Yeah, that "significant difference" is what I'm interested in. There seems to be some underlying principle that we'll ask you to put your property & other tenants' lives at risk in the service of Ending Discrimination, but not your own, as long as you're "Mrs Murphy"ing it and your house doesn't have more than 4 rooms, after which point you can afford to hire a super to deal with the people the law previously allowed you to exclude.
Is that an accurate assessment of the logic, or is there a more charitable explanation?
That's legislation, not a principle. If I ask "why is mortgage interest deductible", the principle is "because it encourages homeownership" - not the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
I mean, I can construct a hypothesis for the implicit decision rule (something like "rape is the only crime we care even minimally about trading off with our desire to End Discrimination") but I'm curious to see what a more generous person might conclude.
Yes, those are different words. Could you explain the legal principle, if there is one, that allows discrimination under one circumstance but not the other?
Is that an accurate assessment of the logic, or is there a more charitable explanation?