9 ms·

Airbnb host must pay $5,000 for canceling reservation based on race

77 points by Geekette 9y ago

IanDrake 9y ago
This is crazy. I think it also explains why my rental properties have so many minority renters as my wife's picture is our profile picture(she's Asian). I think people see her picture and know instantly that they would never have to deal with this kind of shit. Whereas a picture of my shaved head might not be very reassuring. Personally, 5K seems too light a settlement considering the circumstances.
- porlune 9y ago
  I agree. 5K seems very light for violating this woman's civil rights. I would say at the very least some community service needs to be tacked on.
  - Liuser 9y ago
    The host is also required to take a course in Asian American studies.
    - porlune 9y ago
      I don't think that qualifies as community service.
  - learc83 9y ago
    She also has to take a college level Asian American studies course.
    - porlune 9y ago
      I don't see that as community service. But I did realize it was part of her punishment.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  Could someone explain the downvotes this guy is getting. While there are logical fallacies, like the implications asians can't be racist, they are the kinds of fallacies renters might use.
- justboxing 9y ago
  > Personally, 5K seems too light a settlement considering the circumstances. Agreed. It looks like the Judge slapped just an extra 1K on top of the mandatory minimum. > The minimum penalty under California’s civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation is $4,000 for each offense, the agency said.
- whatok 9y ago
  I think by forcing profile pictures (and to a lesser extent names) it gives people criteria to discriminate with that they would not normally possess. I don't see what the point of having profile pictures is beyond touchy feely marketing garbage. I can only imagine how many potential users don't even get a response because of their pictures.
- hugewolf2017 9y ago
  It's unfortunate that you're being downvoted, because after having some pretty bad experiences, I am now much more likely to rent a place if it's from a minority or if there are reviews from other minorities. I realize this can come across as racist, but I just experienced too much of this crap that I no longer want to ruin a vacation over it. I also make sure to include both my picture (I'm Asian) and my wife's (she's white) because there were it's just easier to be flat out rejected than to have to suffer through "malicious compliance." Especially now that we have kids, I really don't want to put them through that.
ka4eli 9y ago
Another anti-trump PR action?
- wedowhatwedo 9y ago
  Do you think the host should be allowed to treat others that way?
  - whataretensors 9y ago
    As much as I disagree with it, yes.
    - burkaman 9y ago
      Why?
      - mikestew 9y ago
        I’ll take a whack at it: because in an ideal world, Ye Olde Racist Whitey’s Café would go out of business because decent white people won’t eat there, either. But we tried that experiment, and the world apparently doesn’t work that way. Which is why I support anti-discrimination laws despite being philosophically opposed to them.
        burkaman 9y ago
        It's not that the world doesn't work that way, it's that there are enough racists to keep each other in business. Market forces can't solve this problem even in theory, because if there weren't enough racists to support each other, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. We only have these laws because it's a systemic, societal problem.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - rhcom2 9y ago
TallGuyShort 9y ago
I had someone in Palo Alto decline my request because of my gender. Would that be viewed differently in the law?
- mikeash 9y ago
  I imagine it would be the same. See "Who is protected?" on this page: https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Housing/ https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Housing/ Sex/gender is included.
- landryraccoon 9y ago
  I'm curious what the circumstances are. The Barker case was open and shut - not only was it racially motivated but the defendant literally sent a text message incriminating herself. If your host sent you a text message after canceling saying "I hate men, that's why I'm canceling you" I bet you'd find a lawyer who could take the case.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    Circumstances differ, but they clearly state it was because of gender. It was a declined request, not a cancellation, and there no political overtone to the statement. Not sure about other details like the occupancy, or use by the landlord. But they said they didn't want a male, and that was all.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- ghaff 9y ago
  While it's somewhat understandable for some types of rentals (e.g. a spare bedroom in a house), I would think not unless there's some fine-print exceptions. [ADDED: Apparently there are for smaller shared housing when the landlord lives there.]
- MyNameHere 9y ago
  It depends on local laws, particularly if the owner lives in the dwelling. There are many caveats and carve-outs.
isatty 9y ago
$5k? Stupid woman got off easy.
tantalor 9y ago
As disgusting as the host's behavior is, her reasoning is correct: the political atmosphere has approved bigotry, racism, homophobia, and misogyny at the highest levels. Given that, how do we hold the public accountable for those offenses for which we forgive the state?
