In Virginia, a long‑time Christian realtor named Wilson Fauber became embroiled in controversy after political opponents unearthed a years‑old social media post in which he shared a Biblical passage. Fauber had reposted a verse from Leviticus (Leviticus 20:13) attributed to Franklin Graham, which was later used to oppose his city council campaign in Staunton. The same content was also forwarded to his professional body, the National Association of Realtors (NAR), triggering disciplinary action.
Both the NAR and the Virginia Association of Realtors (VAR) ruled against Fauber under their ethics policy for “hate speech,” citing his post—even though it dated back nearly a decade and was unrelated to real estate business activity. The ethics panel determined that the post violated a standard against harassing or hateful speech based on protected categories, including religion and sexual orientation.
Fauber, a 44‑year industry veteran and ordained minister, strongly objected. His legal team at the Founding Freedoms Law Center described his punishment as an infringement on faith and free expression—especially given that his posts occurred on his personal accounts long before the code was even enacted. They noted that imposing such sanctions for personal religious expression, regardless of professional context, could chill speech among millions of Christian realtors.
Responding to the backlash, both the national and state realtor associations revised their ethics rules. The updated policy now restricts enforcement to speech occurring during real estate business activities—exempting personal religious expression outside of professional contexts. Around the same time, Fauber’s legal team announced that the U.S. Department of Justice had formally opened an investigation into both NAR and VAR. The DOJ is assessing whether their actions violated civil rights or free‑speech protections. The DOJ’s involvement signals this matter isn’t just an internal franchising issue, but a potentially broader legal precedent concerning how far private professional bodies may extend control over members’ personal beliefs. The outcome could shape limits on professional speech regulation moving forward.
Discussion about this post