The court in Baiz quoted from State of Minnesota v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2 , for the general proposition that the state’s requesting protection for unmarried couples

The court in Baiz quoted from State of Minnesota v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2 , for the general proposition that the state’s requesting protection for unmarried couples in acquiring rental housing was the cause for much of society’s problems. In that case, the dissent had this to say:

Religious and moral values include not discriminating against others solely because of their color, sex, or whom they live with, avoiding unnecessary emotional suffering, showing tolerance for nontraditional lifestyles, and treating others as one would wish to be treated. . . . It may be difficult for some individuals to recognize invidious discrimination, but one must not lose sight of the continuing fight of minorities to be protected from a “probable majority” point of view. It was not long ago that blacks and women were widely viewed as second-class citizens. Discrimination usually comes in less obvious forms — such as against single parents, those with AIDS, homosexuals, the elderly, and those living together — but no less invidious forms. The majority, in effect, would have us return to the day of “separate but equal” where individuals such as French would be permitted to keep their neighborhoods free of “undesirables” and “nonbelievers.” . . .

Discriminating against unmarried individuals living with members of the opposite sex is neither the cause or the solution to societal woes.

Id. at 17, 20. Who do you think presents the better argument, and why?

What did the court state was the first step in statutory analysis?

Why did the court think that the refusal to rent to an unmarried couple did not violate the state’s fair housing laws?

This decision was made in 1997. Do you think it would be decided the same way today?  Why or why not?

 In 300 words