- theGimp 9y ago
  State laws and regulations still apply, no matter who's president. Also, the federal government has faced resistance from citizens and states and lost legal battles. The current political climate is extraordinary, but to say that standards are not being held is a stretch.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- simplicio 9y ago
  I'm not aware of any cases of the State denying rental housing based on race, so I don't really see any double standard. There's certainly some individuals in the gov't that hold and voice racist views, but while that's pretty gross, and a good reason to vote against them, it isn't really relevant here. If the woman had just said "I hate Asians", she wouldn't have been subject to any legal troubles (though she'd hopefully received a good dollup of social opprobrium). So again, I don't really see any double standard.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
whatok 9y ago
I do not see what forcing a class on someone like this (especially at their age) will accomplish. Does anyone really think a semester long course is going to make her go "well, gee whiz, guess I shouldn't discriminate against those Asians anymore"?
- eric_h 9y ago
  Honestly I think it's better than nothing. Discrimination like this is usually based on complete ignorance/lack of exposure to different cultures. A course on Asian cultures may actually have some effect of humanizing the asian people for this particular bigot.
  - ihsw2 9y ago
    Or it might have the opposite effect and further reinforce their lack of tolerance, especially if the course is taught from a position of outright hostility and antagonism rather than purely informational.
  - whatok 9y ago
    I'd agree with the ignorance description but argue that "One word says it all. Asian" was definitely influenced by some sort of exposure to different cultures. I'm not a social scientist but I'd bet good money that someone who is ignorantly informed by their personal experiences like that will probably not find great value in something abstract like a class. Also is the purpose to prevent further illegal discrimination or change her viewpoint? If it's to prevent further illegal discrimination, a larger punitive fine will hammer that point in. If it's to change her viewpoint, being racist is not illegal in the US, at least not yet.
  - ebfd 9y ago
    >Discrimination like this is usually based on complete ignorance/lack of exposure to different cultures. Do people from heavily black areas (e.g. Memphis, TN or Birmingham, AL) tend to be less racist than those from homogeneously white areas? (e.g. Portland, OR or Montpelier, VT)?
  - jasode 9y ago
mcbobbington 9y ago
Interestingly racism against asian people is usually not on people's radar, but they do face some significant racism. In particular, they face discrimination in getting into college. Because as a group they tend to make higher grades, they have to get the highest grades/SAT to get into colleges they want. https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asians https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-...
justboxing 9y ago
> In the video, Suh shows screen shots of the exchange, including a message from Barker saying, “It’s is why we have Trump” and, “I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners.” Conservatively considering 45% to 48% of the registered Voters voted for Trump, what %age of those voters think like this? => “I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners.” Alarming.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  Percentage of voting age population that even voted at all was lower than that, and percentage of registered voters was not much higher. Be wary of thinking "48% of America" => "I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners". It's not that different than thinking any Democrat will go off on you for assuming their gender. What I find more alarming is the percentage of people who really feel like they're reasonable and half of the country is their enemy on both sides.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    But when you have president that is a rallying point for racism and actively says a major existential threat to humanity is "a chinese hoax", it is hard not to view that person as a threat and enemy. He has demonstrated a stunning immunity to logic and willingness to harm American interests. He ignores open dialog. He and his who can't be talked to (which are most I have talked to) are the enemy. They represent and embrace ignorance and want a kind of backwards thinking and social order that only makes sense in the myopic view. They are anti-science while using tools made by and for science to communicate and often see no hypocrisy in any of this. They are the reason we have terms like "post-truth". They often can't be reasoned with. They often seem will to deploy violence. They are doing real harm. How are they not the enemy?
    - TallGuyShort 9y ago
      >> They often can't be reasoned with. They often seem will to deploy violence. They are doing real harm. You... do understand that many conservatives think exactly that of liberals and that's what I think is more dangerous than either one alone, right?
giantwolf2017 9y ago
