[beezdotcom]

They had the personal freedom not to buy into an HOA property and they had the personal freedom not to voluntarily cede part of their property rights to the HOA.

Fair enough. However, it wouldn't have immediately occurred to many people that this particular property right had also been ceded - or that a court wouldn't overturn this rule.

[MarkL]

Fair enough. However, it wouldn't have immediately occurred to many people that this particular property right had also been ceded - or that a court wouldn't overturn this rule.

I was just thinking... As smokers, they can claim that they're addicted, which I don't think that anyone could dispute... As addicts, maybe they're covered under the ADA (I had once heard that alcoholics, who are also "addicts" are covered in some ways), and could use the ADA laws to vacate both the amended bylaw and the court ruling.

Mark