Florida condo reverses policy after uproar from gay-rights activists

[RKP5637]

Excellent! Although, I find the bit about keeping corps. out ridiculous ... if that were the case, why did they have 'living in sin' in the initial policy. Also, as I understand it, it is run or possibly owned by a conservative christian outfit.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/aug/23/florida-condo-reverses-policy-after-uproar-gay-rig/

VENICE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida condominium association is reversing a policy that allowed only singles and husband-and-wife couples to buy or lease units in the complex after an uproar from gay-rights activists.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports the Casa Di amici Condominium Association Inc. in Venice held a special meeting Thursday.

The association had approved a policy on July 17 that barred unmarried couples from the complex. Some considered the policy discriminatory against gay couples, who cannot legally marry in Florida.

Board member Bill Moniz said at the meeting Thursday the police was meant to keep corporations from buying multiple units in the neighborhood, not discriminate.

The revised policy replaces all references to husband-and-wife to two human beings.

Condominium owners will vote on the amendments within 45 days.

[Mojo Electro]

1. They still got their way.

They let gay folks know they're not wanted, I can't see a lot of gay couples moving in there.

Who would want to anyway, if they had any choice?

[RKP5637]

2. As a poster in another thread on this said, imagine what fun people your neighbors would be. n/t

[DirkGently]

3. "Living in sin" is still illegal in Florida for everyone.

Chapter 798
ADULTERY; COHABITATION
View Entire Chapter
798.01 Living in open adultery.—Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.
History.—s. 1, ch. 1986, 1874; RS 2595; GS 3518; RGS 5406; CGL 7549; s. 772, ch. 71-136.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0798/Sections/0798.01.html

Worth remembering, maybe, that non-married couples are still forbidden to live together as a couple in five states. So the discrimination in question, if any, might be on the basis of marital status, period, not straight vs. gay marriages.

Also think I believe the attorneys saying they were trying to keep out corporations. If they were trying to make some kind of derogatory comment on gay couples, you'd think they'd want it known. One of them relates an anecdote where he screwed up condo restrictions in a way that required everyone to own a 45-lb dog.

Happens. Glad it's sorted though.

[gopiscrap]

4. Fucking asshats ought to be sued