[tpaine]

I agree they should understand the rules are dynamic and can be changed.
But to think they would regulate what one can do in the privacy of their own home is unrealistic.
If smoke can breach a unit, then food odors can as well. At what point will the majority decide to prohibit the cooking of certain foods because they don't like those smells either?

There we have the ~real~ issue.
--- At what point will a majority decide it has the power to prohibit most ANYdamnthing, just because 'they don't like it'..

Are there constitutional limits on majority rules?

-- A rapidly growing faction on FR claims not.

[elkfersupper]

--- At what point will a majority decide it has the power to prohibit most ANYdamnthing, just because 'they don't like it'..

I don't like the idea that people may be availing themselves of "intimate" lubricants.

We need cameras surveiling every corner of every public and living space.

[Sunnyflorida]

"At what point will a majority decide it has the power to prohibit most ANYdamnthing, just because 'they don't like it'..

Are there constitutional limits on majority rules?"

there are constitutional limits. but the constitution can be amendent. In Florida we did it with almost no one voting no - relatively.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Are there constitutional limits on majority rules?

You need to read the Constitution...

States ratify Amendments... WITH SUPER MAJORITIES!

Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

[LexBaird]

There we have the ~real~ issue. --- At what point will a majority decide it has the power to prohibit most ANYdamnthing, just because 'they don't like it'.. Are there constitutional limits on majority rules? -- A rapidly growing faction on FR claims not.

Not an issue here, tpaine. The issue here is a signed contractual agreement between parties. Exactly the sort of thing libertarians espouse in lieu of centralized governmental controls. If you contractually give up some property rights to an HOA in return for some perceived benefit, that is your choice. But don't weep and moan when the other party enforces the contract to your cost.