Florida condo complex refuses to sell to unmarried gay or heterosexual couples

[RKP5637]

I just don't see how this can be legal. Refusing to sell to two people regardless of sex/orientation!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113730570

The upscale condo complex, Casa Di Amici, now limits all sales of units to singles or married couples. Despite outrage that the new restrictions are discriminatory, a condo association lawyer argues the new guidelines are legal.

A Florida condominium association won’t let unmarried couples purchase a home — after it released new restrictions this summer that barred couples “living in sin” from owning any property at the upscale complex.

[Bay Boy]

1. Living in sin? How very 90s...

...1890s that is.

[RKP5637]

3. It's really really bizarre, quite strange. I would not move in that creepy place for

anything. I would also think owners wanting to sell their unit would have quite a gripe too. It's absurd nonsense. And I do question the legality of it all ...

[Sheldon Cooper]

2. So, a married gay couple could buy?

[RKP5637]

4. Their cover for that is that gay marriage is not legal in Florida, hence not valid. n/t

[one_voice]

5. I hope no one...

buys a unit and every person on the condo association has to file for bankruptcy and it's bought by an unmarried hetro couple & an unmarried gay couple.

[RKP5637]

6. Yep, what goes around comes around. Justice will be served, one way or another. n/t

[Egnever]

7. Just WTF

is gay marriage even legal in florifukistan?

[RKP5637]

8. Nope! It's a really really weird rule, in essence makes no sense. Quite strange. This

means even two friends/roommates can't buy a condo there. To me, it screams discrimination all the way to the courts.

[Egnever]

10. That is kind of what I suspected

aren't they cute.

[missingthebigdog]

9. It doesn't seem to ban anyone from living there....

The restriction is on sales to unmarried couples. They couldn't refuse to sell to an individual who happens to be part of an unmarried couple.
Still sucks, but the workaround ( if you would even want to live there) would be to hold the title in one name, and have some type of private contract that governs in the event of a breakup or death.

[RKP5637]

11. To me, I see absolutely nothing compelling enough about the place for anyone to

want to live there ... to go through all of that. I, resent a place of accommodation moralizing my relationship, straight, LGBT or single. I looked at some of the units online, typical condo fare, nothing special IMO.

[Bay Boy]

12. My Mom was a landlady starting in the 1960s...

..and she wouldn't rent to couples 'living in sin' in the 60s. But she evolved; and quite frankly had to rent to unmarried couples or else would have had no prospects to rent to by maybe the late 70s or early 80s.

[RKP5637]

13. I was really stunned when I came across this. I recall similar from decades ago,

outfits trying to moralize. Also, what is striking about this is they apply it to everyone inferring two non-sexual roommates are living in sin.

I've bought and sold a lot of properties in my time, and I've never seen wording such as this in an HOA agreement. To me, it reeks of discrimination.

Also, this condo-cult is excluding itself from a growing market of people that just live together for numerous reasons, and that, does not mean, living in sin as per their inane definition.

Also, I know many straight 'normal' married people, as per their definition, that would NEVER live in a place like this as this type of intent certainly is indicative of a control-freak HOA and a place IMO many "normal" people, as per their definition, will likely avoid. Also, for current owners, there is a good chance the value of their holdings will be lowered because of this rule and IMO grounds for a lawsuit against the HOA.