Airbnb Hosts More Likely To Reject Guests With Disabilities, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 156
A study by Rutgers University has found that travelers with disabilities using the travel hosting service Airbnb are more likely to be rejected and less likely to be pre-approved. From a report: A Rutgers University study of nearly 4,000 requests for lodging on the home-sharing platform found that guests with blindness, cerebral palsy, dwarfism and spinal cord injury were refused at rates higher than people without disabilities. In some instances, hosts who claimed that their homes were accessible were also more likely to approve guests without disabilities, according to the research published Friday. The report raises new questions about the ethics of Airbnb's business model, following the #AirbnbWhileBlack scandal that dogged the company last year, centered on revelations that African American guests were denied access at disproportionately high rates. While traditional hotels must abide by anti-discrimination laws, startups such as Airbnb have been able to skirt longstanding regulations by arguing that they are technology companies and platforms that aren't liable for the actions of their users.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think this is, a free country? Have you read all the federal, state and local laws? Didn't think so. Don't feel too bad. Nobody else has either. Nobody.
Sometimes, even those who sign those bills into law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Businesses should get to turn away customers (Score:2)
Hardly fair to refuse me service when I can't refuse to pay the taxes your business dips into. Get rid of any and all compulsory taxpayer funded government support and then we can talk about freedom of association for businesses.
Re: Businesses should get to turn away customers (Score:2)
How many businesses settle ADA lawsuits because it's cheaper than fighting them? Avoiding lawsuits to begin with by rejecting them seems understandable. Not everybody wants to install wheelchair ramps in their house.
Re: (Score:3)
Then why is it so hard to understand the issue? To use one of your conservative tropes, if you don't want to play by the rules, then you don't get to play.
I'm not a conservative, dingbat. In fact I don't conform with your stupid one dimensional understanding of politics.
If there is any argument against this very rational and LEGAL position, might I remind you that it sounds like you'd like to be a special snowflake in a safe space. We know that couldn't be true, right?
The problem with ADA is that even if you fully comply with the laws, people will still sue you, even for really minor things like having a handicap sign a half of an inch too low (literally, this has happened.) In literally thousands of cases, businesses get sued by somebody who they can prove never even went there, but they settle anyways because it would cost more to fight it.
http://www.reco [recordonline.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not. I doubt that his own legal fees exceeded half a million dollars; quoting from the article you linked to:
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers demand stupidly high settlement amounts all the time, and they rarely ever get what they first asked for. They go through rounds of negotiations until either they have a meeting of minds, or if they don't then the court proceedings begin.
Having said that, going to court is risky for both sides, so in most cases they prefer to settle. In this case, Eastwood refused a settlement offer entirely and effectively said "have at me bro", and won.
Anyways, there have been a few times where some congress critt
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of businesses. Furthermore, such conditions should only apply going forward anyway, since the non-discrimination regulations also weren't backwards looking.
So, we can have freedom of association for all those businesses that never received taxpayer support? Like the vast majority? Great
Re: Businesses should get to turn away customers (Score:4, Insightful)
Get back to me when 'all those businesses that never received taxpayer support' have built their own infrastructure (private roads, not on the power grid, no internet connectivity, self contained septic and water system, etc.). Also, make sure the owners or their university educated employees all went to private schools (i.e. nobody from a state university or college).
The hoops you libertarians will jump through to justify discrimination.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What is your point? All of those things are paid for in taxes, not some magic money tree.
And businesses pay far more in taxes than citizens, all of their rates are higher.
Nice try, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Businesses pay taxes for that.
The excuses fascists like you make for their fascist beliefs.
Re: (Score:1)
There shouldn't be any government 'supporting' anybody in the first place. Infrastructure is not a government authority, it shouldn't be involved in it, there shouldn't be public roads, public grids, public anything.
As to what exists today: get back to me when you stop discriminating against all those people you didn't date, all those businesses you didn't frequent, all those rental properties you didn't live in, etc. Then talk about how *OTHERS* must be forced not to discriminate but it's Ok for you, tho
Re: (Score:1)
Smith college, a private institution, openly does not accept male students for admission (yet if you enter as a woman and change, that's perfectly fine [smith.edu]). I have yet to see a straight male work at Victoria's Secret. Similarly, I've worked at a local gym for quite some time and when I expressed interest in working as a babysitter (I'm good with kids), in addition to my role at front desk, I was never given that role. Thus far only females have had it.