This is an interesting article. It makes no mention of the controversy leading up to these comments. People generally aren't racist when it comes to money. The host was triggered into a racist tirade after being informed the renter was bringing 2 extra people and 2 extra dogs. The guest informed her hosts while on route in a snowstorm. It's well within the hosts rights to declare the contractual reservation null and void at this point. The host screwed up and injected race into the equation, and that is why she is being punished. This law student seems like a complete entitled idiot that had her reservation cancelled because she tried to impose her own rules on the airbnb owner. As a law student, she knew how to milk public sympathy and the law system to her benefit. I doubt this will be the last time we hear of this woman. It doesn't excuse the racist comments, but let's be honest about the situation. She was not denied the rental because the host is a racist. The host was very happy to take her money. Whatever prejudices the host had she ignored and rented out the property until the guest decided she was going to turn the property (I'm assuming) into a giant weekend party
- rdiddly 9y ago
  Citation needed? Where'd you find all that? Not being a pain in the ass, I just want to read it.
  - anotherbrownguy 9y ago
    Message transcript and full story here: https://www.everipedia.com/tami-barker-airbnb-host/ https://www.everipedia.com/tami-barker-airbnb-host/ I agree with OP. The woman was stupid enough to use racist remarks but the reasons she cancelled the reservation was definitely not racist.
    - chickenfries 9y ago
      So you think this person is racist, but that they don't act like it? You're assuming that they wouldn't have treated a white person behaving the same way differently, even though you KNOW this person is very easily triggered into racist tirades? While acting as an AirBnB host? I just don't see how you can look and that and think "yeah, they probably treat all their guests equally regardless of race. I'm sure she's very nice to OTHER, better behaving Asian law students."
skizm 9y ago
What's crazy is the person could have gotten away with it if they had just not specified why they were cancelling. Not only are they racist, but they want people to know it, aaaand they're stupid enough to message the reason via a channel that is easily linked to the offending situation. Also: > The woman, Dyne Suh, a UCLA law student... That's like picking a fight with someone and they turn out to be an amateur MMA fighter. ----- Side-note, does this ruling say anything about AirBnB's legal situation by declaring an AirBnB as a "place of public accommodation"?
bluetidepro 9y ago
The host deserves a larger fine for her stupidity alone. She told the women who reserved straight up that she "wouldn't rent to an Asian." Why not just deny the request, and keep your bigotry comments to yourself about the "why." It's one thing that the host was racist, but if she would have just kept that to herself, it probably wouldn't have got her a fine. So not only is the host a racist, but she is clearly an idiot too. *smh
- mabbo 9y ago
  > Why not just deny the request, and keep your bigotry comments to yourself I don't want you to think that I'm saying this is as simple as "blame Trump". It's not that simple. But it seems related to me. It used to be that you could be a bigot like this and so long as you didn't make it public, loud, obvious, no one really cared that much. No one liked it, but no one cared. Now we're in a time when America has elected a President who is pretty openly bigoted in a number of ways. There's a good question there about cause vs effect. Did people being more openly bigoted lead to Trump being elected, or did the President being pretty bigoted lead to people feeling more comfortable with their closed-minded beliefs? Or maybe there's a mutual cause to both things. But it sure does seem related.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    The host outright said it was related to Trump. I see no reason not to believe her.
thrownblown 9y ago
The lady canceled because she tried to show up with 4 extra friends and 2 dogs. edit: 2 extra friends.
- rhcom2 9y ago
  The lady approved of the extra people and dogs ahead of time for an added fee.
  - usaphp 9y ago
    Where did you get it from? The comment on the video they have in the article says: > "if you think 4 people and 2 dogs are getting a room for $50 a night on big bear mountain during the busiest weekend of the year...you are insanely high".
    - rhcom2 9y ago
      > "When Suh later asked if it was OK to bring two friends and two dogs along, Barker said it was fine but the group would need to pay an additional $50 a night, according to screenshots of their text messages." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/airbnb-california-racist-comment-penalty-asian-american https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/airbnb-ca... They didn't put all the text messages in the video.
      - usaphp 9y ago
        I wonder why they did not put the most important part of the conversation in the video? Instead they put the part where the host is not approving the request?
  - anotherbrownguy 9y ago
    She had approved knowing the race of the person so the reason she cancelled was definitely not racist. I think she was just stupid enough to make those remarks and I hope she is being punished for that. Otherwise, this is wrong.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
