Airbnb Bans Host Who Dumped Guest Because She's Asian
huffingtonpost.in
huffingtonpost.in
Airbnb wants to have it both ways. They demonstrate their contempt for the law by pushing accountability for illegal renting to their "hosts", but where they have a messy situation where there is bad PR for them, all of the sudden they care about how "hosts" follow rules about discrimination that may or may not even apply to them.
This is yet another example of why AirBnb is a ridiculous business that shouldn't operate as it does. Dealing with the issue in a way that would be compliant with the law would require that they acknowledge that many "hosts" are really running as hoc hotels, so they roll over the individual homeowners or tenants subletting their homes.
"The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members."
I agree with you that behaving like this is a generally bad idea -- and in the specific case of this poor woman it is reprehensible. But the broader context is important too. Why is AirBnb making itself the arbiter of what laws need to be followed and what do not? Why is discrimination a bright line that cannot be crossed, while fire code violations in multi-unit AirBnb quasi-hotels are not?
We end up in these troubling scenarios where we allow companies and individuals to pick and choose what rules are ok.
TLDR: The laws are laws whether Airbnb says they care about them or not, but should Airbnb put forth a good faith effort to prevent flagrant lawbreaking on their website they'll likely avoid being seen as legally culpable.
At every level, this company cares deeply about discrimination. As the article states, this host was removed because they violated the non-discrimination policy that we believe makes our community better. It was not because of the law. (We operate in just about every country but our terms are the same worldwide.) This is not new. We have repeatedly, for years, removed hosts who we've determined are discriminating.
I can understand if from the outside it seems self-serving and seems like it's being done for PR, and I probably can't convince anyone who has made up their mind to be against Airbnb. But if you could look inside the company or be a fly on our walls, you would know. We all care extremely deeply about discrimination and we are more than willing to remove discriminatory hosts from our platform to make a better, more welcoming community.
Perhaps the guest actually didn't pre-arrange the extra friends, and then got pushy when the host wanted to charge for them.
I'm guessing the "One word says it all. Asian" comment was being used to stereotype the guest's actions/attitudes, rather than as a statement of "You're not welcome, because you're Asian". Which in itself is of course deplorable, but not quite what is being reported.
The host posssibly deserve a ban just for the racist comment, and if things are as reported, they most certainly deserve the ban, but the reporting seems very "framed".
Well, as in other areas, there will always be abusers. Drug testing welfare reicpients, for example, is a slap in the face to small government ideals and does absolutely nothing to deter abuse.
The truth is the abusers are the exception, not the norm.
Regulations and legalisation are not unlike a doorlock. It might keep out those who would steal given a free pass to do so, but anyone more determined will make short work of it.
You can't legislate against that kind of abuse, the abuse of a black and white law prohibiting this type of discrimination for example.
It's clear to me that you can't regulate someone out of being a racist prick, an addict, etc. They just keep coming up with a new way to do whatever the fuck they please.
Hoteliers and traditional rental agencies are not to discriminate on a list of things (now including sexual orientation and status). They have, including Trump. And they've also been sued to the gills for knowingly violating it and lost. Simply put, it's against the law to discriminate on basis of race or color; religion; national origin; familial status or age—includes families with children under the age of 18 and pregnant women; disability or handicap, or sex. (Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/renters-ri... )
Does that mean I'm required to let people in my home? Well, no. Just because someone shows up on my property means nothing. If they try to come in without permission, that's trespassing. If they have a weapon, in many states I'm legally able to blow them away. Castle Doctrine is the general description, with unique laws per state ( Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine )
But what happens when both are true, with AirBNB and someone I don't like (Muslim/Christian/Atheist/Black/Brown/Asian/gay/handicapped/dirty/poor/smelly/angry/arrogant/...)? There's the crux.
OK, so seller is allowed to arrange with buyer not to resell the property to XYZ race but the agreement can't be enforced by means of a lawsuit.
And you found this relevant because?
People are inherently racist [1], are forced to behave in ways to may (or may not) promote sexism(not necessarily in that they hate men/women, but are forced to follow the norms) [2] etc. to varying extents. Anonymity is the solution. Why do you need to even know the name of the person who's staying? You don't.
[1] There's plenty of research on this highlighted in this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/nicholas-kristof-...
[2] http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/cou-cou0000176.pdf
As long as I'm letting people into my home, I'd like to get a quick look at them first.
I don't want people in my home who are proud of their guns and brandish them in profile pictures on a travel site.
I don't want people in my home who look filthy. I know street kids well enough to never let one in my home.
People who don't "look filthy" could just as easily tear your house apart. Pointless discrimination is well, pointless.
Have you ever hung out with street kids? I have, for years. Do you know Manitou Springs in Colorado? I hosted lots of down-on-their-luck street kids at my apartment for a while until I realized the majority of them absolutely suck as roommates/tenants/whatever you want to call them. Many of them will steal from you because they have nothing else. Many of them have markedly different cultural values - and not in a way that I find endearing or enlightening.
I'm sure you'll draw some parallels to racism here, because that seems to be the argument you want to occur. This isn't about a genetic condition like skin color. This is about willingly descending to the lower rungs of society. If a street kid wants to drop out of society, tattoo their face, and wear tattered army rags, that's fine. Accept the consequences of your facial tattoos though - that's part of being an adult :)