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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why do you ask such a silly question? Of course this is really shit, if it's true. The point is I don't know whether this situation took place in real world or just anti-trump pr action. How do you know? Why the hell trump is in article about shitty host ?
What makes you think it didn't happen in the real world? The first paragraph links to an official document (PDF) by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. And the article is quoting the text message that woman wrote.
While I agree they're scum, do you want to sleep in a home occupied by someone who has overwhelming hate for your race? Would you want to eat a wedding cake someone was legally forced to bake for you?
Where people want to have a white only hotel today, they can still effectively have one. They just have to be slightly more careful.
>> Black folks should have to stay where they can find black hotels or black airbnb hosts?
Not what I said at all. I don't think blacks should have any restrictions on where they travel on the basis of their race. But if I was black and I checked into a B&B and got the distinct albeit subtle impression that the person was a racist and only accomodated me because it was too late for them to back out with legal ramifications, would I feel comfortable spending the night and eating the breakfast they prepared for me? Not remotely.
I wouldn't vote yes on a ballot measure to repeal all laws against discrimination, but I'm also not entirely convinced that they have much to do with actually causing the progress that's been made for minorities.
The point of all discrimination laws is that sometimes you don't have a choice. If there was only one racist guy in America, discrimination wouldn't be illegal.
Historically, it was nearly impossible for many people to find a hotel room owned by someone without overwhelming hate for their race, which is why we have laws against acting on those beliefs. While the situation has improved, there's still enough widespread discrimination that these laws are necessary. Nobody wants to sleep in a home occupied by a racist, but they also don't want to be barred from going on vacation at all.
Sure, 50 years ago if you were a white business owner and you took a black guys money, you might be ostracized by your community.
Racism in an economic sense today only hurts the racist. Do you think banks are going to turn down the profit of a black mortgage if it is profitable? Do you think this lady on the mountain is just going to turn down money because the renter is Asian?
I'm just saying it's not the norm. Do people have stereotypes about cultures? Of course. Would someone rather have someone of the same ethnic or cultural background stay in their house? Probably, and I don't think thats entirely unreasonable. But it's not a acceptable in our society and I think that's a good thing. In order to bridge the gap there are certain conditions, protocols and expectations that are followed.
In this case there are two people of different cultures (and culture may not have had anything to do with it, all cultures have ass's), one is bending over backwards for the other, who seems to have very little respect for the rules that are in place to bridge the divide between people and create a fair, equitable and nondiscriminutory enviroment.
Rules are in place to set a standard that otherwise might not exist across cultures.
Break the rules, then complain that you have been stereotyped by acting out the exact stereotype? Seems a touch hypocritical.
Those are just a few examples that happen to be linked on Wikipedia.
> Do you think this lady on the mountain is just going to turn down money because the renter is Asian?
Yes, because that's what she said. I do my best to take people at their word unless there's a good reason not to.
> I'm just saying it's not the norm.
We could argue about what "norm" means, but at the very least, it's common. It's not just isolated incidents of crazy people doing crazy things.
I'm sorry but I didn't really follow the rest of your comment. As far as I can tell there's no culture clash or unwritten rules at issue in this story.
>> Yes, because that's what she said. I do my best to take people at their word unless there's a good reason not to.
Except that she had already accepted the money and I would presume the first time she saw the client's ethnicity didn't occur between accepting the booking and the final outburst. A bunch of other, unrelated stuff happened that made her angry. And then she dropped the racist stuff. That's an important distinction for that parent is saying.
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.
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.
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.]
If it was a roommate request, then it is viewed differently. If the property was at most 3 units and the landlord lives there, then the landlord cannot advertise that they will discriminate on gender but the landlord is allowed to. (Who said that the laws had to make sense?)
Yeah if I'm going to get declined after going to the trouble of applying, or if I'm going to enter into a housing agreement with someone who hates me, I'd rather their advertisement be smothered in discriminatory epithets. Seriously.
But if you're just browsing past the ad, do you need reminding of how many discriminatory slimeballs there are out there?
I don't like the mentality that leads to this kind of confused legal situation. But if I squint sideways and pretend that I don't have a brain, I can kinda see how someone could have thought this a good idea.
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?
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
>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)?
Actually, I think the forced class makes the situation worse. My life experiences tells me classes and other attempts at "re-education" only hardens the attitudes for hatred and discrimination.