throwaway993829 9y ago
Anyone know why this does not fall under the exemptions in the Fair Housing Act? Does CA have a stricter law on the books? edit: Though the article doesn't mention it, I suppose the land lord could also own more properties than what the exemptions allow for.
savvyraccoon 9y ago
Stupid of the host to act like that and inexcusable, got what she deserved etc, but.... This is one sided reporting. First of all Barker accepted the booking knowing who the guest would be, from her name, profile etc. Then there were frequent polite comms where the booking was changed, renegotiated. Two extra guests were added. Then the guest asked to bring a small dog, and the host said no because they have a pitbull in the house. Guest persisted and eventually the hosts agreed to remove their own dog from the house to accommodate the dog. Messages on the day of arrival have been withheld by the guest, but relationship broke down and became hostile, with the guest delaying arrival until 2AM-3AM. The host lost patience. So I think the reason they cancelled is because the guest really did mess them about, but still really stupid to use those words in doing so. Tami Barker had the opportunity to refuse the booking long before, and didn't, then went out of her way to accommodate the guests. Of course, nobody is interested in that.
- quxbar 9y ago
  What's the other side here, that the guests are to blame for the cancellation? I would say Tami Barker's behavior makes it seem that the only thing her guests did wrong was show let their ethnicity show before they got the keys.
  - andrewla 9y ago
    From reading the transcript, it seems like the decision was made to cancel the reservation for some undisclosed reason (omitted from the public transcripts), and the racial slur and Trump reference were parting shots and a reveal of an underlying prejudice rather than the direct motivation. Assuming that the host inferred the ethnicity of the tenant from their name, that was accessible from the beginning of the interaction, and might have colored some of the reactions to the requests, but not in a directly racist way until the very end.
- mikestew 9y ago
  All well and good, none of which is relevant to the story. What is relevant is that the host documented that she doesn’t want to rent to Asians. That’s why the host ended up paying $5K, not because the guest was a pain in the ass. Yes, if she’d just said, “you’re a pain in the ass, I’m not renting to you”, all would be well. But some people just can’t help themselves, I guess (I’m picturing the host as some letters-to-the-editor crackpot).
fandango666 9y ago
I wonder if this whole thing really happened or was completely made up. If you check out her FB profile, you can see that she is supporting many violent terrorist/anarchist movements such as anti-capitalism, BLM etc. Not saying it could not have happened, but what a funny coincidence...
- krapp 9y ago
  > I wonder if this whole thing really happened or was completely made up. Well, reading TFA, given that there seems to be evidence and a legal ruling involved, chances are likely that this incident wasn't "completely made up." But obviously you didn't create a green account simply to cast aspersions on Dyn Suh's character, and you must have read the article first, so clearly you know that "the whole thing really happened." Unless you're accusing the LA Times, the California government, Tami Barker and her attorney of all collaborating to manufacture this story, but that would be absurd. I also don't see evidence of support for "many violent terrorist/anarchist movements" on her FB account, although she does have a BLM sticker on her mortarboard in her banner. Of course, that alone isn't evidence of support for violence or terrorism, so I have to assume you know her personally and have supporting evidence of Mrs. Suh's radical sympathies, and have chosen to post anonymously out of fear for your personal safety, which is brave of you. However, I don't understand what "coincidence" you could be referring to, or why you find it "funny." Perhaps you could elaborate?
fav_collector 9y ago
I think people should be able to discriminate for anything they want when letting others into their home whether it's a business related visit or not. However I think that people should be punished for explicitly commenting on protected classes in a hateful or angry manner in business related situations.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I'm fine with discrimination when it's non-business guests. But once you invite people into your home for business purposes, why shouldn't the same protections apply as they would for any other business? If you feel a need to discriminate in your home, don't use your home for business.
abhi3 9y ago
I know most commenters are well meaning, but the problem here is not that the owner was stupid enough to be overtly racist. Top comments on this thread: > Stupid of the host to act like that > The host deserves a larger fine for her stupidity alone. She told the women who reserved straight up that she "wouldn't rent to an Asian." > I think people should be able to discriminate for anything they want when letting others into their home whether it's a business related visit or not. > I wonder if this whole thing really happened or was completely made up.

