
The Michigan town where only Christians are allowed to buy houses - awwstn
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/09/christians-only-town-bay-view-michigan
======
eadmund
Calling it a 'Michigan town' is begging the question: is it a town or is it a
private institution?

~~~
wahern
That question _should_ be irrelevant. The issue here is whether the
restrictive covenants in the property deeds are enforceable.

Background: Racial covenants aren't unconstitutional, per se. In Shelley v.
Kraemer (1948)[1] SCOTUS simply declared them unenforceable, reasoning that
the courts, as organs of the state, couldn't use their powers to achieve the
same ends that other state entities were prohibited from doing. In other
words, people are free to have contracts and deeds with whatever conditions
they want; you just don't get the benefit of a court _enforcing_ the terms.

The exact same logic should apply to covenants regarding religion--
specifically, covenants discriminating _among_ religious denominations. (A
covenant that limited land to being used by a religious organization of any
kind is probably fine.) The only reason I can see for why the status of the
township matters is because it's probably the township who would have,
historically, asked a court to enforce the covenant. But based on the logic of
precedent it wouldn't matter whether the township can legally seek an
injunction if the court itself would be prohibited from issuing such an
injunction.

Probably the defendant (township?) has spun some ridiculous theory for why
Shelley doesn't apply, and to cover their bases the plaintiffs are forced to
argue that even _if_ Shelley doesn't apply, then for [reasons] the township
would be barred from enforcing the covenant. But such covenants are usually
enforceable by neighbors, as well, so if Shelley doesn't apply and courts are
permitted to enforce such religious covenants then the plaintiffs will have
effectively lost, regardless of whether the township can legally seek
enforcement

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer)

~~~
wahern
I should have read the complaint, first ;)

This case doesn't involve restrict covenants. The land isn't owned outright by
the township/association, but only leased to residents. From footnote 2 on
page 13,

    
    
      Cottage owners lease the land on which their homes sit from
      Bay View; in other words, the association owns the real
      property and private individuals own the structures.
    

So that's why this case isn't a slam dunk.

~~~
wahern
EDIT: The land isn't owned outright by the _residents_ , but only leased to
them.