For a person to change their racism/homophobia, it requires interaction with another human that triggers an emotional component. For example, a person who despises gays has a child grow up to be gay which changes their mind. Or a somebody who hates blacks later ends up stuck in the front line of a war with other blacks watching each others' backs and it eliminates (or lessens) the prejudice.
It doesn't mean that positive human interactions will always "cure" everyone but it seems to be more effective than classes.
Classes are more useful for cultural/etiquette topics (e.g. how to hold business cards with 2 hands in Japan).
There's a very good chance you're correct, of course. I suppose my comment was just my general hopeful optimism coming out.
Really, though, how does one actually "deprogram" someone with opinions like this? Can it actually be done?
Casual racists are a toxic population whose opinions and behaviors in favor of said racism bring no value to society. How on earth do we eliminate it?
I used to think that the steamroller of progress and information would gradually eliminate racism and sexism and denial of science and logic as older generations died out, but the rise of the next generation of racists and MRAs and flat earthers seems to be a fairly strong counterpoint to that.
When thousands upon thousands of white Americans came to Los Angeles at the turn of the 20th century, they assumed that the Mexican-American families who had been in California for hundreds of years were recent illegal immigrants.
New information may change her view, and it certainly has a better chance than just a fine. Financial punishment is a vital part, but it alone would reinforce the narrative she likely already has about the government taking her money and giving it to immigrants.
Travel maybe a vaccine, but I doubt education cures much. People need personal experiences and a truly racist person forced into a classroom is just going to count the hours till she's out of there.
Exposure to other races, however, has the opposite effect (decreased tolerance toward other races), regardless how much education (or reeducation) an individual has undergone. [1]-[19]
Which begs the question: can we ever achieve a society that is both multicultural and welcoming to all races? All the science suggests no; we can either have our cake, or eat it. We must choose.
Let's see some proper citations that actual prove your ridiculous claim instead of just dumping a bunch of links and saying that this proves your pseudo scientific claim. No wonder you made a throwaway.
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-...
> 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.”
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.
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?
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"?
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
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."
>So you think this person is racist, but that they don't act like it?
No, I think this person is not racist, but acted like one in the heat of the argument.
>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?
If I understood this correctly, I don't see how that follows.
>I'm sure she's very nice to OTHER, better behaving Asian law students
She was nice for most of the conversation that is available until the guest kept adding dogs and people to the arrangement even though the host said they can't allow dogs.
Having watched the video, I am pretty sure the guest specifically tried to get a reaction that she could use and was successfully able to do so. Some of the conversation is missing and I hope the host makes it public to make matters clear.
The link cited is to a wiki site, meaning anybody can add information to it. Although specifically that site, Everipedia.com, has a pretty good reputation for being unbiased similar to Wikipedia, I'm just trying to point out that it's still a wiki site. Anyone, including you or me, could edit that page and for sensitive topics such as racism, we should probably take things coming from places like Everipedia, Wikipedia etc with a grain of salt.
That site is a wiki site, similar to Wikipedia, meaning anyone can propose an edit. Although Everipedia has a pretty good reputation for being really reliable, I'd still analyze information about things like racism/sexual harassment etc with a critical eye.
This just isn't true. The host already approved of the extra guests and the extra dogs and only reneged when the tenant was enroute. You're bending over backwards to apologize for this racist host.
> "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-ca...
She was not denied the rental because the host is a racist.
Ignoring the veracity if your claims for a moment, let's consider: Rather than taking the host's comments at face value regarding the reason they cancelled the reservation, you chose an alternative interpretation that you manufactured very nearly from whole cloth.
Why?
This looks like a textbook example of confirmation bias to me.
"According to local media reports, Dyne Suh, a law student in Riverside, said she and her fiance had been looking forward to a short vacation over Presidents Day weekend in Big Bear Lake, a popular ski getaway about a two-hour drive east of Los Angeles.
About a month before their trip, Suh booked a mountain cabin on Airbnb listed as a "Tree House Loft and Private Bathroom" in Running Springs, Calif. Suh said she later messaged the host to ask if she could add two friends to the reservation and was told it would not be a problem."
This is an interesting comment and it makes me wonder if you just misread the articles on this situation or if there's some other agenda.
> 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.
Actually, the renter asked the host if she could add 2 extra people and pay more. The host agreed.
It was only after they were arriving that the host cancelled.