77 points by Geekette 9y ago

This is crazy. I think it also explains why my rental properties have so many minority renters as my wife's picture is our profile picture(she's Asian). I think people see her picture and know instantly that they would never have to deal with this kind of shit. Whereas a picture of my shaved head might not be very reassuring. Personally, 5K seems too light a settlement considering the circumstances.

porlune 9y ago
I agree. 5K seems very light for violating this woman's civil rights. I would say at the very least some community service needs to be tacked on.
- Liuser 9y ago
  The host is also required to take a course in Asian American studies.
  - porlune 9y ago
    I don't think that qualifies as community service.
- learc83 9y ago
  She also has to take a college level Asian American studies course.
  - porlune 9y ago
    I don't see that as community service. But I did realize it was part of her punishment.
sqeaky 9y ago
Could someone explain the downvotes this guy is getting. While there are logical fallacies, like the implications asians can't be racist, they are the kinds of fallacies renters might use.
justboxing 9y ago
> Personally, 5K seems too light a settlement considering the circumstances. Agreed. It looks like the Judge slapped just an extra 1K on top of the mandatory minimum. > The minimum penalty under California’s civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation is $4,000 for each offense, the agency said.
whatok 9y ago
I think by forcing profile pictures (and to a lesser extent names) it gives people criteria to discriminate with that they would not normally possess. I don't see what the point of having profile pictures is beyond touchy feely marketing garbage. I can only imagine how many potential users don't even get a response because of their pictures.
hugewolf2017 9y ago
It's unfortunate that you're being downvoted, because after having some pretty bad experiences, I am now much more likely to rent a place if it's from a minority or if there are reviews from other minorities. I realize this can come across as racist, but I just experienced too much of this crap that I no longer want to ruin a vacation over it. I also make sure to include both my picture (I'm Asian) and my wife's (she's white) because there were it's just easier to be flat out rejected than to have to suffer through "malicious compliance." Especially now that we have kids, I really don't want to put them through that.

ka4eli 9y ago

Another anti-trump PR action?

wedowhatwedo 9y ago
Do you think the host should be allowed to treat others that way?
- whataretensors 9y ago
  As much as I disagree with it, yes.
  - burkaman 9y ago
    Why?
    - mikestew 9y ago
      I’ll take a whack at it: because in an ideal world, Ye Olde Racist Whitey’s Café would go out of business because decent white people won’t eat there, either. But we tried that experiment, and the world apparently doesn’t work that way. Which is why I support anti-discrimination laws despite being philosophically opposed to them.
      - burkaman 9y ago
        It's not that the world doesn't work that way, it's that there are enough racists to keep each other in business. Market forces can't solve this problem even in theory, because if there weren't enough racists to support each other, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. We only have these laws because it's a systemic, societal problem.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - rhcom2 9y ago

TallGuyShort 9y ago

I had someone in Palo Alto decline my request because of my gender. Would that be viewed differently in the law?

mikeash 9y ago
I imagine it would be the same. See "Who is protected?" on this page: https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Housing/ https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Housing/ Sex/gender is included.
landryraccoon 9y ago
I'm curious what the circumstances are. The Barker case was open and shut - not only was it racially motivated but the defendant literally sent a text message incriminating herself. If your host sent you a text message after canceling saying "I hate men, that's why I'm canceling you" I bet you'd find a lawyer who could take the case.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  Circumstances differ, but they clearly state it was because of gender. It was a declined request, not a cancellation, and there no political overtone to the statement. Not sure about other details like the occupancy, or use by the landlord. But they said they didn't want a male, and that was all.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
ghaff 9y ago
While it's somewhat understandable for some types of rentals (e.g. a spare bedroom in a house), I would think not unless there's some fine-print exceptions. [ADDED: Apparently there are for smaller shared housing when the landlord lives there.]
MyNameHere 9y ago
It depends on local laws, particularly if the owner lives in the dwelling. There are many caveats and carve-outs.

isatty 9y ago

$5k? Stupid woman got off easy.

tantalor 9y ago

As disgusting as the host's behavior is, her reasoning is correct: the political atmosphere has approved bigotry, racism, homophobia, and misogyny at the highest levels. Given that, how do we hold the public accountable for those offenses for which we forgive the state?

