Well, I think the real moral to this thread is to screen for better tenants ;-)

But my morals will not allow me to accept more than a one year lease, I advise the tenant and the landlord to consider future renewals and if I manage the rental I will charge a $100 renewal fee but I, in good conscious, cannot write a multi-year lease and charge 6% of the gross lease but... that is the way my Arizona RE Board approved Listing Agreement States it.You should have studied your listing agreement closer and maybe asked some other agents what is customary in your market.

This debate is no longer about facts.We can clearly see we have one group, mainly consisting of liberals who believe you should follow the letter of the law and abide by what the state dictates is fair and equitable as government should be unquestioned legal and moral arbiter of what is best for society.And we have another group mainly consisting of conservatives/libertarians who believe they should be free to make their own decisions on what they want to do with their own properties even if the government wants otherwise for a greater "social good."

There you go using moral and law in the same sentence. 

It's not such a big deal to rent to lower income people, just make sure you don't rent to lower class people.Lower income = not having a lot of moneyLower class = liars, drug users/dealers, questionable morals, lack of respectThere are lower income people that have a high amount of class just as there can be more wealthy people that are lower class.Lower income and lower class people can come in any color. 

I think a questionnaire that gets at their moral compass might be a very interesting tool.Thoughts?  

The moral of the story is:  if you think that it is time to ask a paying tenant to leave, do it on your own terms, not when you have to or when he/she finally causes a problem. 

Moral of my story is I would rather give up some potential gains to work less.  

My wife is a cosmetologist(hair/skin/nails), and I feel like refusing to rent to disabled people based solely on them being disabled is morally repugnant, especially given how many of them are veterans.

2) If it is legal, is there some moral line I'm crossing??