Harvard is proudly hosting a black-only [thecollegefix.com] graduation event wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Sounds great until the only place in town that can provide a service you would literally die without decides not to do business with white people.
And you are white, and everybody knows it. Probably not man enough (and you are a man, too) to admit it, even anonymously, but everyone knows the truth. Including you.
Re: (Score:1)
A surgeon that says "I'd rather let you die than treat you" obviously wants me dead. I think I'm far better off taking my chances driving over to the next town than to have someone who wants me dead cut me open.
In different words, your own example shows the utter folly of your political position.
Re:Businesses should get to turn away customers (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a pharmacy that simply dispenses pills you need? How about the grocery store? What if all the water, electric, solar / gas / coal delivery etc, garbage collection, phone, or sewer companies are private?
Can they all just decide they don't like serving people "like you"? And you die for lack of meds, lack of food, lack of heat... whatever? Really? that's the society you want to be a part of?
"A surgeon that says "I'd rather let you die than treat you" obviously [...]"
shouldn't be licensed to practice medicine.
"I think I'm far better off taking my chances driving over to the next town than to have someone who wants me dead cut me open."
Whereas I think that its beyond unacceptable for the scenario to arise in the first place. The patients should not be shopping for a doctor that is willing to treat 'their kind' while literally bleeding out. I suppose they should comparison shop pricing too? Right? And read yelp reviews or something.
"In different words, your own example shows the utter folly of your political position."
I seem to recall an idiom like "Be aware of the log in your own eye before pointing at the splinter in someone else's." that applies nicely here.
Re: (Score:1)
They can decide that whether you pass laws or not. But historically, they rarely do.
What happens frequently is that government forces businesses to discriminate. Segregation in the US was mandated by government (mostly progressives and Democrats). That is the real danger and evil.
Read up on the history of racism, segregation, discrimination, and genocide. You should be ashamed of yo
How about you read! (Score:1, Informative)
How about YOU read! [u-s-history.com] To everyone else reading, he's playing the "technically correct" card and leaving out quite a bit of details that make his argument facetious. The link is about the Dixiecrats. The parties swapped and have swapped multiple times since the 1st Continental Congress. Lincoln was a Republican technically. Does anyone honestly think a Republican from today would free the slaves? I sure as hell don't.
Re: (Score:2)
They would.
Taking care of a slave is expensive - food, clothing, housing. Much better to set them free so they have to take of all of those expenses themselves, while you only pay them while they are actually working for you.
They would stick them with the debt for their upbringing though.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The people who pushed for segregation, eugenics, anti-miscegenation, and other racist and discriminatory policies were progressives in the modern sense. They wanted minimum wage, government control over business, price controls, free education, and tons of other mainstays of progressivism. Modern progressives still admire these people and their accomplishments: Woodrow Wilson, the Rooseve
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, my, I have an anonymous stalker. How amusing.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats and progressives keep talking about fairness and blame. The rest of us recognize that life isn't fair, and that people who pretend they can make it fair are con men and frauds.
Re: (Score:2)
People who contend they can make life more fair are often good people. Just because we can't make it completely fair doesn't mean we should give up.
Re: (Score:2)
People who make personal sacrifices to help others are good people.
People who contend they can "make life more fair" are worthless, self-righteous pricks.
No nearby doctor is willing to treat you? Die. (Score:2)
That's their business, go to a different doctor.
If you are bleeding out, and you are of an ethnicity that no nearby doctor is willing to treat, this means you would die. Do you accept death?
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously I do, if these are the only doctors in the vicinity then nobody else wants to be there. Remove these doctors from that area and there wouldn't be any doctors left there at all. But that is beside the point that in some areas there are only doctors who would cater to a subset of the population. The main point is that nobody should be oppressed by the government, including people who choose to discriminate for any reason and they happen to decide to start a business.
Re: (Score:1)
You're white, aren't you? (Note: That is a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm gay and grew up with massive discrimination and no job prospects because of my sexual orientation. Of course, as a pampered and privileged American, you wouldn't know anything about that.
Eventually, I got lucky and managed to immigrate to the US, where gay people had built communities and businesses without the help or interference of government.
Re: (Score:1)
A lot of people know a lot of things that aren't true.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it used to be like that. "Sorry, you're black, you can't use the toilet, there's one 50 miles down the road, bye". Fortunately we've come a long way since then. Not far enough, but even with agent orange in charge, let's try not to roll back too far.
