This study examines how individuals determine whether public policies are perceived as discriminatory. An online survey of 422 participants recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk evaluated 20 sample policies across domains of income, ethnicity, gender, marriage, and employment. For each policy, participants rated its morality, justifiability, and personal importance, and then judged whether it constituted discrimination. Results revealed limited consensus: disagreement on individual policies ranged from a 51–49% split to an 83–17% majority. Judgments of discrimination were strongly associated with views of morality and justifiability (average φ = 0.47 and φ = 0.50, respectively), but not with perceived importance. Participants who judged a policy as both immoral and unjustified were 6.1 times more likely to label it as discriminatory than those who judged it moral and justified. Further, judgments varied depending on the group affected, and on the complexity of policy wording. These findings suggest that subjective moral judgments, group sympathy, and linguistic framing significantly shape public perceptions of discrimination, raising important considerations for policymakers and legal practitioners when drafting and evaluating policies.