Laserfiche WebLink
equal opportunity. Equal education and employment <br /> opportunities and equal access to and use of public <br /> accommodations and equal opportunity for acquisition of real <br /> property are'hereby declared to be civil rights. <br /> (b)The practice of denying these rights to properly qualified <br /> persons by reason of the race,religion, color, sex, disability, <br /> national origin, or ancestry of such person is contrary to the <br /> principles of freedom and equality of opportunity and is a <br /> burden to the objectives of the public policy of this state and <br /> shall be considered as discriminatory practices. The promotion <br /> of a ual opportunity without regard to race, religion,color,sex, <br /> disability,national origin, or ancestry through reasonable <br /> methods is the purpose of this chapter. <br /> (c)It is also the public policy of this state to protect <br /> employers, labor organizations, employment agencies,property <br /> owners, real estate brokers,builders, and lending institutions <br /> from unfounded charges of discrimination. <br /> (d) It is hereby declared to be contrary to the public policy of <br /> the state and an unlawful practice for any person, for profit,to <br /> induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any <br /> dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective <br /> entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a <br /> particular race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin, or <br /> ancestry. <br /> (f) This chapter shall be construed broadly to effectuate its <br /> Propose. <br /> (emphasis added). <br /> As noted above, according to the Indiana Supreme Court, "[a]n impermissible <br /> conflict with state law will be found if[an) Ordinance seeks to prohibit that which a <br /> statute expressly permits. . . . (However,llocal oyg ernments may_impose additional, <br /> reasonable regulations and supplement burdens imposed by non:Renal state law,provided <br /> the additional burdens are log_icaliy consistent with the statutoKy purpose."Indiana <br /> Department of Natural Resources v. Newton County, 802 NE.2d 430(Ind. <br /> 2004)(emphasis added); see also, Yater v. Hancock Co. Planning, 614 N.E.2d 568 (Ind, <br /> Ct. App. 1993)(zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan regulating land use because of <br /> traffic safety considerations goes beyond,but is consistent,rather than in conflict, with <br /> state statute concerning regulation of traffic on highways). <br /> 9 <br />