theGimp 9y ago
State laws and regulations still apply, no matter who's president. Also, the federal government has faced resistance from citizens and states and lost legal battles. The current political climate is extraordinary, but to say that standards are not being held is a stretch.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
simplicio 9y ago
I'm not aware of any cases of the State denying rental housing based on race, so I don't really see any double standard. There's certainly some individuals in the gov't that hold and voice racist views, but while that's pretty gross, and a good reason to vote against them, it isn't really relevant here. If the woman had just said "I hate Asians", she wouldn't have been subject to any legal troubles (though she'd hopefully received a good dollup of social opprobrium). So again, I don't really see any double standard.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

whatok 9y ago

I do not see what forcing a class on someone like this (especially at their age) will accomplish. Does anyone really think a semester long course is going to make her go "well, gee whiz, guess I shouldn't discriminate against those Asians anymore"?

eric_h 9y ago
Honestly I think it's better than nothing. Discrimination like this is usually based on complete ignorance/lack of exposure to different cultures. A course on Asian cultures may actually have some effect of humanizing the asian people for this particular bigot.
- ihsw2 9y ago
  Or it might have the opposite effect and further reinforce their lack of tolerance, especially if the course is taught from a position of outright hostility and antagonism rather than purely informational.
- whatok 9y ago
  I'd agree with the ignorance description but argue that "One word says it all. Asian" was definitely influenced by some sort of exposure to different cultures. I'm not a social scientist but I'd bet good money that someone who is ignorantly informed by their personal experiences like that will probably not find great value in something abstract like a class. Also is the purpose to prevent further illegal discrimination or change her viewpoint? If it's to prevent further illegal discrimination, a larger punitive fine will hammer that point in. If it's to change her viewpoint, being racist is not illegal in the US, at least not yet.
- ebfd 9y ago
  >Discrimination like this is usually based on complete ignorance/lack of exposure to different cultures. Do people from heavily black areas (e.g. Memphis, TN or Birmingham, AL) tend to be less racist than those from homogeneously white areas? (e.g. Portland, OR or Montpelier, VT)?
- jasode 9y ago

mcbobbington 9y ago

Interestingly racism against asian people is usually not on people's radar, but they do face some significant racism. In particular, they face discrimination in getting into college. Because as a group they tend to make higher grades, they have to get the highest grades/SAT to get into colleges they want. https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asians https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-...

justboxing 9y ago

> In the video, Suh shows screen shots of the exchange, including a message from Barker saying, “It’s is why we have Trump” and, “I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners.” Conservatively considering 45% to 48% of the registered Voters voted for Trump, what %age of those voters think like this? => “I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners.” Alarming.

TallGuyShort 9y ago
Percentage of voting age population that even voted at all was lower than that, and percentage of registered voters was not much higher. Be wary of thinking "48% of America" => "I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners". It's not that different than thinking any Democrat will go off on you for assuming their gender. What I find more alarming is the percentage of people who really feel like they're reasonable and half of the country is their enemy on both sides.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  But when you have president that is a rallying point for racism and actively says a major existential threat to humanity is "a chinese hoax", it is hard not to view that person as a threat and enemy. He has demonstrated a stunning immunity to logic and willingness to harm American interests. He ignores open dialog. He and his who can't be talked to (which are most I have talked to) are the enemy. They represent and embrace ignorance and want a kind of backwards thinking and social order that only makes sense in the myopic view. They are anti-science while using tools made by and for science to communicate and often see no hypocrisy in any of this. They are the reason we have terms like "post-truth". They often can't be reasoned with. They often seem will to deploy violence. They are doing real harm. How are they not the enemy?
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    >> They often can't be reasoned with. They often seem will to deploy violence. They are doing real harm. You... do understand that many conservatives think exactly that of liberals and that's what I think is more dangerous than either one alone, right?