Personal accountability (Score:3)
When you have a system based on individual discretion without accountability you'll find all sorts of bias.
Libertarians might argue that we shouldn't do business with people who are treating others unfairly. But in the same breath don't think we should monitor and report on the toxic behavior of private individuals. Without exchange of information how could their utopia of a free market really work?
My advice is to be an affluent able-bodied white male (straight or passing). That avoid quite a few problems in life, and gives you a little bit of an edge in society.
Re: Personal accountability (Score:2, Insightful)
Libertarians might argue that we shouldn't do business with people who are treating others unfairly. But in the same breath don't think we should monitor and report on the toxic behavior of private individuals.
Nice strawman you got there. Would be a shame if someone asked you which libertarians exactly are opposed to individuals talking about the behaviour of other individuals.
My advice is to be an affluent able-bodied white male (straight or passing). That avoid quite a few problems in life, and gives you a little bit of an edge in society.
My advice would be to have a positive attitude, work hard, and stop looking for easy excuses when things don't go your way. Who knows, maybe some day you can change your name to Barack and even get elected president.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice strawman you got there. Would be a shame if someone asked you which libertarians exactly are opposed to individuals talking about the behaviour of other individuals.
Perhaps you're right. Or perhaps I'm speaking of myself at a different time, as I used to be a card carrying big-L Libertarian.
Re: Personal accountability (Score:2)
I'm not in the habit of carrying cards, but I see much in the libertarian philosophy which is far superior to the status quo. And I have to question what kind of libertarian you could possibly have been that would have led you to the conclusion that you have to stop people from commenting on the behaviour of others. That seems to be completely contrary to libertarian ideals.
It's as if you said "I used to be a card carrying capital C communist, and communists want everyone to just keep what they earn".
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could be a complete a-hole jerk who advocates shooting your opponent, and you could get elected President.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Personal accountability (Score:5, Funny)
Silicone Valley
Ah yes. A lovely place, situated between two magnificent mountains. I've visited there many times.
Re: (Score:2)
Please let it be the CDC.
Re: Personal accountability (Score:2)
Ideally, with a competent and completely free market, the asshats will be filtered out by their competition. On the other hand we need to protect true minorities (e.g. The Disabled) from the majority rule over the market.
Things like airBNB let you make a home that's not prepared for a hotel act as a hotel.
There is a significant cost associated with allowing everyone to stay at your place. There is maintenance, cleanup, theft prevention and a number of accessibility issues that are neither cheap nor universa
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. In a completely free market -- free even to the point of somehow not involving human biases and discrimination -- you get a basic question of "is a disabled person willing and able to pay me enough to justify supporting their disability?" And that's assuming there's enough competition to cover all consumers (ie: the bnb are deciding between a disabled person vs an empty room rather than between a disabled person and an able-bodied person.)
For example if you want to service a blind person, you
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"That's totally different from refusing service to black people, for example, where the only reason for rejection is racism."
Not quite, since a lot of costs are subjective. Let's try some out:
"I need extra contents insurance since I think you may rob me."
"I need extra life insurance because I think you may murder me."
"I need extra hardware at the property because I think you are sub-standard as a human and require extra assistance".
I've read through a few of the posts in this thread, and unfortunately, they
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that living with a disability or chronic illness can really suck.
Well Boo Hoo. If I just want to make a little extra money renting out my home short term through AirBnB though: The "your illness or whatever sucks part" is not my problem to solve. it would be most cost-efficient for me to have a standard home with no specialized features such as ramps or animals allowed and just rent this only to people who can definitely use it as is as I expect, with minimal risk, and not raise a do
Re: (Score:2)
"I need extra contents insurance since I think you may rob me."
"I need extra life insurance because I think you may murder me."
Neither of which have anything to do with skin color, outside of racist stereotyping.
"I need extra hardware at the property because I think you are sub-standard as a human and require extra assistance".
I doubt too many consider disabled people as "sub-standard," but that's not the same as recognizing that disabled people (by definition) have limitations that able-bodied people don't.
The reality is that living with a disability or chronic illness can really suck
Nobody (or at least very few people) would deny that.
Living in a society were others discriminate against you for any reason (some of the "legitimate" reasons claimed by the assholes positing in this thread, or otherwise) really sucks.
