This depends upon the public. For example, the moment I walk into Dillards and see a cross-dressed man working in ANY department, will be the day that I take my business elsewhere. Now, not everyone will do as I do; but when a company in a conserative area realizes that hiring a cross-dressing man is day that they go out of business - they will refuse to comply.
The limitations of 3 apartments versus 4 simply means that if you OWN a Fourplex, you may exercise your personal decision upon whom you rent your personal property (ie. home) out to. However, if you do not reside in the fourplex; then the building is a business, and as a business is regulated by the laws that apply to the public.
Your statement of refusing to rent an apartment that can accomodate 12+ adults to a mixture of genders is simply a way of you forcing yourself into the bedroom.
There is no confusion; what you do in your bedroom is your business. When you own an apartment complex, what goes on in those bedrooms is none of your business. Your only concerns are with regard to legal activities, damage to the property and payment of your rent. That's where your rights terminate. Don't like the law? Then work to have the laws changed.
We both acknowledge that the laws will result in a loss of jobs. If I employed 15+ people, I would certainly consider trimming my payroll down to 14; just to avoid the additional constraints. What I do see happening is that market forces will force companies to relocate their headquarters outside of the SLC community, where they are free to operate in a manner that makes fiscal sense. When SLC starts realizing the loss in revenue, and the loss of jobs - (like California, Michigan and other places) the remaining population will be forced to deal with the reality of the matter.
Ah, you've shifted arguments from some kind of inconsistent legal angle ("whatever is legal or illegal is OK 'cause after all, the government's going to decide that" -- and then infuse that position into arbitrary public policy of 15 vs. 14 employees & 4 vs. 3 dwellings...to a moral angle)
You understand, Hodar, don't you, that when you start arguing morality you can't back up & then say, "Well, I wasn't talking about private behavior" -- because morality is morality no matter where's enacted or ignored.
Let's say your adult 18 yo daughter wants to bring her boyfriend home to sleep in her bed overnight. Now never mind the legalities of what legal right you have as a homeowner here -- 'cause we'll both agree on the legalities ... but see now you've entered the moral realm ... how consistent are you on your morality? Would you or I as a father be "forcing" ourselves into our 18 yo daughter's bedroom (if we had one, that is), by clamping down on that activity?
What about any adult children of yours? OK for them to bring over any old partner(s) to sleep in your house when they come visit? Are us "old-fashioned" people who say "no" to that simply "forcing" ourselves into bedrooms just because we don't want our homes converted into bordellos? (After all, with many sleeping arrangements, it's not just $ exchanged...it's often security, conveniences of other kinds, maybe getting ahead at the workplace, etc.)
Besides, I'm sure your "forcing yourself into the bedroom of your tenants" conclusion would have won over the hundreds of thousands of landlords' homes & offices in the...
telling them all, "Hey you're refusal to rent a room or multiple rooms or a place out back or a home to shacking-up couples = you just trying to force yourself into their bedroom."
(Hey, what's you're next argument...that landlords who won't rent to renters with a history of making meth labs -- even if they say they're now "clean" of that -- are "forcing their way into the potential 'at-home science experiments of renters?")
The reality is that freedom of conscience is closely rooted to freedom of association. And this is where I agree with TheBigIf re: your tendency toward tyranny...here, any Christian, Mormon or any other Bible-believer who takes seriously 1 Timothy 5:22 & fleshes it out in their business decisions (...do not share in the sins of others) is deemed by you to be someone who should be fined $1,000.
And see, that's where I'm consistent principle-wise: What would apply to my own daughter (minus any "discrimination" thank you -- in that I don't want to knowingly & intentionally sanction a sinful lifestyle) I don't want to apply to a potential renter who's shacking up, regardless of what "sexual orientation" they are. (And this is where the tyrannical government is stepping in & saying, "No, you can't consider the morality of others' behavior.")