giantwolf2017 9y ago

This is an interesting article. It makes no mention of the controversy leading up to these comments. People generally aren't racist when it comes to money. The host was triggered into a racist tirade after being informed the renter was bringing 2 extra people and 2 extra dogs. The guest informed her hosts while on route in a snowstorm. It's well within the hosts rights to declare the contractual reservation null and void at this point. The host screwed up and injected race into the equation, and that is why she is being punished. This law student seems like a complete entitled idiot that had her reservation cancelled because she tried to impose her own rules on the airbnb owner. As a law student, she knew how to milk public sympathy and the law system to her benefit. I doubt this will be the last time we hear of this woman. It doesn't excuse the racist comments, but let's be honest about the situation. She was not denied the rental because the host is a racist. The host was very happy to take her money. Whatever prejudices the host had she ignored and rented out the property until the guest decided she was going to turn the property (I'm assuming) into a giant weekend party

rdiddly 9y ago
Citation needed? Where'd you find all that? Not being a pain in the ass, I just want to read it.
- anotherbrownguy 9y ago
  Message transcript and full story here: https://www.everipedia.com/tami-barker-airbnb-host/ https://www.everipedia.com/tami-barker-airbnb-host/ I agree with OP. The woman was stupid enough to use racist remarks but the reasons she cancelled the reservation was definitely not racist.
  - chickenfries 9y ago
    So you think this person is racist, but that they don't act like it? You're assuming that they wouldn't have treated a white person behaving the same way differently, even though you KNOW this person is very easily triggered into racist tirades? While acting as an AirBnB host? I just don't see how you can look and that and think "yeah, they probably treat all their guests equally regardless of race. I'm sure she's very nice to OTHER, better behaving Asian law students."

skizm 9y ago

What's crazy is the person could have gotten away with it if they had just not specified why they were cancelling. Not only are they racist, but they want people to know it, aaaand they're stupid enough to message the reason via a channel that is easily linked to the offending situation. Also: > The woman, Dyne Suh, a UCLA law student... That's like picking a fight with someone and they turn out to be an amateur MMA fighter. ----- Side-note, does this ruling say anything about AirBnB's legal situation by declaring an AirBnB as a "place of public accommodation"?

bluetidepro 9y ago

The host deserves a larger fine for her stupidity alone. She told the women who reserved straight up that she "wouldn't rent to an Asian." Why not just deny the request, and keep your bigotry comments to yourself about the "why." It's one thing that the host was racist, but if she would have just kept that to herself, it probably wouldn't have got her a fine. So not only is the host a racist, but she is clearly an idiot too. *smh

mabbo 9y ago
> Why not just deny the request, and keep your bigotry comments to yourself I don't want you to think that I'm saying this is as simple as "blame Trump". It's not that simple. But it seems related to me. It used to be that you could be a bigot like this and so long as you didn't make it public, loud, obvious, no one really cared that much. No one liked it, but no one cared. Now we're in a time when America has elected a President who is pretty openly bigoted in a number of ways. There's a good question there about cause vs effect. Did people being more openly bigoted lead to Trump being elected, or did the President being pretty bigoted lead to people feeling more comfortable with their closed-minded beliefs? Or maybe there's a mutual cause to both things. But it sure does seem related.
- mikeash 9y ago
  The host outright said it was related to Trump. I see no reason not to believe her.

thrownblown 9y ago

The lady canceled because she tried to show up with 4 extra friends and 2 dogs. edit: 2 extra friends.

rhcom2 9y ago
The lady approved of the extra people and dogs ahead of time for an added fee.
- usaphp 9y ago
  Where did you get it from? The comment on the video they have in the article says: > "if you think 4 people and 2 dogs are getting a room for $50 a night on big bear mountain during the busiest weekend of the year...you are insanely high".
  - rhcom2 9y ago
    > "When Suh later asked if it was OK to bring two friends and two dogs along, Barker said it was fine but the group would need to pay an additional $50 a night, according to screenshots of their text messages." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/airbnb-california-racist-comment-penalty-asian-american https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/airbnb-ca... They didn't put all the text messages in the video.
    - usaphp 9y ago
      I wonder why they did not put the most important part of the conversation in the video? Instead they put the part where the host is not approving the request?
- anotherbrownguy 9y ago
  She had approved knowing the race of the person so the reason she cancelled was definitely not racist. I think she was just stupid enough to make those remarks and I hope she is being punished for that. Otherwise, this is wrong.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

throwaway993829 9y ago

Anyone know why this does not fall under the exemptions in the Fair Housing Act? Does CA have a stricter law on the books? edit: Though the article doesn't mention it, I suppose the land lord could also own more properties than what the exemptions allow for.