Trouble is, its not the people that are discriminating in a lot of these legitimate cases. If my house has stairs and you're in a wheelchair, its not really my choice to deny you service --
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't the other reason for rejection, besides racism, be risk assessment? Black people pay more for car insurance as well, Asians pay the least amount purely for statistical reasons. If companies are allowed to make those 'choices' (simple algorithms really) simply based on credit scores and criminal records, why aren't individuals?
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, with a competent and completely free market, the asshats will be filtered out by their competition.
That's not the point or the job of the free market. It promotes profit making, healthy markets, and economic robustness. Capitalism is an economic system, not a social order, and it's amoral at best. So, it needs to be paired up with with civic infrastructure to help shape policy, regulate and tax trade, protect human rights and the environment, and prevent or punish fraud or other deceitful behavior.
Stable and healthy economics can't exist in a political vacuum. Even the earliest civilizations had busi
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarians might argue that we shouldn't do business with people who are treating others unfairly.
Who is 'we'? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Libertarians support the right for each individual to do business (or not) with anyone they choose.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarians support the right for each individual to do business (or not) with anyone they choose.
Which gives the majority the power to constructively kill you if nobody is willing to do business with you. There's a reason that "life" comes before "liberty" in the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Re: (Score:1)
Individual discretion is the only sane system, government has no authority to prevent individuals from discriminating nor should government be allowed to have that authority. Individual rights must extend to property rights and property is what we are talking about here.
Any business is ran by individuals and has property, consequently government has no authority to take away individual rights and property rights and to oppress people because they are doing business in a way that government does not approve
Re: (Score:2)
Individual rights must extend to property rights and property is what we are talking about here.
Until those with property deny use of their property to you, causing you to get thrown in jail for violating the sit-lie ordinance and/or starve to death for lack of food and lack of farmland on which to grow food.
The U.S. Constitution doesn't contain the phrase "property, liberty, or life". It contains "life, liberty, or property" twice.
Time for a Total Money Makeover (Score:2)
So, "affluent". How do I go about being that?
Paraphrasing Dave Ramsey:
Don't borrow money for your first car. Walk until you can afford a bicycle, and use that until you can afford to buy a beater car with cash. (I recommend a bicycle over public transit because entry-level jobs often require taking weekend hours when city buses are not in operation.)
Don't borrow money for your post-secondary tuition. Work in professions that do not require a degree until you have saved enough money to buy an associate's degree from a community college with cash. Then
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you get everything late and second-rate. You get crappy jobs you can bike to until you've saved a lot of money with a crappy paycheck, and you never do get to start that business because it requires more money than you can save while raising a family (which you've delayed until you can pay cash), and you don't consider a loan.
Money is for investing. If you can get a better return on money than the interest you're paying, borrow it and pay it back later.
If you want to be affluent, lear
Does this take accessibility issues into account? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most homes aren't handicap accessible. So I imagine hosts with houses with lots of stairs, etc. would have no choice but to turn away some handicapped people. Also, many people might fear that their home might even be dangerous for someone who's blind, deaf, etc. I used to live in a house that had a balcony with a low railing, for example. I sure wouldn't have wanted a blind person out there without someone to warn them.
Re: (Score:3)
Looking closer at the article, it appears that it didn't. Here's one quote that stood out:
Some hosts told guests in wheelchairs that they could come only if they had someone who could carry them up stairs.
Well...yeah. The host probably wasn't trying to be an asshole there, he was just being honest about the fact that his house wasn't wheelchair accessible. Do the study's authors expect every Airbnb host to put in handicap ramps and lifts on their stairs before they rent their house? These are private residences, not hotels.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll play the devils advocate here:
These are private residences
And some are investment properties, rented out through Airbnb as sources of income. Should they be made to comply with ADA regs the same way all other small businesses are?
Re: (Score:1)
Let's just stop being the devil and admit that ADA and all other similar regulations are impediment to individual rights. We are all born with the right to discriminate, then we discriminate in our daily lives and nobody bothers us. But god forbid should we decide to start a business and help some people we actually *can* help the government prevents us unless we take it upon ourselves not to discriminate against everybody else.
This is complete nonsense, a person has the right to discriminate (if not, the
Re: (Score:3)
let alone making everyone bend to their issues.
