[pascalmemories]

If I understand correctly, you're happy to be the one discriminating against disabled people, old people and people with children.

But you're not happy if you're on the receiving end of any discrimination.

Don't you see the contradiction there ?

Anti-discrimination policies are about ensuring people have equal access to services and facilities (whether it's contentious toilets or hotels or whatever).

You seem to indicate in your jurisdiction that renting an apartment without safety rails is OK, but in many others it's not OK and you'd be in violation of safety laws (and also discrimination laws). It doesn't matter that you live there sometime - you're renting it as a facility and should be expected to comply with safety and whatever other laws apply. And if you do it via AirBnB, you also need to comply with their rules regardless of legal requirements. And AirBnB get to change the rules when they want and you either agree or stop using them.

[nicolas_t]

The main thing, is that I'm not a professional renter. The primary use of the apartment is for myself almost half of the year. I also rent more than half of the time outside of airbnb on Homeaway...

In the jurisdiction where I'm renting, there's no requirements for handrails. The requirements for short terms rental are basically the same as the requirements for renting an apartment long term and not all apartments are disabled friendly... It's also in an historical district, even if we wanted to we would never get the permit to install an elevator...

Also, I've never said I wouldn't accept old people. If they have no disabilities that would present a risk for them, they're welcome.

If I owned a hotel, I would have rooms with disabled access of course. But, it's different when you're renting the apartment that is also your habitation (which is the original purpose of Airbnb)...

Now, that said, I fully support laws that force businesses to accommodate people with disabilities. I also think that any new buildings should be built with this in mind. But are we going to destroy historic old buildings because they don't conform to the current regulations?

[saiya-jin]

why the attack?

the fact that he didn't put in enough safety in complicated apartment is the reason for you to attack him? Well maybe it technically challenging, would make the place ugly or is near impossible given the layout of the place or materials used to build it. You cannot just drill anywhere you want in buildings that are few hundred years old for example.

there is a distinction between sharing an apt and going to hotel. Latter is vastly more regulated, former is a bit wild west and exactly the reason why people are using it (because with this comes usually lower price if more people will be accommodated, more homely feel with more equipment ala full kitchen etc.).

Let's not try to make private apartments hotels, because then we end up with... just more fugly hotels.

[pascalmemories]

My comments are far from an attack; an attack would have been more than summarizing his comments in 2 lines and then pointing out there was a discrepancy.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting anyone should 'just drill anywhere' from ?

As an old person or a disabled person, looking on AirBnB, I can see what the apartment has and how it is laid out (provided good pictures and description are provided).

Being old or disabled does not stop me being mentally competent to decide for myself whether I'm capable of climbing stairs or negotiating the apartment. It is actually a very offensive and discriminatory thing to suggest either of these personal attributes make me mentally incompetent and this is the core of what makes such discrimination offensive - and illegal - in many jurisdictions around the world.

If there is a legal requirement to have safety rails on stairs (or any other regulation), saying the building is X years old is not an excuse for failure to comply. If you're worried about damage being caused in trying to fit them yourself, you hire a professional to do it instead and then it's their job to ensure the building is still sound after the installation. You're operating what is essentially a business, so costs like that are reasonable business expenses to offset against your profits and the result is you get an improved, safer, house for you and guests and essentially get the guests to pay for it, making you ahead.

I don't understand why you're so upset.

[vinceguidry]

> If there is a legal requirement to have safety rails on stairs (or any other regulation), saying the building is X years old is not an excuse for failure to comply.

Of course it is. Otherwise every time a new building code gets published, the entire city suddenly has to remodel. This might be acceptable for stuff like stair handrails, but is totally ridiculous for stuff like electrical connections. You really gonna make everybody change their electrical service and rip all the wire out of their home?

In theory it would be nice to be able to go into every building and expect certain features to be present. In practice it would be impossible.

[wonder_er]

OP said "The idea of the host (who was prejudice against OP's wife) receiving my money was galling".

OP wasn't complaining about the discrimination, he was complaining about _doing business with the person who discriminated_.

Wildly different things.

Laws (or rules) don't exist in a vacuum, and blindly following them is dumb. If a company rolls out a bad rule, you can either follow it, ignore it, or try to change it.

Just because it exists means nothing.

[charlesdm]

It seems like a sensible statement to make? We're talking about renting out owner occupied apartments for a limited amount of time during the year. Some properties just can't be modified to accommodate people with certain (certain, not all) disabilities. And neither would some people want to, if you're only renting them out a few months a year.

[elif]

There are plenty of hotels which are "adults only" for any number of reasons and I have not heard a complaint that these are discrimination.

Even under the US ADA, only hotels built after 1993 are required to provide compliant facilities. That means there are actual 100% for-profit hotels which are out of compliance. Perhaps frustration is more appropriately directed at them, or the provisions of the ADA than an individual trying to share his personal residence in a practical manner?