Maybe the phrase “equal protection under the law” has something to do with it?
I agree with a behavior based discrimination ability-that’s why backgornd checks, credit checks etc are all just fine. But a discrimination based on a legitimate status such as “veteran” or male or female or black or white or married (note the exclusion of sexual orientation, which is behavior, not a status).
I would think, tha in her “enlightended state”, she would welcome a non-believer into her circle so she could proselytize him over to her way of thinking. She must not be truly enlightened if she needs to be insulated from the real world and those of other viewpoint.
She will hand over the “keys to her enlightened kingdom” to this veteran if he pushes the issue. Even in MA.
“Maybe the phrase “equal protection under the law” has something to do with it?”
The vet has equal protection under the law — he is free in turn to discriminate against anyone who, say, didn’t serve in the armed forces.
What he doesn’t have is the right to make the landlady enter into a contract against her will. She doesn’t want to. She doesn’t like him. The Constitution demands nothing more.
And why is behavior-based discrimination okay in your book but not that based on a “legitimate status?” (Whatever that means.)
If it’s okay to discriminate because someone is a bad credit risk, than it MUST be okay to discriminate based on, say, someone’s political beliefs. Otherwise, “freedom of association” means whatever some judge says it means.