But that's not how the law works. Anecdote:
They opened a new post office in my town. The parking lot immediately in front of the door is very narrow. A few diagonal spaces with a VERY narrow driving lane behind them. So they put a couple of handicapped spots at the corner of the building. Very wide, van accessible. Lots of room to back up, or drop a ramp at the rear of an accessible van. But some slob with a handicapped permit bitched because they were an extra 50 feet from the door. "Nope. My handicapped
Re: (Score:2)
Do the study's authors expect every Airbnb host to put in handicap ramps and lifts on their stairs before they rent their house?
Hotels have to do exactly that. It's part of being in the hospitality business.
But here's the real kicker: If Uber is any indication, if you rent out your house through AirBnB, and someone is injured, your homeowner's insurance won't cover it. And AirBnB's might not either, if it is determined that you rented it to someone who is disabled without making proper accommodations for their particular disability.
But if they consider not renting an upstairs bedroom to someone in a wheelchair when you have no wheel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the point is that a hotel, a commercial operation, would be required by law to be accessible. Airbnb thinks it and the people who let through it should be exempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people are exempt from ADA requirements. Pretty much anyone renting or subletting a house or apartment in the U.S. is already exempt from these requirements and has been since the ADA was passed. Only a relatively small minority of apartments (usually a limited number of units in large complexes) in this country are handicap accessible, along with a very small percentage of houses (usually made so at the expense of the owner).
It was understood from the beginning that the ADA was meant for public acc
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I didn't realize that the ADA was that weak. In Europe anyone renting (we generally don't do subletting) has to make sure that the property is both safe (escape routes for fire, electrical standards etc.) and accessible.
There are a few exemptions but not many. The basic principal is that if you do any type of business beyond the level of car boot sale you probably need to ensure everyone can access it, with a few exemptions where it really isn't practical.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking closer at the article, it appears that it didn't. Here's one quote that stood out:
Some hosts told guests in wheelchairs that they could come only if they had someone who could carry them up stairs.
Well...yeah. The host probably wasn't trying to be an asshole there, he was just being honest about the fact that his house wasn't wheelchair accessible. Do the study's authors expect every Airbnb host to put in handicap ramps and lifts on their stairs before they rent their house? These are private residences, not hotels.
I agree, but... from the article:
The study further found that hosts who advertised wheelchair accessible homes approved 80% of guests without a disability, but only 60% of travelers with spinal cord injuries, raising further questions about the potential biases of Airbnb users.
It's one thing to say your place isn't wheelchair accessible. It's another to say it is, and then turn away people with wheelchairs.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should a hotel be required to put in wheelchair ramps any more than a house that's being rented out to customers? One law for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
It would suck if I got punished for being honest.
It also sucks that you run a business that isn't handicap accessible, in violation of the law.
I mean, seriously, you sound like you think you should be allowed to rent suites with no windows in violation of the fire code as long as you tell people up front... "No windows".
That doesn't fly. I can't open a knick nack shop that doesn't have a handicap accessible bathroom in it. If I get a space that isn't suitable I need to resolve all that stuff before I can get a permit, before i can legally let a customer
Re: (Score:2)
most apartment buildings even here don't have elevators.
As I understand it, if you are leasing to the public, you have to either A. have an elevator or B. lease the first floor. Based on what you said, it appears most apartment buildings have chosen option B.
Outdoor option for classified ads, not for Airbnb (Score:2)
A classified ad offering goods for pickup would appear to satisfy accessibility regulations if the buyer can arrange to meet the seller outside the seller's door at a particular time. This outdoor workaround doesn't apply so well to an Airbnb listing.
Re: (Score:2)
And further; a classified ad for a single one-off sale of used goods isn't a 'business enterprise' in remotely the same way that operating an unused suite/apartment as a 'hotel' would be.
Just as I can sell a used car via the classifieds without a lot of 'red tape'. But if I start buying and selling cars and operating a used car dealership off my driveway and out of my garage... then its a whole other thing.
AirBnB is largely people pretending to be the former, while actually being the latter.
Exempt if fewer than 30 days per year (Score:2)
The issue is that a lot of these AirBnB "hosts" are actually slumlords or wannabe hoteliers who are doing it as a business rather than to rent out spare rooms
Then change the law to phase in accessibility requirements for a property owner at a particular number of unit-days per year.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's fair to call someone who occasionally rents out their house an "unlicensed hotel." I gather that existing "bread and breakfast" operations with 5 rooms or less are already exempt from the ADA. And those are certainly more akin to hotels than some guy renting out a spare bedroom or his house for the weekend.