So now that you know this, I'm wondering if you are willing to change your mind?
seems disingenuous to suggest race had no part in her decision. it's not a coincidence she started getting racist in defense.
if someone is spouting off the N word while beating up a black dude i seriously doubt you'd demonstrate the ignorance or audacity required to call it irrelevant. so what's the difference?
Assuming that this is true, it still wouldn't help the host's case one bit. I don't think the host's right to cancel is in question - hosts are well within their rights to cancel when they see a breach of contract or even for no reason whatsoever. The problem is the host brining race into it.
Deciding to bring friends and pets to a weekend stay is normal human behaviour, and if this was an entire cabin, as described, the maximum allowed guests was quite likely more than one. There's also nothing to say that pets weren't allowed on the property.
And I don't get out that much, but being snowed in with two friends and their dogs doesn't sound like a "giant weekend party". Were they big dogs :-P ?
In the video she says that she asked if it was okay to bring the extra 2 people before hand. They don't mention the dogs.
> 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.
Citation needed. What evidence do you have that she was doing anything other than trying to offer her extra money to house her and her friends dogs during a snowstorm?
> 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.
This, combined with your choice to focus on them being a law student and calling them an "entitled idiot" when I don't really see an evidence of that... your bias is showing.
> All users must commit to treating others “regardless of race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or age, with respect, and without judgment or bias."
> The host was triggered into a racist tirade
> The host screwed up and injected race into the equation, and that is why she is being punished.
Someone this racist isn't INJECTING race, it's their worldview. Do you seriously think someone who is this close to going on a racist tirade is behaving in an unbiased manner when dealing with possible clients? "One word says it all: Asian."
People generally aren't racist when it comes to money.
Man, where have you been the last few hundred years? The prior owners of the lunch counter at Woolworth’s in Greensboro, NC would like to have a word with you (as just one of hundreds of examples I could trot out).
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
> 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.
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".
> "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-ca...
They didn't put all the text messages in the video.
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?
You are presuming people or racism is logical. It is common for someone to say one thing then mean another, it is so common we even have words for it.
It is also entirely possible the racist person did this intentionally to maximize the inconvenience to the renter. There are hundred other ways to explain this. Some racist and some not racist, but dropping phrases as overtly racist as hers has a way of sounding truthful in situation like this.
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.
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.
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.
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).
The host rented to the guest knowing she was Asian from the start. She didn't have a problem with her race at that point. Things only got nasty once they got nasty.
If you had a nasty fight with someone, and it ended with that person saying, "Well, it's because you're white (or Indian or whatever you are). That's why," would you immediately assume this person hated everyone of your race? Or would you assume you'd gotten under his skin enough that he reached down into his bag of dirty insults and pulled out anything he could find to hit you with?
It'd be one thing if this host never rented to Asians, or responded to an initial query with a message like, "I don't rent to Asians."
But in this case, it looks like a nasty fight between two women, one of whom picked the wrong (politically sensitive) angle to insult the other on, and the other who decided to play up the victim card and record video of herself crying and make a big sob story, and collect a nice little payday for the trouble.
I'd be very curious to know more about Miss Suh's background. In my experience with these sorts of cases, it is rarely the plaintiff's first rodeo.
But in this case, it looks like a nasty fight between two women
That's where I think my responders are missing my point. If this were just some fight between random women on the street, or two close friends, or neighbors, your description would be accurate. It would neither surprise me, nor give me reason to think much about it. This is not, however, just "between two women". It's a business relationship. That makes things a little different, including entire legal frameworks are built around business relationships. AFAIK, no laws exist that dictate my relationships with personal friends.
Suppose a similar conversation, with similar closing comments, took place at work? Still think it's a fight between two women? Would you get upset if someone got marched down to HR for a little re-education?
Look, I get what y'all are saying; I wouldn't rent to her, either, for the good reasons already outlined. But when we ask ourselves who opened this can of worms, the host is standing there with a dirty can opener. Had the host just cancelled, we probably wouldn't be reading about because nearly everyone would be on the side of the host. But the host just had to bring race into it in a fit of temper. Now all those good reasons go out the window. If you can't keep your temper, and keep your mouth under control, maybe being an AirBnb host isn't for you.
In your scenario, I would absolutely assume that they hated my race, and that they had merely hidden it. Overt racism is not tolerated in a lot of places, so racists usually learn to hide it. Sometimes it comes out under stress.
Non-racists don't suddenly start making racial comments they don't believe just because they're in a nasty fight.
