|
Post by High Priestess on Nov 6, 2016 4:01:20 GMT
Thanks for sharing your observations and wisdom about this, Helga. I do hope that the troll's efforts end up mostly in vain...bottom feeders like this shouldn't be rewarded, though unfortunately with the way the legal system in the US is, they often do end up both rewarded and encouraged to commit further legal-system malfeasance.
|
|
|
Post by bsuze on Nov 6, 2016 13:45:35 GMT
I am not sure what you mean when you say you can not uncheck the "not suitable for children". I just updated mine and it unchecked it and saved it.
|
|
|
Post by bsuze on Nov 6, 2016 16:03:53 GMT
[10] Because we find that the FHA doesn’t apply to the sharing of living units, it follows that it’s not unlawful to discriminate in selecting a roommate. As the underlying conduct is not unlawful, Roommate’s facilitation of discriminatory roommate searches does not violate the FHA. While Roommate itself has no intimate association right, it is entitled to raise the constitutional claims of its users. See Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 195 (1976). The injunction entered by the district court precludes Roommate’s members from selecting roommates unfettered by government regulation. Roommate may therefore raise these claims on their behalf.
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN ü FERNANDO VALLEY; THE FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO, No. 09-55272 Plaintiffs-Appellees, ý D.C. No. v. 2:03-cv-09386- PA-RZ ROOMMATE.COM, LLC, Defendant-Appellant. þ FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN ü FERNANDO VALLEY; THE FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO, No. 09-55875 Plaintiffs-Appellees, ý D.C. No. v. 2:03-cv-09386- PA-RZ ROOMMATE.COM, LLC, Defendant-Appellant. þ 973 According to the FHA if i am understanding it correctly you have the right to say who comes into your private dwelling/shared space.
|
|
|
Post by High Priestess on Nov 6, 2016 16:44:16 GMT
Bsuze...what you quote from FHA has to do with discriminating in decision making, not about discriminatory statements. Good info though...good to have those cases quoted.
Note the comments I posted above regarding the difference between discriminating in decision-making and making discriminatory statements. THere is a world of difference between these two things. THe first you're permitted to do but not the second.
I don't know why but many hosts seem not to understand this distinction...is this difficult to understand? What would make it clearer I wonder. I've seen a lot of confusion about this in the host community over the years. I feel like I've posted my brains out about this, in dozens of places, and yet I'll still read others say , "but if it's my private home can't I discriminate and say "no ____?"
Maybe I'm having a harder time seeing why hosts are confused since I've understood this distinction for over 10 years, since I first became a property owner, and learned about it by posting ads on Craigslist. I've written many times in various threads (eg in the Tips for New Hosts thread) about some of the problems that can occur when people jump into hosting without any previous experience renting out property....one of the primary such problems is not understanding laws that pertain to renting property. Those who have previous experience renting out property are more likely to have done research on the laws or simply have learned about the laws from Craiglist.
Craigslist, to their credit, does a great job in educating users of its site about the laws governing what you can say in ads. Airbnb does nothing of the kind, its nondiscrimination policy notwithstanding. Airbnb's nondiscrimination policy is not a reflection of the law, and in fact as this thread points out, it doesn't warn hosts about areas of the law where the law precludes saying things that Airbnb's policy would allow you to say.
In one other host community I participate in, just this week, I posted about three times about this distinction, each time with a link to the website stating the law in black and white, and I said about three times why it's illegal to say "no children" in an ad. Yet someone kept coming back, saying, "but it's my residence where I live, so I can say that." Then when I stated again, no you can't, he responded again, "I think it depends what state you're in." No it doesn't. It's federal law that makes this illegal, and federal law trumps state law. I said that and he responded, "Well I dont' like kids so I don't care, I'm saying no children." He was just impervious and totally resistant to what I was saying. However -- I think that he actually was not a homeowner...homeowners know that lawsuits can threaten your home. A homeowner literally could face the risk of losing their home in a lawsuit....not every suit, generally not those in small claims court for small amounts...but still. Tenants dont' face that risk.
I do see that it's a confusing issue, as I mentioned above -- because there are so many different elements of these laws. But this distinction between these two things I mention here is probably the most important one to keep in mind.
|
|
|
Post by rhonda on Nov 6, 2016 21:09:53 GMT
Aloha bsuze,
After reading these posts, and remembering Airbnb's great and wonderful decision at the beginning of the year that children under 3 stay free, I did review one of my listings.
The check mark I believe you are referring to actually reads "May not be suitable for children (0-12). I left my check mark, as it's a no brainer, more steps than I care to count, swimming pool, house mostly made of glass.
I'm not mentioning that I will refuse younger ones, but the layout has proven in my beginning days of my hosting that a crying baby all day, night, breast feeding in the bed, and crappy diapers for other guests enjoyment in a shared bath situation is not a road I'm willing to repeat for all concerned.
Therefore, I think it's totally 'safe' for hosts, guests, and our own liabilities to continue with and wise to use the check mark of "May not be appropriate for children 0-12.
