic explanations could cover this.

"The overriding rule is if an action is done to save or otherwise protect a life, it's permissible. That doesn't apply in this case, but still."

I would have to respectfully disagree Vinnie. Having lights on during the nighttime when people are walking around a semi-public building is definitely a safety issue! This is a condo complex. People are walking in and out at any time of night, possibly drunk or carrying lots of heavy bags.

There is a reason we have lights and falling and getting seriously hurt because you cannot see. Should people carry flashlights so as to not disturb their neighbors?

That their belief sounds silly to outsiders is irrelevant. What's important is what actions each side says it will take and under what circumstances. The choice for building management seems to be this: leave the lights on all night, once a week, or engage in costly litigation. What would possibly bring them to choose the second option?

David--you can't employ a Gentile neighbor and you can't directly ask for a service. You have to sort of hint or get lucky and have a neighbor who offers. Elvis Presley did this service for elderly Jewish neighbors, when he was growing up in Memphis, which I think is a charming story.

"That their belief sounds silly to outsiders is irrelevant. What's important is what actions each side says it will take and under what circumstances. The choice for building management seems to be this: leave the lights on all night, once a week, or engage in costly litigation. What would possibly bring them to choose the second option?"

Government regulation? There are lots of people who'd like to see building owners punished for this sort of things. Leaving the lights on is wasting energy! OK, it may seem silly, but here's my points: (1) These people are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others; note that they are suing their own neighbors over this. (2) They have knowingly and intentionally created a situation where there is no course of action open to the building management that doesn't contain moral hazard. I'll admit to not being an expert of Judiasm, but I assume that he basic values of the religion prohibit this sort of behavior.

(1) These people are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others; note that they are suing their own neighbors over this.

It's an accident that the building managers are also their neighbors. People impose their religious beliefs on each other all the time, sometimes even legitimately. Not to imply that I endorse suing them; being not orthodox jewish I view the situation from the p.o.v. of the neighbors.

(2) They have knowingly and intentionally created a situation where there is no course of action open to the building management that doesn't contain moral hazard.

Where's the moral hazard in letting the family pay for light switches that fit their belief system?

From a social point of view I'm appalled by the building management's response. If my neighbor comes to me and says "Look, Pseudonym, your motion-sensor driveway light stresses me out," I do what I can to ameliorate the situation, even though I'm well within my rights. For the same reason I don't serve steaks to my militant vegetarian friends or boca brand tofu products to my militant carnivore friends. It's politeness.

It's a simple fact of life that neighbors impose on each other. We'd all be better off if we'd be liberal in what we tolerate and conservative in how we behave.

But one tenant gets to dictate to all the other tenants that they must abide by their religion? I think not. They aren't requesting common courtesy; they are displaying arrogant, self-entitled rudeness. Oy vey!

As a director of the condos I live in, I can see the management's point of view.

Right now we have an issue with a couple that just purchased a unit. Apparently the real estate agent told them that common area right next to the unit was actually their's as well as the guest parking space in front that common area (which was painted with the word "Visitor" albeit a bit faded). I don't believe that they have a claim against the association but may very well against the agent or possible the former unit owner.

We have to be careful in doing things as to what others will think. One owner asked to replace their door with a more thermal one which looked very much like the other doors but not exactly - close enough if you showed me a picture of door I could not tell which it was. The directors decieded that was fine. Then a few other owners want to change their doors that are even more different and this back a huge uproar.

If they make a conession to one, then others will expect similar. Who knows what the next one is. Maybe a vegan thinks that meat eating is morally wrong so any sent of meat including cooking needs to be confined to the unit. (I rented a room in collage from a vegan and she had that rule.)

Gretchen-

The issue is not that they don't want lights on at all; other people can turn the lights on and off as they see fit. They don't want the lights to turn on as a result of their actions, which in this case would be merely opening their door and moving through the hallway. According to their interpretation of the religious dictates, that means they turned on the light, which is not permitted for them. It's a VERY strict interpretation of that law, one that other Jews might be able to justify or forgive - since their hand did not touch the switch, they didn't strike the fire. As I said, I'm sure a Rabbi could see the scenario as something out of their hands (literally).

If a person needed help, and they had to turn a light on to see the person, or to get to them, turning the light on would be permissible. Just to go out to take a walk would not.

Pseudo, what I was getting at with my previous post was: I'm wiling to bet that the reason the building has motion-activated lights is because either a city ordinance, or its contract with the electric utility, requires it. Now, in order to accommodate this one resident, it appears that they will have to defeat the motion detectors at least part of the time, which means that there are going to be fines that all of the residents will be responsible for.

Could someone please tell me exactly how these people are "imposing their will" on their neighbors?

Nobody is being forced to live in darkness - a conclusion several people jumped to.

It's likely that the motion sensors replaced some other sort of timer for public-area lighting.

In many European countries, lights in common hallways automatically shut off. You press a button to light them - and then you have a few minutes to pass through the area before they automatically shut off.

This would give the energy savings without the problem of the automatic sensor.

There is a lot of mean-spiritedness in not working with these people to reach a solution.

I lived in London when I was 24 (I am 41 now) in a lovely suburb called Golders Green. There were many Jewish and Greek orthodox people living there. One morning, my husband (then boyfriend) and I were on our way to the train station when a Jewish man (long beard, black robes) ran up and asked my husband for help in their synagogue. He told me I would not be allowed to come.

My husband re-emerged about five minutes later and told me that he had been asked to go in to a room and flick a switch. The heating had been turned on, it was a small room where the women and children were allowed to gather, and they were nearly ill with the heat, but nobody could flick a switch for whatever religious reason.

Any human being who is so daft that they will allow their children to suffer rather than flick a switch should definitely not have their nonsense tolerated or humoured.