[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...