Because one is about how someone is born and one is about how they intend to use a thing? The idea that they are in any way equivalent is so preposterous I can only presume you are making a poor form rhetorical point of some sort.
I.e., it's a rationalization, not a reason.
Typing these words doesn't remove the differences between the situations. "Desiring to rent out my apt to tourists" is not a protected class.
Kasey_junk - if I understood him correctly - was arguing that the law should not be changed because "the people who bought assuming they weren't going to live next to a hotel have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change."
If that argument were valid, then the law about renting to non-whites should not have changed either to create protected classes (which didn't exist at the time the original zoning laws were made).
Edit: I'm less interested in Kasey_junk's argument and moreso in your unwillingness to acknowledge the vast difference between discriminating against protected classes and regulation of commercial activity in private recidences.
I have no strong opinion on the legality of discrimination by race. It offends my moral intuitions, but I cannot construct a solid argument in favor of it that doesn't lead to other crazy conclusions. So I accept my uncertainty here.
Edit: I'm less interested in Kasey_junk's argument and moreso in your unwillingness to acknowledge the vast difference between discriminating against protected classes and regulation of commercial activity in private recidences.
I acknowledge the vast difference in feelings that these situations inspire. But I cannot come up with a good principled argument to justify the existence of protected classes, or to distinguish between these cases in some other way.
I argue that this line of reasoning is invalid - if it were valid, then white homeowners had some reasonable expectation to have a say on if segregation was going to change. I don't believe they did.
Let me return the favor. To paraphrase yummyfajitas everyone should be allowed to sublease their apartment in anyway they see fit. If we ban iron smelting in residential buildings what is next? I'll tell you what, slave labor camps.
Of course the world does not work that way. The extreme arguments do not define what is and is not valid, and no one actually believes they do after their introduction to rhetoric in the 8th grade. It is perfectly valid to hold the opinion that residents of a neighborhood should be able to prevent toxic waste from being dumped in adjacent yards and to hold that they shouldn't be allowed to ban people from living near them due to race.
Dumping toxic waste does directly interfere, but AirBnBing, long term leasing or Grindring to a non-white person does not.
Feel free to follow this principle and see if you can derive any conclusions from it that I don't support. If so, I'll recognize that my argument is flawed and retract it.
What's your core principle that I can follow as far as it leads?
Most usage restrictions are not about limiting how you use your property, they are about how common property is used. It is just much more efficient and workable to encourage grouped rules based on usage expectations than any other option we've come up with.
In the AirBnB case there are all manner of common property issues that may come up. An obvious one off the top of my head is security key accessibility. In hotels it is very common to allow access to security keys to many many people, therefore hotels have the infrastructure to support removing/changing access frequently. Lots of multi-dwelling buildings do not have that infrastructure and do not need it for most usages that would be considered residential.
Another issue, that is literally impacting me right now, is expected use of pest control services and waste disposal. In my building someone is running a catering business out of his kitchen, against the rules of the association, the lease he has agreed to, and the laws of our city. But he is in his property so what is the issue? The higher usage levels lead to higher pest levels, the units nearest to him are dealing with unprecedented problems and we as the association are having to foot the bill for increased pest control services, and for more garbage pick up as he generates an outsized amount of waste.
Why aren't these individual property issues? Because pests don't observe property boundaries and the trash collection is common. Why don't we charge extra for these things to the individual unit? Because the law states that we can't for unmetered services (for private property rights preserving reasons) and it is infeasible to make trash individually serviced.
The principle is fairly easy to understand, when you live in a community there is a give and take between individual rights and responsibilities to the community. A robust system of regulations and the rule of law help to enforce those lines and the system needs to be actively shaped, monitored and embraced for it to work, with special emphasis placed on making sure the rights of the individual are impacted in as fair and moral ways as we can.