3 ms·

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 exp

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.
  - paulmd 10y ago
    Fortunately we have these things called "courts" that are able to apply reason and nuance in combination with logic, with human beings called 'judges' that are able to comprehend a difference between someone who went out to dinner and someone who locked a broom closet to try and falsely claim residence at a property. You're not the first person who has tried to falsely claim residence at a property, it's a very common way to commit tax fraud by claiming homestead exemptions. The courts won't even entertain this sham for a single second.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      The point is, if I AirBnB out my place while I go traveling in Europe for 6 weeks, it's perfectly clear that I meet the exemption. If I buy another structure and AirBnB out that place, it's equally clear that I don't.
      - paulmd 10y ago
        Yup, temporary absences like vacations are perfectly allowable. You just can't say that you reside on a property because you locked up a broom closet, even though you never live there.

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.
- paulmd 10y ago
  Fortunately we have these things called "courts" that are able to apply reason and nuance in combination with logic, with human beings called 'judges' that are able to comprehend a difference between someone who went out to dinner and someone who locked a broom closet to try and falsely claim residence at a property. You're not the first person who has tried to falsely claim residence at a property, it's a very common way to commit tax fraud by claiming homestead exemptions. The courts won't even entertain this sham for a single second.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    The point is, if I AirBnB out my place while I go traveling in Europe for 6 weeks, it's perfectly clear that I meet the exemption. If I buy another structure and AirBnB out that place, it's equally clear that I don't.
    - paulmd 10y ago
      Yup, temporary absences like vacations are perfectly allowable. You just can't say that you reside on a property because you locked up a broom closet, even though you never live there.