For Huck's sake! (Score:2)
It's not malice. Discriminating against our disabled countrymen is no one's goal... (okay it's probably someone's goal, but that sick fucker had a clumsy babysitter) perhaps it's just the increas
Re: (Score:2)
There is a group of dyed-in-the-wool gypsies that come through our area once in a while, who visit small businesses, and present them with suits for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) noncompliance. They operate with a complicit attorney, and they usually extort the offenders with a smallish monetary settlement.
The law was designed to act like that. The politicians didn't want to spend money to create an enforcement squad, so they wrote it in a way to make sure lawyers can get a profit from these lawsuits. It feels rather scummy but it is that way on purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians are very, very, afraid of doing anything that raises taxes, and have been since Reagan.
Afraid of raising taxes, yes of course. But not afraid of spending money!! That goes for both parties.
Freedom of Association? (Score:1)
A shocking new study from Rutgers shows that people are somewhat more likely to befriend or marry people of the same racial, regional, and socioeconomic background. "It's completely unacceptable to have this kind of discrimination in the 21st century," the highly paid academics said in a joint statement. "We urge Congress and the courts to end this now by creating an office of Equal Relationship Opportunity and imposing prohibitive fines for those whose friendships and significant romantic relationships do
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble is, without those laws, discrimination would just return to being rampant and overt (rather than still fairly rampant but at least a bit hidden.) That's why the laws exist in the first place!
I'm not saying that every single law is good or well thought-out, but assuming discrimination is no longer a problem and will continue to go away on its own without regulation is pretty naive. Both history and psychology suggest quite the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
"Trouble is, without those laws, discrimination would just return to being rampant and overt (rather than still fairly rampant but at least a bit hidden.) "
Good. That's honest.
I (like many landlords) aren't going to rent to a black couple or Muslim couple deliberately. I've never had a black guy apply to work for me, but I almost certainly wouldn't hire them if they did. Since the outcome is the same - it's "fairly rampant", and the discrimination happens anyway, lets' just be honest about it.
I've been o
Re: (Score:2)
I (like many landlords) aren't going to rent to a black couple or Muslim couple deliberately. I've never had a black guy apply to work for me, but I almost certainly wouldn't hire them if they did.
You just said that if you had the opportunity you would commit FEDERAL crimes. Employment and Housing discrimination is something the Feds usually take pretty seriously. You get caught, you'll get fined, if there's a pattern of such behavior, it goes worse for you.
don't be a bigot, especially since:
I've been on the other side of the equation - people who didn't want to rent to associate with me because I was gay, or because I'm Mexican.
You should know better.
Re: (Score:2)
So what?
Why do people think that overriding people's preferential associations is somehow an intrinsic moral good, enough so that it's sufficient justification for using the threat of imprisonment to force submission?
In the absence of discrimination law, suppose one person wanted to open a hair salon which only does black women's hair and another person wants to open a barbershop only open to men with blue eyes. I think the former would be more likely to survive long term than the latter - a possibly useful
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people think that overriding people's preferential associations is somehow an intrinsic moral good
Most people don't. If you're a bigot then we're going to think you're a dick regardless of whether or not your prejudices are overridden -- you'll still find ways to express them.
What we think is a moral imperative is reducing discrimination on a systematic level. But any social "system" is, necessarily, made up of people and thus the burden of not acting like a dick has to be placed on the people.
The customers in question could have easily found others willing to take their money and give them the same services
Assuming they live in a place large enough to have multiple wedding cake bakers, and that there's at least on
Re: (Score:2)
What we think is a moral imperative is reducing discrimination on a systematic level.
Again, there's no argument presented for why this is even at all moral, much less morally required. As you admit, the method tried for "reducing it on a systematic level" in the relevant sense (the private sphere) comes down, eventually, to forcing individuals to jail at gunpoint for exercising their freedom of association.
When the barber declines to give me a haircut based on my eye color he has done me no favor but he has done me no wrong. That's true even if I live in a place where he's the only barber w
Practicing barbering without a license (Score:2)
When the barber declines to give me a haircut based on my eye color he has done me no favor but he has done me no wrong. That's true even if I live in a place where he's the only barber within a thousand miles. My desire to have "an opportunity for a good haircut" does not give me a right to force him to cut my hair or to force him out of business.
