In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


I don't agree that in general, people don't have alternatives in housing.
I
also don't think that the public is generally dissatisfied with the
covenants and restrictions associated with property in common interest
development.

Of course you don't. We will have to agree to disagree. I will add,
however, that we could be having the *exact* same argument, with the
*exact* same positions 50 years ago regarding race restrictions.

The difference between covenants based on race and those based on conduct is
that race can not be changed. One can however agree not to park on the lawn
regardless of race. I think it is demeaning to equate rules based on
conduct with discrimination based on unchangeable characteristics such as
race, gender, physical status, national origin, or sexual orientation.


Tomato tomahto. That's a distinction without a difference.

I see you've left out religion, which of course can be changed. While
the malleability of sexual orientation is still an open question to some,
one can certainly change one's sexual behavior. Should I conclude then that
you have no problem with covenants that preclude certain religious and
sexual practices? Should I conclude that you would be OK with a covenant
that ruled out wearing a head covering or carrying a Bible? Should I
conclude that you would be OK with a covenant that excluded interracial
couples? That excluded unmarried couples living together?

This behavior thing is a red herring.


billo