4 ms·

I'm pretty sure you are misreading. (b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to-- (1)[...everything you quoted...], or

I'm pretty sure you are misreading. (b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to-- (1)[...everything you quoted...], or (2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence. Since (2) applies to AirBnB, it doesn't matter if (1) does because the exception is (1) || (2). Volokh (a very good law blog) has blogged on this topic a while back, also useful to read: http://volokh.com/2012/02/08/does-the-right-to-choose-a-roommate-include-a-right-to-advertise-discriminatory-preferences/ http://volokh.com/2012/02/08/does-the-right-to-choose-a-room... http://volokh.com/2010/11/05/federal-government-acknowledges-constitutional-limits-on-housing-discrimination-law/ http://volokh.com/2010/11/05/federal-government-acknowledges... Apparently people also have a constitutional right to choose "intimate associations", which includes who you live with. However, you can't advertise that you'll do this.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> I'm pretty sure you are misreading. I'm pretty sure I'm not, at least in the way you are suggesting. > Since (2) applies to AirBnB (As noted previously, neither 1 nor 2 applies to many uses of AirBnB, where the person offering the rental isn't the property owner but is instead a tenant; but, that aside...) I was actually responding to your suggestion that (1) applied to AirBnB -- or, more precisely, to a homeowner renting their home out via AirBnB; I was not responding to your argument that (2) applies to a AirBnB -- or, more precisely, to rentals of units or rooms by owners of homes for multiple (but not more than four) families living independently while the owner occupies some part of it (which, again, doesn't apply to lots of AirBnB rentals, including by-owner rentals.) There are, I will acknowledge, a subset of AirBnB transactions which would fall within the exception of (2) from federal fair housing laws (which doesn't, actually, mean they'd be legal everywhere in the US; many states have much substantially narrower exceptions to state fair housing rules than exist in federal fair housing law.) > Volokh (a very good law blog) Volokh is probably the best right-libertarian law blog there is, yes. > has blogged on this topic a while back Maybe, but neither of the links you provide are "on this topic", (to wit, the legality of discriminatory renting via a commercial intermediary like AirBnB.) Both are regarding discriminatory listings via hands-off listing venues, which is a very different issue.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I'm deeply confused as to how you misinterpreted my comment so much. I was explicitly referring to (2) which is why I quoted that in full. That's also why I explicitly said "So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, or even a full floor of a 4 family brownstone...". Maybe, but neither of the links you provide are "on this topic", (to wit, the legality of discriminatory renting via a commercial intermediary like AirBnB.) Both are regarding discriminatory listings via hands-off listing venues, which is a very different issue. The point is the referenced constitutional right to "intimate associations", and you have not established that the use of AirBnB somehow nullifies this constitutional right.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I'm deeply confused as to how you misinterpreted my comment so much. I was explicitly referring to (2) which is why I quoted that in full. That's also why I explicitly said "So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, If you are renting your home (and not merely some portion of it), you aren't occupying at the time you are renting rooms or units in it, so (2) doesn't apply; (1) might, were it not for the limitations in (1). There would be no point in quoting (1) at all unless you intended to invoke it, and your hypothetical doesn't make sense unless you intended to invoke both the portion of (1) you quoted and (2). > The point is the referenced constitutional right to "intimate associations", The existence of that right is not what is in controversy here; whether it extends to the use of an actively-involved commercial intermediary like AirBnB, is. Volokh's posts that you referenced are not germane to the point actually in controversy. > and you have not established that the use of AirBnB somehow nullifies this constitutional right. And you haven't established that it extends to the situation at issue; that's the point in controversy. But what either of us has or has not established is irrelevant to the point that the Volokh Conspiracy posts you referenced aren't even relevant to the point in controversy.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      Lock an "owner's closet" and have intention to return to the building as your permanent residence, and I believe you meet all needed aspects of 2 to have it apply. Certainly if I rented part of a duplex where I lived in the other half, #2 applies. #2 continues to apply even while I'm at work, if I go out to dinner, or go on vacation.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I'm pretty sure you are misreading. I'm pretty sure I'm not, at least in the way you are suggesting. > Since (2) applies to AirBnB (As noted previously, neither 1 nor 2 applies to many uses of AirBnB, where the person offering the rental isn't the property owner but is instead a tenant; but, that aside...) I was actually responding to your suggestion that (1) applied to AirBnB -- or, more precisely, to a homeowner renting their home out via AirBnB; I was not responding to your argument that (2) applies to a AirBnB -- or, more precisely, to rentals of units or rooms by owners of homes for multiple (but not more than four) families living independently while the owner occupies some part of it (which, again, doesn't apply to lots of AirBnB rentals, including by-owner rentals.) There are, I will acknowledge, a subset of AirBnB transactions which would fall within the exception of (2) from federal fair housing laws (which doesn't, actually, mean they'd be legal everywhere in the US; many states have much substantially narrower exceptions to state fair housing rules than exist in federal fair housing law.) > Volokh (a very good law blog) Volokh is probably the best right-libertarian law blog there is, yes. > has blogged on this topic a while back Maybe, but neither of the links you provide are "on this topic", (to wit, the legality of discriminatory renting via a commercial intermediary like AirBnB.) Both are regarding discriminatory listings via hands-off listing venues, which is a very different issue.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I'm deeply confused as to how you misinterpreted my comment so much. I was explicitly referring to (2) which is why I quoted that in full. That's also why I explicitly said "So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, or even a full floor of a 4 family brownstone...". Maybe, but neither of the links you provide are "on this topic", (to wit, the legality of discriminatory renting via a commercial intermediary like AirBnB.) Both are regarding discriminatory listings via hands-off listing venues, which is a very different issue. The point is the referenced constitutional right to "intimate associations", and you have not established that the use of AirBnB somehow nullifies this constitutional right.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I'm deeply confused as to how you misinterpreted my comment so much. I was explicitly referring to (2) which is why I quoted that in full. That's also why I explicitly said "So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, If you are renting your home (and not merely some portion of it), you aren't occupying at the time you are renting rooms or units in it, so (2) doesn't apply; (1) might, were it not for the limitations in (1). There would be no point in quoting (1) at all unless you intended to invoke it, and your hypothetical doesn't make sense unless you intended to invoke both the portion of (1) you quoted and (2). > The point is the referenced constitutional right to "intimate associations", The existence of that right is not what is in controversy here; whether it extends to the use of an actively-involved commercial intermediary like AirBnB, is. Volokh's posts that you referenced are not germane to the point actually in controversy. > and you have not established that the use of AirBnB somehow nullifies this constitutional right. And you haven't established that it extends to the situation at issue; that's the point in controversy. But what either of us has or has not established is irrelevant to the point that the Volokh Conspiracy posts you referenced aren't even relevant to the point in controversy.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    Lock an "owner's closet" and have intention to return to the building as your permanent residence, and I believe you meet all needed aspects of 2 to have it apply. Certainly if I rented part of a duplex where I lived in the other half, #2 applies. #2 continues to apply even while I'm at work, if I go out to dinner, or go on vacation.