I'm not sure that it's fair to expect Airbnb to "fix" this. Why? Because if they prevent people from discriminating on the very evil dimensions of race, gender, sexual identification, religion, etc, then they will also prevent people from discriminating on the basis of reasonable factors like "5 guys from 19 to 21 from a fraternity".
This list would be a good start for AirBNB.
Yes, but it looks like owner-occupied homes that are renting out a bedroom on AirBnB are exempt[1] from those discrimination laws. Paraphrase of law: "other than ... a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as his residence"
Basically, it is legal for homeowners to discriminate on race for their personal dwelling. The concept appears to be related to the "roommate wanted" being exempted from the FHA Fair Housing Act.[2]
There may be a grey area regarding a larger 6-bedroom home that the owner occupies but is renting out for a week while he's out of town. The owner doesn't have to physically share the space simultaneously with the renter. I can't tell if anti-discrimination laws applies to that situation.
[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
[2]https://blog.splitwise.com/2012/02/07/court-allows-discrimin...
There is a big difference between "not a violation of federal law" and "legal". Many states have anti-discrimination laws with broader scope than the Federal Fair Housing Act.
That's true but I can't think of one example of a state having tougher discrimination laws than the Federal code in regards to a homeowner's personal dwelling.
1. The federal exemption is a blanket one from the anti-discrimination rules, California's allows most discrimination but still limits advertising and still prohibits discrimination on medical condition or age (over 40)
2. the federal exception applies up to 5 rooms for rent, California's applies only when the owner is renting to a single roomer or boarder.
The webpage (you cited previously) from the California Department of Consumer Affairs that mentions "medical" and "age" doesn't look to be correct.
For reference, the source laws it cites are the following:
(51) California's Unruh Civil Rights Act: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...
(51.2) (special case for senior citizens housing): http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...
Government Code Section 12927(a)(2)(A): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&gr...
Government Code Section 12955(c): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&gr...
Reading the actual laws doesn't find any exceptions to the exemptions for roommates and homeowners renting out a private room. The "medical condition" and "age" (along with "gender", "race", etc) are all part of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The only age-specific laws (51.2) was discrimination against younger people being acceptable so as to maintain the housing for senior citizens.
In any case, it looks like the exemption for roommates based on it not being a "business". The law in (51) is directed at business establishments and not roommates/homeowners sharing a house/apartment. Based on a plain reading of the previous 4 cites, an 18-year-old girl in California can refuse to share accommodations with a 70-year-old asthma sufferer with a noisy oxygen tank.
>2. the federal exception applies up to 5 rooms for rent, California's applies only when the owner is renting to a single roomer or boarder.
Ok got it. But I wasn't using "tougher discrimination" in the sense that one state allows 1 room (or some other threshold number) instead of 5. Instead, I meant "tougher" as in certain state says you can't discriminate on race for the private bedroom in your house -- whereas FHA says you can.
Exemptions to federal statues may not apply in this case if the owner is renting out >4 bedrooms.
The owner-occupied housing exemption only applies to buildings with 4 or fewer units.
The single family home exemption may still apply, but if you're rending out all the bedrooms, it's probably gray enough that you should avoid overt racial discrimination.
But you really ought to avoid overt racial discrimination in any case...
Tons and tons of places on AirBnB are not residences but full-time hotels. This is why the site is so hated by established interest groups. Tons of entrepreneurs are out there buying up or renting long-term housing and converting it into short-term rentals, all while avoiding the fees and regulations that apply to traditional hotel businesses.
Discriminating by age could be considered reasonable (don't want a large group of college students) and I see valid reasons to discriminate by gender (Women may not want to book male guests if they're sharing the same space and vice-versa)...
You'd still run into the problem of real-life racists (a problem for minorities everywhere, all the time)... but such a policy would likely eliminate many racists from the site through the frustration of not being able to discriminate.
I wouldn't even rule it out entirely, you'd just need references (a decent rating).
