Because landlords sometimes go broke for lack of tenants, this can’t possibly be generally true. In fact, as we all know, market conditions sometimes favor renters and sometimes favor landlords, so the social power certainly can shift, without anyone feeling that the law should shift with it.

I think the key difference is that it’s far easier for tenants to discriminate without making the landlord feel personally slighted or attacked for, say, their race. We tend to picture ethical situations in our heads when we gauge how hurtful and harmful they are, and it’s a lot easier to envision a someone being told they can’t live somewhere than it is to envision someone simply avoiding looking at a particular neighborhood, or simply not renting a place, and keeping their reasons to themselves.

That’s not to say that is how we SHOULD tackle ethical questions, but there’s no question that that’s a large component of how we DO tend to tackle them.

A good point, but I think that the core of my argument survives. The surviving point is how the individual buyer or seller is affected vis a vis his/her direct competitors. In each case, the individual discriminated against (buyer or worker) is subject to an effect that his/er competitors isn’t (discrimination against group). Neither the seller nor the employer is.

That doesn’t mean that there is no ethical content to restricting the choices of sellers and employers, but I am claiming an asymmetry of effect on the protected parties. Once again such justifications are rooted in global effects on society rather than on the local effects on individuals.

When a zillion men were drafted for WWII, they had their freedom curtailed in a very drastic way, but very few of their direct competitors escaped, so a rough justice prevailed. Not so when I and a sizable fraction of my contemporaries were drafted for Vietnam but almost every child of privilege or future Republican politician escaped.

In the housing market, tenants exchange money for living space. In the labor market, employers exchange money for labor services. So if the use of a fungible commodity is a fundamental issue here, then we’ll want to let tenants and employers discriminate, but not landlords or workers.

Does that feel right to you?

In any case, it’s a mistake to try to analyze this in terms of the ehics of the transaction between the individuals concerned. Of course the anti-discrimination statutes are asymmetric, so is almost every other action of government, from building roads to educating children. You are resorting to a local analysis when a global analysis is needed. Once it is decided that systematic discrimination against a class of people is an injustice, the question becomes what is the minimally unjust way to address the problem.

Landlords and employers would be allowed to discriminate against left handed people, for instance, because there are no societal consequences from that.

But racial and religious discrimination in our society led to segregated neighborhoods and ghettos and the inability of citizens to travel when they could not find accommodations and food service. It led to a general economic loss to society which occurred when talented people could not gain employment which would permit them to contribute to the country’s economy. Such discrimination arguably also increased the level of poverty.

Faced with historical patterns of ingrained irrational prejudice, we made a political decision that such discrimination should be made unlawful. In a utopia which did not have such a history, such a political decision might not have occurred.

Legally, we prohibit some immoral activity, and allow some others.

If I may steal Sean’s example of an online shopper who unknowingly purchases a product from an Albanian. The purchase agreement stipulates that he may return it for any valid reason for a refund. He finds out about the Albanianness of his product and sends it back saying his reason is he doesn’t like Albanians. That’s not acceptable and as long as he maintains this position no court is allowing him to return the product. It is an invalid reason, an immoral one even. But certainly not preventable unless the shopper is unwilling to lie about his motives.

You really shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate as a shopper but you can, perhaps you do. It’s immoral but who in the world is going to stop you?

By mandating that landlords and employers can not discriminate, aren’t you depriving the owners of the use of their private property?

I’m in no way advocating discrimination. I think that if you refuse to conduct a transaction with a qualified individual because of race, color, sex, etc. then you are a person of questionable morals, and it’s very difficult to legislate morality.

Shouldn’t I be able use my property to my maximum benefit, so long as I don’t break any criminal or civil laws (discrimination laws notwithstanding)?

Furthermore, as an employee or a tenant, I wouldn’t want to enter into an arrangement with someone that clearly didn’t want me to be a party to the transaction.

So I’d say that in terms of the buyer discriminating against the seller – that’s the entire basis of capitalism. To enter into a landlord/tenant system as the tenant inherently requires you to discriminate.

Now, to the other side – the seller/landlord discriminating against the buyer. This is generally only possible – that is, legally possible – through price manipulation, at least in instances where that is allowed. I can get a quality steak at any number of national chain restaurants for as little as $12 (just to make a price point), or I can go to a fantastically expensive steakhouse and be required by the proprietor/landlord to pay $120. Is this discrimination? What if I can’t tell the difference between the steaks, but I really really want to be a part of the crowd seen at the $120-per-plate restaurant? That’s not enough, I have to pay. Nobody claims that discrimination against the poor is a problem in a free market system.

Obviously I’m merely game-playing with the price distinction, but it is still present, and an “allowed” method of discriminating against certain customers. Taking it back to landlord/tenant, I can be a landlord and choose to rent an apartment for ten times the local market value in order to attract a “certain clientele.” If I am willing to wait for that one client to pay my rate, and I can keep my product on the market until it sells (or in this case rents), then I’m absolutely free to do so.

The difference is that the information of discrimination is available up front.

If a landlord is offering a rental, all information is available up front. In most cases of discrimination (I’ll keep to the Albanian in the example), the landlord never states up front that the apartment is never available to Albanians. The Albanians are simply refused from the transaction.

Which then leaves us with a specific instance. It’s not ok for a free-market seller to impose up-front limits on the transaction that have to do with a non-financial bias on the part of the seller. Transactions, generally, require that the purchaser/renter go to the seller to make the transaction happen. Which means that if the seller has any biases, they are never discovered, because they never approach the seller for the transaction to start and then be terminated by the buyer because of perceived bias.

If instead of landlord/tenant, we make this online shopping, then the counter-example would be this: if a person buys a sweater through mail order, then upon receiving the sweater discovers that the company is run by Albanians, would the purchaser be ok in returning the sweater for that reason? No. Not in the same social realm that it’s ok for the landlord to refuse to rent to Albanians. For one thing, the onus was on the purchaser to discover before the transaction if there were any reasons to be dissatisfied with the seller (not just race, but including such things as ethical conduct of the shop, if the management practices are “green,” etc).

I may be arguing against the example rather than the concept, but I think that it is ok for the buyer to discriminate but not the seller, because the entire market sphere is based on that kind of discrimination. If we change the bias against race to a bias against political party affiliation, then the discrimination is identical but slightly more acceptable in the marketplace. Change it even further to “only tenants who do not own cars” and it’s an ethical problem that barely registers.