Echoing recent policies implemented in Seattle and Portland, we examine perceptions of the fairness of the first-come, first-served (FCFS) rule in the context of discrimination in the rental housing market. We use an original hypothetical survey experiment in which a rental agent is confronted with the discriminatory preferences of his landlord clients. A sample of 1,541 respondents representative of the US population was asked about which choice was the best, from a moral point of view: to allocate rental units exclusively to the non-discriminated group, exclusively to the discriminated group, or to whichever group applied first (FCFS rule). Factorial manipulations included in the design are i) the cost of implementing the FCFS rule for the rental agent, who risks losing his landlord clients if he/she rents to the discriminated group, ii) peer effects, i.e., what other rental agents do and iii) which social norm (egalitarian, segregationist and pro-FCFS) is shared by members of the community. Consistent with the literature, we find that the FCFS rule ranks high among other normative principles, but that its cost has a causal effect on the support it receives from respondents. We also find that both peer effects and social norms have a causal effect on the support for the FCFS rule, with social norms having a stronger effect. Finally, we find that the respondents who are likely to experience discrimination are the least likely to support the FCFS rule.