IIRC apartment complexes advertising no pet surcharges + other pet accommodations have been dinged for racial discrimination because more white people than minorities owned covered pets.
It just makes it sound like you want it to be exclusive doesn't it? How many black people are going to feel comfortable in a 'white friendly place'? It's kind of 'you don't belong here' in the most explicit but not threatening way possible.
If I (white) saw 'black friendly cafe' or something, I don't have a problem with that to be clear, but I would absolutely assume that I'm not exactly welcome, that it's intended to serve that community - as in perhaps even specific to a particular country/region people are from (or have heritage) locally.
If what you want is actually a hyper-inclusive mix, I don't really know what you can actively do, but I do think you need to not mention any particular groups or categorise people like that.
That's not the same thing. The big piece you are missing is context. Making an argument devoid of context means that you are ignoring how people understand something given a generalized heuristic.
"Pro-black" is not equivalent to "Pro-white" mainly because of the context within the US. "Pro-black" however is equivalent to "Pro-Italian" or "Pro-Irish" because of the historical context of how those phrases relate to generalized heuristic (cultural celebration usually involving commerce).
> If I (white) saw 'black friendly cafe' or something, I don't have a problem with that to be clear, but I would absolutely assume that I'm not exactly welcome, that it's intended to serve that community
If your lived experience is that you haven't been welcome to a 'black friendly cafe', then that is unfortunate. That is not my experience and I can't find any data or historical context that reinforces that narrative. I'm not saying it doesn't happen or that if it did, it would not be wrong, but that statement reinforces my point.
You are using the context of how you would feel as an equivalency to the intent of the person who puts out the message. If you don't allow for nuance, then you will have missed the point.
"Pro-white" or "White friendly" messaging historically has been extremely overt as being anti-Black, so much so that we have entire amendments in our US Constitution that exist in an attempt to combat them.
So lived experience is more important than a rule that applies equally to all human beings. Except for the lived experience of OP which you handwaved away because it doesn't match your experience.
If you find a flat that advertises as "pet friendly," does it discriminate against people who don't have a pet? No. But it does mean you probably won't like the place much if you don't like cats and dogs.
It is not uncommon for people to advertise a room in an "Asian household" (for example) and that isn't discriminating against non-Asians. It is suggesting that Asian people would probably be happier there, but it isn't excluding anyone.
Disparate Impact is a bit crazy.
EDIT: I was wrong, it was having a NO pet policy, which discriminated against families with children! (And people with support animals, and a few other cases) https://kylandlordlaw.com/blogs/news/116214853-unintentional...
Still though, I think you'd be more likely to run into the anti-steering provisions: https://www.nar.realtor/fair-housing-corner/steer-clear-of-s...