| > Where discrimination becomes wrong is when it's based off race or some other protected class. Really now? If a 50-year-old doesn't want to live with a 20-year-old, that's wrong to you? If a theist doesn't want to live with an atheist, that's wrong to you? If a woman doesn't want to live with a man (or woman for that matter), that's wrong to you? If an Israeli doesn't want to live with a Palestinian, that's wrong to you? If a pacifist doesn't want to live with a veteran, that's wrong to you? If an American Indian doesn't want to live with a British, that's wrong to you? You think people who want to rent out a mere room or two of their home should be forced to disregard the "protected class" of the tenant? That genuinely makes sense to you? Like seriously... discrimination is not black and white. It shows complete ignorance when you say discrimination based on a protected class is somehow automatically wrong. The context (in this case, whether you're living with them) matters -- a lot. |
No, I don't. I think the majority of AirBnB rentals are the whole apartment/home, and it would be very simple to apply the rules I mentioned to just that type of listing. In NYC, where I'd imagine the percentage of shared/private rooms would be higher than other areas, 2/3 of rentals [1] are of the entire home variety. Discrimination based on protected classes is wrong in these instances. It's illegal for a landlord and it's illegal for a hotelier. Why shouldn't it be illegal for a short-term rental just because it uses the same platform that others use to rent out a room in their home?
So, does your diatribe still apply in the majority case or were you just talking about those less frequent rentals?
> It shows complete ignorance when you say discrimination based on a protected class is somehow automatically wrong.
And it shows complete ignorance on your part that you ignore the circumstances that constitute the majority of AirBnB rentals.
[1] https://skift.com/2014/02/13/airbnb-in-nyc-the-real-numbers-...