[iNerdier]

I think you're missing the point here. These are people who are already here talking about leaving because of a climate of anti-european and more broadly, anti-foreign attitudes in the UK at the moment. I've no doubt the current government will make it less onerous for people like them to come, the difference now is, would they want to?

[dominotw]

Britain's biggest buy-to-let landlord bans 'coloured people' because of 'the curry smell' [1]

how is this even legal in UK.

1.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/britains-biggest-...

[djmobley]

Although this particular instance is distasteful, as a general rule do you not think individuals should be free to choose who to rent their properties to?

What's the alternative; forcing him to accept tenants he doesn't want?

[barrkel]

Next thing you'll be criticising laws against employer discrimination. If someone wants an all white company, what's wrong with that? You want to force employers to hire people they don't want?

[samsonradu]

Not sure if your analogy is correct. If someone wants an all white company is discrimination. But if someone wants swedish speaking people and they all happen to be white it's no longer a problem.

Same with the tenants. I might prefer to rent my property to a woman because she takes care of the place better and is less likely to throw a party. Is that a discrimination?

Point is if there's an objective reason behind it then it's hard to consider it discrimination, even if it segments the groups on race/gender/religion.

[vorotato]

Actually in the states that can still be discrimination and you can still be charged. Obviously it would be judged by a jury of your peers, however people have been successfully charged with discrimination in the states even when they defended themselves with your exact argument. Ethical concerns aside your advice is extremely legally dangerous.

[samsonradu]

Yes, I fully understand your point and I don't think anyone will take my comment as an advice, it's just my opinion.

The problem is quite complex and hard to solve in one shot.

[vorotato]

In the United States yes that is one of the consequences of running a business. In the states you legally cannot deny service on the basis of any protected class. Protected classes include Race, Color, Religion, National Origin, Age (40+), Sex, Pregnancy, Citizenship, Familial Status, Disability Status, Veteran status, and Genetic information. This is because forcing him to accept tenants he doesn't want is a much smaller injustice than people being unable to get serviced because of something they cannot help. I hope this helps you understand that nobody's rights are more important than anyone else's.

[djmobley]

That sounds like an enormous oversimplification of what, I imagine, is an extremely complex area of the law.

In the case of prospective tenants, I assume a fair degree of self-incrimination would be required to prove discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

To the point about some people's rights being "more important" than others', rights are a zero-sum game.

Giving protected classes a right to service from businesses necessarily comes at the cost of business owners' rights to refuse service.

The law is necessarily concerned with determine whose rights are "more important" in these cases.

[vorotato]

It's actually very simple and let me be extremely clear here, this is NOT about picking someone's rights over others, this is about the magnitude of injustice. Here's a list of people incriminated for discrimination by month for violating fair housing rules. In February for example Oklahoma landlords were found discriminating against Veterans with disabilities. Laws are written to protect the most vulnerable FIRST, not the most protected first. It's absolutely unconscionable to protect for example landlords over our veterans.

https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fa...