Hacker News Reader

Comment by ercmilla | Hacker News Reader

So a guy all of a sudden sees strangers in his neighbors house. Nevermind their color - wouldn't you be suspicious if you all of a sudden saw 2 20-something dudes in your neighbors house? I know I would - I wouldn't even think twice about their color.

This is the example the article is holding up as the example of racism and it isn't even racist.

The trans example: I'm 100% for property owners deciding what they will and won't use their private property for. Get over it. You can't go through life getting offended at every opinion different from yours, even if you think it's irrational.

View on HN

There used to be an era in America where hotels could legally discriminate, making travel for minorities extremely difficult. This is not a matter of feeling offended, but a matter of having equal access to resources.

Private residences do not equal Hotels. If I don't want to be friends with minorities, I can choose not to be. If I do not want minorities staying in my private residence, I can refuse them staying there.

Off topic...at what point do we stop calling them "minorities" when they are the majority in many regions??

Thing is, it stopped being a "private residence" when it became a business of hospitality. Despite what Airbnb will claim, Airbnb's clients are absolutely operating as a hotel and should be governed as such (which has the nasty side effect of probably killing the business).

The second they start having to obey zoning regulations, building codes, taxation & insurance the way hotels do, their valuation drops precipitously.

That's an argument you can make (except for the part about calling your publicly advertised commercial hotel a "private residence"), but I hope you don't also say "racism is past in America, everyone had equal opportunity now", because that would be logically inconsistent.

> If I do not want minorities staying in my private residence, I can refuse them staying there.

If they are your guests. Not if they are your customers.

> Off topic...at what point do we stop calling them "minorities" when they are the majority in many regions??

We stop calling them minorities when they are no longer so heavily outnumbered by the dominant ethnic group.

So Airbnb wants to disrupt hotels. Assuming they successfully disrupt them, does that mean that non-white, non-heterosexual, non-cisgender groups will no longer be afforded the same guarantees that other private businesses must abide by?

It wouldn't take a particularly imaginative plaintiff's attorney to come up with a strong argument that Airbnb itself is culpable for enabling discriminatory behavior. AirBnB would have deep pockets, which makes them a juicy plaintiff's lawyer target, and they'd likely end up settling to include a bunch of protections for minorities in their business practices with the people who own the rental units.

Hotels are a regulated industry. This is my home and as such, I deserve to make decisions that I believe to be morally correct. If I google the guy who wants to rent my room and he has Facebook postings criticizing the US and cheering on ISIS then I don't want him in my home. I have the right to extend my personal value system in this way. Big government should not be able to shove people into my home against my will. This is clearly a 4th amendment issue.

Don't like it? Call the Best Western.

We also see exemptions to non-discrimintary laws for churchs, mosques, temples, etc. Its clear that society is not a "one size fits all" thing and exemptions are morally and socially justifiable. The same way I can't get funding and entitlements like affirmative action and other race-based policies, that are 100% racist and accepted by liberals as normal.

> government should not be able to shove people into my home

It's your hotel, not your home. No one is shoving people into you home; they are saying you can't invite the public and then keep certain protected classes out.

Don't like it? Don't run a public hotel from your residence.

> he has Facebook postings criticizing the US and cheering on ISIS then I don't want him in my home

Neither of these are a legally protected class under US discrimination law.

> . I have the right to extend my personal value system in this way. Big government should not be able to shove people into my home against my will. This is clearly a 4th amendment issue.

Except you are renting your home out. It's a business and you should absolutely be subject to the laws regarding non-discrimination that apply to a business.

If you don't like it then quit acting like a sketchy pseudo-hotel.

It's almost like Silicon Valley's attempts to "disrupt" regulated industries by replacing them with its own alternatives that don't follow the regulations is a bad thing...

We live in a society of laws. If Congress and SCOTUS want to get rid of the 4th amendment, then certainly things will change.

Please share with us your legal analysis that the Congress and SCOTUS are violating the 4th Amendment by passing and upholding anti-discrimination laws.

Let me introduce you to this thing we call the Commerce Clause and Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).

Here is the text of the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You believe that your property is being searched and/or seized when the government regulates your cottage business?

Thank you 4th Amendment. If this kind of thing, for some ridiculous reason, reaches any court, it should be thrown out by the 4th. However, in today's society, nothing would surprise me anymore.

Yes, but this is not that. AirBnB is a broker making arrangements between two private individuals. Hotels are public accommodations.

Specifically how do you make these categorizations? Why are hotels "public" but airbnb is not?

Its pretty simple. AirBnB is a broker that provides a service to connect two people. Hotels are businesses that are licensed to provide lodging. They are regulated to provide the service. Their is a reason that cities have so much regulation on hotels. Just as they do restaurants.

AirBnB does not provide lodging which is the cause of a lot of problems.

100% agree with all of this. While I'm not saying I would personally deny a trans person staying at my Airbnb, at the end of the day, it's the owner's decision. This isn't a public service where people of different race/color/religion/background/etc. are getting denied. It's all private property. It's 100% up to the owner what he/she/they want to use their property for, regardless of how ignorant/racist/stupid/etc. that choice may be.

A hotel is private property too, doesn't mean they can discriminate based on race in the US.

Hotels have regulations that private homes don't. Though many of AirBnB's "hosts" would probably qualify under more regulations than they actually follow.

I guess I'm assuming the primary use of airbnb is 'rent my house', not 'stay in my guest room'. By offering both at the same place they really do seem to be muddying the waters.

I don't think so. It's more like "rent my house/residence" versus "rent one of many apartments I keep available and run like a hotel".

Since I am not a god, and every person has a right to self ownership (extending to their property), a hotel owner has every right to decide by whatever criteria they see fit who uses their property. Just as I have every right to decide my own criteria for which hotels I would like to do business with (bigoted hotels wouldn't meet that criteria).

Every person has the right to life, liberty, and property.

You're being downvoted because you are objectively wrong.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

> All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

> Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

> (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;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a

Feel free to read up on Green Books -- Up until the 1960's, black Americans had to plan their trips out far in advance to avoid service refusals, discrimination, or outright violence at hotels throughout the country.

Hmmm, I made no statement about current laws. I stated my beliefs on natural rights. To concede the general power of government to redress private discrimination through legislation would be to concede virtually unlimited power to the government. Humans, as independent actors, have other means to fight bigotry than infringing on one of a person's most sacred rights. You can't legislate morality.

Yup. Because these black rappers where probably the first AirBnB guest to stay at that house...

Who knows - if the neighbors knew it was an AirBnB home then why would they get so worried?

There are lots of explanations for their actions that are completely reasonable. But when there is otherwise no evidence of racism, let's shout racism as loud as we can because the "movement" is more important than the facts.

Totally agree. AirBnB couldn't wait for the opportunity to roll over, show their soft belly, and urinate all over themselves, instead of actually recognizing the false dichotomy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com