Be careful that you don’t inadvertently create a legal doctrine that requires passenger airlines to transport livestock because the owner claims it’s a “service animal”. (Which has happened.)

Uh no.

1) The regulations by the FHA in this area intrude upon the rights of people to make contracts with each other.
2) See #1.
3) FHA regulations on “comfort pets” should not exist.

Basically your premise is “the law exists, all bow down to the law.”

Sorry, but I don’t buy into that.

Basically we differ in that you believe the FHA law which allows people to trample on the rights of others is just. I do not believe that.

This begs the question of the unjustness of the FHA. I think you are conflating several different arguments here:

(1) FHA violated parties’ agreement as to “no pets”, so it would be unjust to enforce it.

(2) FHA regulations should be waivable by K.

(3) FHA regulations on medically necessary pets should be changed.

The argument (1) is simply incorrect. The parties understood and priced in that their agreement was covered by the FHA. Whether (2) is true normatively has no bearing here because the parties did not waive the FHA and there is no reason to think they would have wanted to. It’s an interesting argument for the future, but not for this case.

(3) is only relevant here if you believe that because the regulation is unwise, it should not be enforced. But failing to require a party to abide by the FHA here contradicts your view of the sanctity of agreements: the agreement was made on the basis the FHA applied, and to nullify the FHA ex post would defeat the parties’ agreement.

Basically we differ in that you believe the FHA law which allows people to trample on the rights of others is just. I do not believe that.

The government has set up a system where you have two parties sign an agreement and one is held to that agreement and the other is not.

The “agreement” between the tenants or condo residents and the board incorporates legal requirements like the FHA and the ADA. A person buying a condo has a right to assume the board will follow federal law and will give residents the benefit of its protections.

Freedom of K is implicated only because FHA and ADA requirements are not waiveable. Here, there is no freedom of K issue because all parties to the agreement knew that it was governed by federal law.

Still, I think it would be hilarious if the condo board tried to use your “freedom of K” argument to the judge. If they are retaining the same counsel who advised them to sue the widower for legal fees, they may well try to do so.

I would agree with your assessment except while you believe the wronged party here was the woman, I have a tendency to believe the wronged party was that other 159 unit owners who were keeping the contract they had signed in good faith with the co-op. Why are their rights any less important or valid than the woman?

While you believe the condo has the ability to try and prove the dog was “bad,” I question why they should have to. Why should the law allow a person to violate a contract at the risk of others in the same community who had signed the same contract?

That is the real problem here, asdfasdf. The government has set up a system where you have two parties sign an agreement and one is held to that agreement and the other is not. I don’t see a lot of fairness in that position.