
Airbnb Bans Host Who Dumped Guest Because She's Asian - sushobhan
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/airbnb-asian-guest-racist-host-big-bear_us_58e665dfe4b07da81324755e
======
Spooky23
I don't endorse racism by any means, but there's an overarching concept that a
persons home is their castle, and you have broad discretion to control who and
what goes on in your home. In most jurisdictions, you have a broad legal right
as a person renting out your downstairs or a room to turn down tenants for any
reason.

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.

~~~
vorotato
It seems like the because of the broker aspect the law might apply to them,
however I'm not a lawyer. It's certainly I would think, a bad idea to say I'm
not renting to this person because of their race. You're basically inviting a
racial discrimination lawsuit.

"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."

~~~
Spooky23
Is it housing or a short term rental? Is it a room in your home or your home,
or a second house?

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.

~~~
vorotato
As I understand it and I'm not a lawyer but I do work in housing finance,
housing, rentals, and short term rental all fall under the fair housing act.
This is purposefully broad and done so because of how discrimination is such
an affront to human rights. That being said Airbnb is merely hoping to avoid
any class action litigation, which will likely come as a result of tenants
viewing the broker as not putting a good faith effort to preventing
discrimination. The broker, after all, cannot intentionally facilitate illegal
behavior to make a profit, that would just create puppet mafias. They probably
have figured they are less likely to be found guilty of facilitating the
illegal behavior of fire code violations because fires are just a lot less
likely and a lot less externally obvious to the broker.

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.

------
jacknews
The piece seems rather "tailored" to deliver a message, and I suspect there is
much more to the story than is being reported.

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".

------
vorotato
Why is this not a crime under fair housing act? At best this is a loophole
which will be closed via precedent. A quick google shows that it looks like
some Airbnb hosts are already being taken to court over violating the fair
housing act so it sounds like the loophole is already being closed.

------
ntaylor
But really, $50 a night on Big Bear, in mid February? That's a steal!

------
rainhacker
Why is this post flagged ?

~~~
grzm
The short answer is that enough users have flagged it for it to display the
[flagged] tag. Why they have could be they don't think the post is appropriate
for HN, or that the resulting discussion hasn't been or is no longer
constructive for the site.

------
cup
Good. Racists shouldn't be given a platform to further their hate.

~~~
Daddy_cat
Inb4 the top minds of hacker news play devil's advocate

~~~
hiddencost
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer)

~~~
salesguy222
racists will just deny people they don't like for other reasons, like smoking
weed or type of job or background check or

~~~
oxide
Which is discriminatory, what's your point? That racists are going to
discriminate regardless?

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.

~~~
kefka
Well, This is AirBNB's own moment of "Gig Economy goes against established
law" like Uber and HomeJoy have done.

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...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/renters-rights-
book/chapter5-2.html) )

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](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.

------
Mk-0
Huffington Post.

------
tabeth
This situation is the biggest problem with Airbnb. Furthermore, these types of
service should be double blind, and effectively anonymous for everyone but
Airbnb (arguably them too, but that's not really possible given payment
information).

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-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/nicholas-kristof-is-
everyone-a-little-bit-racist.html)

[2] [http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/cou-
cou0000176.pdf](http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/cou-cou0000176.pdf)

~~~
random_rr
Disagree. My girlfriend and I have have turned down a few potential AirBnB
people because they looked like street kids in their profile pictures. One had
a gun (?????) prominently displayed in his profile pic. No thanks.

As long as I'm letting people into my home, I'd like to get a quick look at
them first.

~~~
tabeth
Why exactly does it matter?

~~~
random_rr
The gun, or the street kids?

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.

~~~
tabeth
I still fail to see the relevance. Their appearance is irrelevant. If they
keep your house clean then it doesn't matter. If you're implying street kids
won't do that, not only would you have to provide evidence that you won't be
able to find, but it's also a pointless value judgement. I won't even get into
the fact that Airbnb can often be cheaper, and so poor, savy people may use it
and your behavior is putting them at a disadvantage basically because you
don't like how they look like. Sound familiar?

People who don't "look filthy" could just as easily tear your house apart.
Pointless discrimination is well, pointless.

~~~
random_rr
It's not a "pointless value judgement" to observe that someone looks filthy,
and to extend that observation to "I don't want them in my clean house".

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 :)

