[ClintonBeGone]

Assuming the accuracy of their side of the story, they were the initial victims enticed into stopping at his place by his "for sale" sign, only to be told that they could not buy because of the color of their skin. In my book, that is cause enough to afford them civil damages for their suffering (inconvenience).

Is it suffering? Inconvenience? or simply an insult?

[jackbob]

Is it suffering? Inconvenience? or simply an insult?

First off, I do not see any insult here in the slightest. But what I might call an insult, another person might not consider an insult. And vice versa. At any rate, no just person or society in my opinion would consider an insult cause for legal action.

The suffering was all the inconvenience involved in being a victim of false (incomplete) advertising. I have already set this out with my qualifiers in my replies #76, 89, 91(to include 93), 111, 149, and 156.