The same age group is faced with similar problems renting apartments because they often lack credit ratings and previous references.
The US has a very long history of racism against minorities. It's been difficult to get a strong system in place to combat racism. Ageism against young people has a built in correction system called aging.
Well, for one thing, its not generally expressly prohibited by law.
In situations where you're renting a bed or a room in a shared common space — I don't think it's unreasonable to be more selective about gender. Is it discriminatory for colleges to not group men/women together in dorm room?
Again, look at the severity disparity here:
would it be socially acceptable for a woman to say "I don't want a male roommate?"
would it be socially acceptable for a white person to say "I don't want a black roommate?"
No, but that's not relevant. The correct analogy would be "Is it discriminatory for colleges to refuse residence to one gender?" That said, I respect the right of anyone to choose who they let into their home, even if I might disagree with the criteria.
For example: If I'm American, I might donate to a service that helps American homeless, and would not have donated otherwise if the service was global.
Similarly, If I'm black, I might donate to a service that only helps blacks and would not have donated otherwise. If I'm Caucasian and feel a strong sense of community for my heritage I might do the same, etc.
People feel more sympathy to those they can relate with -- I don't think that will change for many years.
Remember, you're effectively inviting over people into your home. Your safe space. Your nest. It seems really, really weird that somebody would do that without at least knowing what the person looks like.
And that's before you even get into the security issues of having to blindly trust AirBNB (or somebody claiming to be related to AirBNB) that this rando is authorized.
And if you are renting your home with AirBNB and _don't_ have some type of commercial rental insurance or coverage through your main policy you are skating on very thin ice. Even the nicest looking person in the world could ruin your place, or at the very least hurt themselves seriously in your home and bankrupt you with a massive liability lawsuit. If you aren't ready to be a landlord and abide by their rules, regulations, etc. then don't rent out with AirBNB.
Why? Says who? You're coming up with this strict concept of what AirBnB must be, but I see no reason to agree with you. It's as absurd as saying "if you aren't comfortable giving a ride to a hitchhiker with a rifle on his back and a blood-stained shirt, then don't give a ride to any hitchhiker."
I also rent my home out on VRBO, a competing platform. It is very similar to Airbnb.
This is a transaction based on trust. Random people cannot stay at my house. They need reviews and need to be properly vetted.
College guys looking to party can go to a hotel instead.
I do have regulations in my town, and they are a nightmare. The regulations only benefit hotels by discouraging people from renting out their houses or rooms.
If Airbnb required and stored pictures they could be used to identify them in case they trash the house.
I can't think of anything else the property owners would claim to use the profile pictures for.
I admit that I'm not familiar with the booking process on AirBNB, but I'd be really surprised to hear that a booking, once completed, can't be cancelled. Wouldn't the same people cancelling reservations now just cancel them post-booking instead?
Even if they don't care about people being discriminated against they could at least think about the loss of potential customers.
(granted, this can still happen, legitimately, even in a post-booking display mode.. but post-booking cancellations could be a signal for flakiness and, overall, a reason to put hosts on notice that they need to shape up)
Of course, discriminating in this way is already illegal for normal rentals, but when you have rentals of rooms in people's houses I believe it actually is legal for hosts to discriminate in some cases.
I really can't see how any sort of effective enforcement method could exist other than waiting for the racist assholes to die, sadly.
In California (the rules on this vary considerably by jurisdiction within the US), there is generally very little limit on discrimination by those renting out a room to a single roomer/boarder (but not if they are renting to multiple roomers/boarders), in an owner-occupied single family dwelling, though they generally can't advertise preference on any protected axis except gender, and only for that when there are shared living areas.
In a case like this, renting out the entire place when the terms of the rental is that the owner won't be there, this exception wouldn't seem to apply, though Idaho may have different rules (I'm having more trouble quickly finding a good description of Idaho's rules.)
