Refusal to sell to polygamists

[Jim Maule]

Eugene Volokh <VOLOKH at LAW.UCLA.EDU> writes

>     "The court believes that Congress did not intend for the FHA to
> require citizen sellers of real estate to deal with lawbreakers, or
> perceived lawbreakers, even if the lawbreaking activity is based on a
> genuine religious belief.  Common sense and practicality require such
> a result.  Surely in its effort to provide fair housing to all
> Americans, Congress did not intend to aid and abet criminal behavior."

Does it matter that the nature of a lease requires continued
interaction between the landlord and the tenants (including tenant
behavior on the landlord's property) whereas a sale involves a
departure of the seller from the scene (aside from seller financing)?
In other words, isn't it easier to sympathize with Mrs. Smith (I
think that is her name) than with the Evanses?

If polygamy is illegal (I assume it is, but perhaps some state has
changed its laws unbeknownst to me), then isn't it odd that someone
has to disclose their illegal behavior in order to bring suit under a
federal statute?

Isn't it strange that both sides will cite "religion" as the basis
for their positions in the case? This seems to be a situation in
which the court ought to step back and leave the matter to a jury of
divines -- otherwise the court would have to decide whether polygamy
ior monogamy is the (more) favored position? Or is it simply a matter
of requiring sellers to set their religious beliefs aside in all
events? What if a polygamist refused to sell to a monogamist (on
religious grounds)?


Jim Maule
Professor of Law
Villanova University School of Law
Villanova, PA 19085
maule at law.vill.edu
http://www.cilp.org/~maule
(610) 519 - 7135