Ideally, if you're going for a consistent light-touch minarchist legal code, there'd also be no law against "practicing barbering without a license" and therefore no "only barber within a thousand miles".
Re: (Score:2)
The customers in question could have easily found others willing to take their money and give them the same services
You're forgetting two things:
1. Location. Depending on the location there might not BE another local photographer or baker.
2. Local Culture. And even if there was, they might be of the same mindset.
And why should the "mighty businessman" have all the power? What makes THEM more important.
Unless some other factor changes valuations, economic discrimination is an unstable situation - the demand curve your business sees is higher if you are open to all customers, so businesses have an incentive not to discriminate, and if they ignore those incentives, they'll likely face competitors that don't.
Not always, depending on local culture, because THAT is what happened.
Discrimination in the 20th century South wasn't primarily a matter of individual choice. It was a matter of discriminatory public institutions and Jim Crow laws that mandated discrimination in the private sector.
All those things existed because of the local CULTURE which IS a choice, One can choose to NOT be a bigoted asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
The "mighty businessman" is an individual deciding what to do with his or her own time and labor. I have absolutely no right to force the barber to cut my hair contrary to his will. I have no right to have him jailed for declining to cut my hair. It's not that he's "more important," it's that it's his time and his effort. It doesn't matter whether any other barber feels differently. It doesn't matter if he's the only barber on the continent. I don't have any right to demand his services any more than I have
Sit-lie laws (Score:2)
The "mighty businessman" is an individual deciding what to do with his or her own time and labor. I have absolutely no right to force the barber to cut my hair contrary to his will. I have no right to have him jailed for declining to cut my hair. It's not that he's "more important," it's that it's his time and his effort. It doesn't matter whether any other barber feels differently. It doesn't matter if he's the only barber on the continent. I don't have any right to demand his services any more than I have a right to enslave him.
One significant difference is that laws requiring having short hair are not nearly as widespread as sit-lie laws [wikipedia.org] requiring having housing.
Economic incentive toward discrimination (Score:2)
Unless some other factor changes valuations, economic discrimination is an unstable situation - the demand curve your business sees is higher if you are open to all customers, so businesses have an incentive not to discriminate, and if they ignore those incentives, they'll likely face competitors that don't.
Say for every 100 people in a particular market, 20 are of an ethnic minority, 60 bigots of the ethnic majority who refuse to eat in the same room as a minority, and 20 neutral people of the ethnic majority. A restaurant admitting no minorities could sell meals to 80 people, the bigots and the neutrals, while a non-racist restaurant could sell meals to only 40 people, the minorities and the neutrals. Without regulation protecting minorities from a majority of bigots, whom would a rational restaurateur admit
Re: (Score:2)
If consumer preferences for separation really are strong enough that those people really won't freely eat at an establishment that admits the minority, regardless of price, then yes, market forces aren't going to force them to eat together.
But the question isn't one of a single food source in any remotely realistic scenario. Rather, it's a question of the competitive environment. Other things being equal, businesses will be most profitable by choosing to cater to whichever of the two separate groups is othe
Re: (Score:2)
I think there are clearly cases where the government should be involved in providing public goods
In your opinion, would "public goods" include being the seller of last resort of essential products and services to citizens who are victims of discrimination, as opposed to letting citizens die due to not being able to procure them because of discrimination?
Whocuddanode? (Score:2)
Who could have known that spending a few decades suing people left, right and center would make the rest of the people hesitant to embrace your group?
what is the opposite of progress? (Score:2)
That's right, mom and pop services replacing corporate, boring, but standard and guaranteed level of service such as taxis and hotels.
We all learned already about the ugly side of guerilla taxi and we keep learning about the same ugly side of guerrilla hotels.
I wonder if this could be fixed by disassociating the platform from hosts.
Abnb is not a hotel, it's just a software used by many shady private dwellings to score some side cash on tourists.
What's the problem with the business model? (Score:2)
People lend their appartments, people decide to whom. People may be biased or racist. People are nevertheless allowed to decide whom to lend their appartments and other stuff.
So what?
And why is it a problem of AIRBNB's business model?
Re: (Score:2)
AirBNB is just like Uber ... they do not want to do anything but having some website/app and getting money for provisions. So i guess they do not care at all who has which skin color.