Good luck, there's not much for rental regulations in the state of Idaho, and literally nothing for short-term rentals. It would come down to whether renting a property on AirBnB constitutes a lessor/lessee relationship, in which case the Fair Housing Act automatically kicks in.
Good thing this home is in Idaho...
Serious (offtopic) metaquestion: why is the postmodern view that all people, including violent criminals, are victims/products of their environment, but racists are uniquely and irredeemably evil to their core?
Usually it's more about a form of unstable and contextual xenophobia.
But it's not just against people. Also about all living things, object, behavior, events...
People are label racists like it's a deep nature, while it's most likely a small symptom of poor education + a twisted defensive reaction that is bigger than that, and is not particularly linked to race.
Well, I don't agree that that is the postmodern view, unless you define "postmodern" to specifically mean that view so that it is tautologically true; particularly, I don't believe that its all that common for any person (regardless of whether the label "postmodern" applies) to hold simultaneously to both of those beliefs. They may both be beliefs that are visible in some segment of the population, and there may be some overlap, but I don't think there is much correlation.
But, in any case, even if they were commonly held together, there is nothing inconsistent in believing that all beliefs and behavior patterns are products of the interaction of the individual with the external environment, and believing that there are certain beliefs and behavior patterns that, once established, are not correctable through any change in the environment that other people can effect (even if the same behaviors/beliefs may be made less likely to manifest in those who have not already manifested them), such that those behaviors/beliefs only go away when the people holding them die.
Hence why we don't expect to successfully re-educate them, and will have to outlive them instead.
But I suspect that the nature of postmodernism means we won't really be able to resolve what views are and aren't consistent with it to any objectively satisfying degree ;-)
Its perfectly fair to stop using AirBnB if you are concerned about this until and unless they fix it, independently of whether you "expect" them to fix it, when there are alternative methods of booking lodging where this problem is, at a minimum, less of an issue.
"5 guys from 19 to 21 from a fraternity" isn't a protected class under US law.
AirBNB and their lawyers believe that US Law does in fact apply. They note explicitly though that there are certain classes of exceptions.
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/898/ada-and-fha-complian...
That depends on local law; in California, it doesn't if you have exactly 1 roomer in a single-family, owner-occupied home. (There are still restrictions on advertising preferences, except gender, and then only when there are shared living spaces.)
Please end racism.
Regards, A dissatisified customer.
Please stop providing hosts with information that basically can only be used for discriminatory purposes against protected classes.
Regards, A dissatisfied customer
There are valid reasons to want to know what somebody looks like before allowing them into your home.
I really do not want to do business with someone who's a racist even though I'm white. I don't want to do business with misgynists even though I'm not a woman. So give these hosts a permanent badge of honor for all guests to see, rather than sweeping the problem under the carpet in a way that effectively allows these cranky hosts to discriminate almost anonymously and only incidently once an implicit agreement to rent has been made (even if it's just an inquiry).
Yeah, Trump is certainly realizing the full consequence of his beliefs.
Trump is overwhelmingly perceived as a con artist who cons only the most magnificently bored and/or stupid people of the earth. And not always a successful one either or he wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy, he could have just conned another handful of investors. Clearly some of his messes were too obvious for even the dumbest rich people of the earth to fall for.
And note that this thing hasn't really played itself out fully yet, so we'll just have to see. For all we know, he may be declaring bankruptcy again to get out of candidacy debt.
Why not just kick them off the platform? If they don't approve of a behavior, and want it to stop, why should they continue working with people who they know for a fact are engaging in that behavior?
Maybe it's a bad idea and it just encourages a sort of tribalism where the bigots do business with each other and as a social we really should say, no you can't use public goods like AirBnB. Yes it's a private company, however it is also acting like a bridge to what has historically been a place of public accommodation: hotels.
And AirBnB can decide who gets to use their service.
Dear Montgomery city bus system,
Please end racism.
Regards, A dissatisfied customer.