Opinion ID: 1219126
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Swanner Violated AMC 5.20.020 and AS 18.80.240 by Discriminating Based on Marital Status

Text: Swanner argues that he does not discriminate against individuals based on their marital status because he will rent to people who are single, married, widowed, divorced, or separated. However, he will not rent to those whom he expects will engage in conduct repugnant to his religious beliefs, namely cohabitation outside of marriage. Swanner considers such cohabitation to be fornication and immoral. The AERC responds that the laws at issue do not recognize a distinction between marital status and cohabitation. The AERC claims the statutes' plain language demonstrates that marital status includes cohabitating couples. In Foreman v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 779 P.2d 1199, 1201-03 (Alaska 1989), we looked at the plain language of AS 18.80.240 [2] and AMC 5.20.020 [3] and reviewed the intent behind the anti-discrimination laws. In Foreman, a landlord who refused to rent to an unmarried couple argued that the laws did not protect the interests of unmarried couples. Id. at 1201. We held that the landlord's policy against renting to unmarried couples unlawfully discriminated on the basis of marital status. Id. at 1203. We reasoned that because the landlord would have rented to the prospective tenants had they been married, and he refused to rent the property only after learning the couple was not married, [t]his constitutes unlawful discrimination based on marital status. Id. The same reasoning applies here. Because Swanner would have rented the properties to the couples had they been married, and he refused to rent the property only after he learned they were not, Swanner unlawfully discriminated on the basis of marital status. [4]