What I mean is that under California's Fair Housing Law (https://www.google.com/search?q=California%27s+Fair+Housing+Law&oq=California%27s+Fair+Housing+Law&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIICAQQABgWGB4yCAgFEAAYFhgeMggIBhAAGBYYHjIICAcQABgWGB4yDQgIEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyBwgJEAAY7wXSAQkyOTIzajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBeD6YG2NtNPx&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8), wouldn't it in real life, have been within Jack's right to file a complaint against any landlord the first time they tried to evict him? Weren't Mr. Roper and Mr. Furley and by extension, Mr. Furley's brother, Bart essentially, discriminating against Jack from being on the lease to rent on the basis of sex, gender, and sexuality, among other protected classes?

They shouldnt have cared as long as the rent was paid!!

WHO CARES WHO LIVES THERE??


Yes they probably should have sued!!!

Jack was never formally evicted. It was just all threats. Besides discrimination if tenants are paying rent its hard to evict them unless there are major damages.
So many things don't make sense. Roper and Furley thought it was taboo for a man and women to live together yet had no problem with a gay guy living there? So they were not concerned about gay sex under their roof but had a problem with straight people? Made no sense. Also in a few episodes with Furley the kids plan on moving out. Furley is so distraught that he and Larry try secret plans to get them to stay.

I can't be the only one who will forever be confused over why Mr. Roper doesn't want a man like Jack to live with two women for whom he isn't married to and yet, he'll "tolerate" the living arrangement if Jack says that he's gay. And yet, on the same token, Mr. Roper will still make jokes at Jack's expense. Either way, Mr. Roper is going to act disgusted or bewildered by Jack's presumed lifestyle.

Not an attorney, however - 1992/Other Changes: Over time, protected classes were expanded to include sexual orientation, marital status, source of income (e.g., Section 8), and disability. This provision according to AI was added to California's Fair Housing Law in the early 90's. Therefore it appears that from 77 - 84 under Roper / Furley he would have been out of luck.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but this was a big CA issue in 1990. I vaguely remember Pete Wilson as governor and he vetoed a sexual orientation protection law. I remember some major protests with some violence after the veto.
Housing laws protect race and sex. Even today its legal to fire someone for being gay in many states. There have been courts interpreting the sex protection to cover gays but its not universally held by courts.
In 1977 just as Threes Company debuted Dade county (Miami) passed a law to protect gays from being fired for being gay. Anita Bryant and others came forward and organized a vote to repeal that law.
Long story short, in 1977 a landlord in CA could have evicted Jack for being gay unless Santa Monica had some sort of rental law covering sexual orientation. Local cities can pass protections. But then again the state can override those protections. In NC there was a city that passed protections and the NC legislature and governor overturned it.

In 1992 CA did pass a similar law that was signed by the governor.