Then if an inquiry does come in, I've got my 'host concerns' of my beliefs that it is not a safe environment for toddlers.
I had a hilarious inquiry from another platform, father and son for Xmas. I replied that he did not mention his son's age. The father has quite a humour, replied that it really was hurting his ego to state his son was 23. Booking confirmed!
Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by High Priestess on Nov 7, 2016 2:19:21 GMT
I had a hilarious inquiry from another platform, father and son for Xmas. I replied that he did not mention his son's age. The father has quite a humour, replied that it really was hurting his ego to state his son was 23. Booking confirmed!
|
|
|
Post by helgaparis on Nov 22, 2016 20:35:10 GMT
Because we find that the FHA doesn’t apply to the sharing of living units, it follows that it’s not unlawful to discriminate in selecting a roommate. As the underlying conduct is not unlawful, Roommate’s facilitation of discriminatory roommate searches does not violate the FHA
Deborah, I would read that as contradicting your distinction. The user on Roommate is allowed to choose according to his prrferences = discriminate. As this underlaying behaviour, the discrimination, is not unlawful, it is lawful as well, to facilitate the search = facilitate the "discrimination ". If that applies to the platform in this lawsuit, it should apply to the user itself, when he chooses some checkboxes and not others.
If you follow the statement to the end, not allowing a selection in the publicity, would mean pointless hardship for the person offering and needless pain for the party searching, as in the end the room sharer is allowed to choose and not obliged to accept everyone equally.
In your system, I would not bet on it, that the next court sees it the same way. And knows about the prior judgement and theows the next suit out. You could still end up with a troll suing, a provincial court judging and ane expensive appeal to get it turned down. Diomacy isa good idea for the wording. I'd suppose airbnb checked their checkboxes with a lawyer though. Being on the Open, maybe you can bring it up ;-)
|
|
|
Post by High Priestess on Aug 21, 2017 14:33:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rhonda on Aug 28, 2017 23:02:47 GMT
Aloha Deborah,
This topic has been on my mind since an update you recently posted.
The way "I read it", and I'm the first one to admit that I live in the land of Rhonda's La-la land, and make it up as I go...
Your post was more specific on the "Fair Housing Act", and specifically Long term rentals, which I'm finally free of after 27 years.
I have the Not suitable for children under 12 in my listing.
So, I'm pondering.............
Today, I came up with the Brilliant Idea, of how in the world can this relate to renting out rooms in our homes Short Term aka Vacation Rentals?
As I was preparing the dishwasher with liquid, I just happened to take note of the other 12 items that could kill a child if ingested.
Therefore, every cupboard would need child locks, which YouBoob parents are so quick with the comedies showing their toddlers with much pride that they have figured that piece of plastic out as soon as installed.
A long term rental is typically empty of any dangerous substances for a child. Renting rooms in your home, be it a glass house (shit I hate washing those windows, and cringe at the gazillion dollar homes with even more unreachable places), with pool and stairs galore, we'd have to totally child proof our house of parents not supervising them from going to 'forbidden places', like #1....another guest room, or #2 most of us don't have, or want to place all our cleaners in, simply because we do not have the "HouseKeeping Wing with staff"; not to mention a 'child' crying all flippin reservation time for the adults in an adjacent room, on property, or the host her/himself.
I choose to not even consider the effects a crappy diaper would have on my own personal well being, or those I share my home with.
So that is a totally ludicrous law regarding short term vacation rentals with owner on property.
I realize it's a Federal Law, so there's little hope of tweeting that little baby for clarification.
Isn't even ClubMed adult exclusive?
You can bet your bottom dollar I couldn't even imagine in this lifetime booking a Disney Cruise especially family orientated, or one that even allowed children.
Adults enjoy vacations; extremely young children have no clue what the parents are attempting to share, and are typically cranky as all get out prior to leaving their place of residence.
That's my 2 cents, if the day ever came that forced me to take strangers newborns through 10-12, I'd give it up this gig in a heartbeat.
As always, Pondering to much in Hawaii
|
|
|
Post by High Priestess on Aug 30, 2017 3:48:47 GMT
Yes you have an excellent point there Rhonda about how this law about non discrimination based on familial status may not be applicable or certainly SHOULD not be applicable to short term rentals. It's really not clear to me at all. The problem is that (as referenced in the links above) many Airbnb hosts doing only short term rentals did get sued by someone, serially sued I should point out, by one person filing MANY lawsuits on the same thing.
Courts term that a "Vexatious Litigant" which is a kind way of saying, an f-in scammer who's essentially perpetrating a type of fraud on the public, because he's suing over stuff that has not injured him in the slightest. And lawsuits are supposed to require that the plaintiff suffer an injury. The problem with "discrimination" suits, is that there's a ridiculous presumption that mere words can cause an injury requiring a several thousand dollar payout. OF course the intention of the discrimination laws was itself good: to address serious situations where whole groups of people are being "redlined" as we might say in real estate or banking. But there's no need to demonstrate a whole pattern in any individual suit. A single non nefarious and truly quite innocent instance can be worth thousands. Hence the scammers flock in like bees to nectar.
|
|