The Nevada legislature is currently considering a bill, SB 201, that would restrict, with certain exceptions, an association or unit’s owner who rents or leases his or her unit from prohibiting a unit’s owner or occupant of a unit from engaging in the "display of religious items". The bill defines "display of religious items" as “an item or combination of items: (1) Made of wood, metal, glass, plastic, cloth, fabric or paper; and (2) Displayed or affixed on any entry door or doorframe of a unit because of sincerely held religious beliefs". At the Senate Committee on Judiciary the bill was amended to, among other things, expand its application to include apartments.
The reference to doorframes caused me to think of mezuzot. A mezuzah consists of a case containing a small piece of parchment inscribed by hand with the first two sections of the Shema. The fixing of mezuzah to a doorframe is governed by a number of specific rules, including a requirement that it be visible (or there be a symbol indicating the presence of the mezuzah).
As noted, an item must be displayed "because of sincerely held religious beliefs". Mezuzot and doorposts should meet this requirement because are specifically mentioned in Deuteronomy 6:9 (“וּכְתַבְתָּ֛ם עַל־מְזֻז֥וֹת בֵּיתֶ֖ךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶֽיךָ׃ {ס} inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates”). In obedience of this divine command, Jews affix mezuzot to every doorway in their homes (other than bathrooms and small closets).
What about religious symbols of other faiths? The bill does not specifically refer to any particular faith or symbols (including a mezuzah). Crosses or crucifixes are generally recognized as Christian symbols and nothing in the bill excludes either. However, they do raise a question of what is meant by "sincerely held religious beliefs". Does this simply require that the owner or occupant sincerely hold a belief in Christianity or does it require that the owner or occupant specifically believe that the display is religiously mandated? If the latter requirement is imposed, then it may be difficult for an owner or occupant to meet it, for I know of no Christian canon similar to Deuteronomy 6:9 that mandates a display of a cross or crucifix on a door or doorframe (if any reader is aware of such a requirement, please let me know). Thus, a Christian may choose to affix a cross to his or her doorway because they are a sincere believer, but they may not believe that they are required by their religion to do so.
I therefore find the requirement of a "sincerely held religious belief" to be problematical because it invites owners associations, landlords, and ultimately the courts to delve into religious law and belief. In addition, the requirement could invite challenges to the sincerity of an owner's belief.
The bill also excludes, among other things, a display that "promotes discrimination or discriminatory belief". As a content-based restriction on speech, this exclusion is highly problematical from a First Amendment perspective.
While SB 201 is well-intentioned, it does serve to illustrate how difficult it is to draft legislation that affects religious practices without entangling the government in questions of religious belief.