savvyraccoon 9y ago

Stupid of the host to act like that and inexcusable, got what she deserved etc, but.... This is one sided reporting. First of all Barker accepted the booking knowing who the guest would be, from her name, profile etc. Then there were frequent polite comms where the booking was changed, renegotiated. Two extra guests were added. Then the guest asked to bring a small dog, and the host said no because they have a pitbull in the house. Guest persisted and eventually the hosts agreed to remove their own dog from the house to accommodate the dog. Messages on the day of arrival have been withheld by the guest, but relationship broke down and became hostile, with the guest delaying arrival until 2AM-3AM. The host lost patience. So I think the reason they cancelled is because the guest really did mess them about, but still really stupid to use those words in doing so. Tami Barker had the opportunity to refuse the booking long before, and didn't, then went out of her way to accommodate the guests. Of course, nobody is interested in that.

quxbar 9y ago
What's the other side here, that the guests are to blame for the cancellation? I would say Tami Barker's behavior makes it seem that the only thing her guests did wrong was show let their ethnicity show before they got the keys.
- andrewla 9y ago
  From reading the transcript, it seems like the decision was made to cancel the reservation for some undisclosed reason (omitted from the public transcripts), and the racial slur and Trump reference were parting shots and a reveal of an underlying prejudice rather than the direct motivation. Assuming that the host inferred the ethnicity of the tenant from their name, that was accessible from the beginning of the interaction, and might have colored some of the reactions to the requests, but not in a directly racist way until the very end.
mikestew 9y ago
All well and good, none of which is relevant to the story. What is relevant is that the host documented that she doesn’t want to rent to Asians. That’s why the host ended up paying $5K, not because the guest was a pain in the ass. Yes, if she’d just said, “you’re a pain in the ass, I’m not renting to you”, all would be well. But some people just can’t help themselves, I guess (I’m picturing the host as some letters-to-the-editor crackpot).

fandango666 9y ago

I wonder if this whole thing really happened or was completely made up. If you check out her FB profile, you can see that she is supporting many violent terrorist/anarchist movements such as anti-capitalism, BLM etc. Not saying it could not have happened, but what a funny coincidence...

krapp 9y ago
> I wonder if this whole thing really happened or was completely made up. Well, reading TFA, given that there seems to be evidence and a legal ruling involved, chances are likely that this incident wasn't "completely made up." But obviously you didn't create a green account simply to cast aspersions on Dyn Suh's character, and you must have read the article first, so clearly you know that "the whole thing really happened." Unless you're accusing the LA Times, the California government, Tami Barker and her attorney of all collaborating to manufacture this story, but that would be absurd. I also don't see evidence of support for "many violent terrorist/anarchist movements" on her FB account, although she does have a BLM sticker on her mortarboard in her banner. Of course, that alone isn't evidence of support for violence or terrorism, so I have to assume you know her personally and have supporting evidence of Mrs. Suh's radical sympathies, and have chosen to post anonymously out of fear for your personal safety, which is brave of you. However, I don't understand what "coincidence" you could be referring to, or why you find it "funny." Perhaps you could elaborate?

fav_collector 9y ago

I think people should be able to discriminate for anything they want when letting others into their home whether it's a business related visit or not. However I think that people should be punished for explicitly commenting on protected classes in a hateful or angry manner in business related situations.

mikeash 9y ago
I'm fine with discrimination when it's non-business guests. But once you invite people into your home for business purposes, why shouldn't the same protections apply as they would for any other business? If you feel a need to discriminate in your home, don't use your home for business.

abhi3 9y ago

I know most commenters are well meaning, but the problem here is not that the owner was stupid enough to be overtly racist. Top comments on this thread: > Stupid of the host to act like that > The host deserves a larger fine for her stupidity alone. She told the women who reserved straight up that she "wouldn't rent to an Asian." > I think people should be able to discriminate for anything they want when letting others into their home whether it's a business related visit or not. > I wonder if this whole thing really happened or was completely made up.