Racial discrimination doesn't have to be absolute. Saying it can't be discrimination because she didn't reject this guest up-front is nonsensical. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
Not wanting to rent to Asians isn't a fair housing violation. Not renting to Asians is. She did, in fact, come to a rental agreement with the Asian woman. The desire to not rent to Asians was not stated until after the agreement had been broken for a different (and valid) reason.
My understanding is that advertising or speaking about such is a violation. I'm pretty sure realtor.org[1] is a fair source of information and informed on the subject.
> Providing false information on the availability of a property for sale or rental based on a person's protected class status—even if that information is based on the owner’s desires.
> Don't say: “There’s no point in your showing the Smith’s house to that Hispanic couple; the Smiths will never sell to them.”
Does making racist comments you don't believe make you a racist? Does giving compliments you don't believe make you a nice person?
I seriously don't know. I want to say yes, but maybe not?
I was thinking about this in another context today. When people piss you off, many people (including myself) want to say things to them that will illicit a negative reaction. Often, offensive words seem like a good choice to accomplish that goal. If telling someone "you're a responsible human being who loves his mother" caused someone to be offended, lots of people would say that when they are angry.
I'm totally on the judges sides in this case, once those words come out of your mouth there is no going back and you should be responsible for them.
I guess I just wonder if there is a relatively easy and sure-fire way to piss people off without being offensive? What's a better way for people to express their anger in a childish way ?
I guess I just wonder if there is a relatively easy and sure-fire way to piss people off without being offensive?
I'll assume we've gone beyond the topic at hand, as I wonder who would wonder how to piss people off as an AirBnB host? :-)
Frankly, I find racial insults to be cheap and unimaginative. Oh, so I'm a $RACIAL_EPITAPH? Well, can't help how I was born. Nice try, though. No points for effort, though. "Maybe you wouldn't have that problem if you'd grow up, learn to accept responsibility, and quit blaming your problems on the actions of others. That failed business? That's wasn't a market problem, an employee problem, that was a you problem."? Oooh, well, that kind of hits close to home.
Never go for the easy insult. Take a few extra moments, find that weak spot, and give that knife a good twist if you're genuinely intending to communicate insult.
> Does making racist comments you don't believe make you a racist?
I'm under the impression that part of you actually does believe it if you say it. I don't see the mind as one homogeneous thing that requires all thoughts be polarized in the same direction.
Hmm.. you are correct. The guest did add 2 people, then 1st dog and then 2nd dog as well. So 2 guests are now 4+2. Also, the guest kept asking if the hosts want extra payment in cash... And if the guests arrived at 2AM to collect keys (not sure what time was decided beforehand, but I have not seen so late check in times) then the hosts were well within their rights to cancel this booking...
Definitely poor behavior on guest's part but if only the host had not sent the last messages referring to "Asians"...
I agree with you. Barker got a bad deal. She made the mistake of using racial language that the media could latch onto.
Anyone who objectively looks at the situation would conclude that Suh was a spoiled entitled brat who exploited this situation. It's disgusting how she used her crocodile tears to exploit the media and the people.
> Suh was a spoiled entitled brat who exploited this situation
I really don't see how you conclude that. Barker approve the deal then reneged with racist language. What makes Suh entitled or spoiled? If Barker didn't like the deal she had plenty of time to cancel or just say no upfront.
Suh changed the deal and got confirmation that Barker accepted the changes. Suh asked, Barker said yes for an extra $50 and then Barker exploded on her when she got here. Barker is in no way the victim here. Sure maybe Suh was a high maintenance renter, but she didn't do anything wrong.
This is the third time I'm posting this excerpt:
"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-ca...
Out of curiosity, where did you get the transcripts that give you this information? Further down the thread, someone points to [1], but even that is incomplete (the final exchange is missing one side of the conversation; there's a Washington Post article that seems to have more there [2].
> 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.
This is the part that I find most ambiguous -- notably one of the final exchanges in the video
> If you think 4 people and 2 dogs [and] getting a room [for] $50 a night on big bear mountain during the busiest weekend of the year ..... You are insanely high
It was pretty clear from the earlier messages that the extra two guests were an _additional_ $50/night -- was there an attempt to renegotiate to a total rate of $50/night?
Your first source is to a wiki site (albeit a large one with a known good reputation), but still a wiki site (it says at the top of that very page anyone can add any information to it). And your second source is the Washington Post so I don't know how unbiased either of these links truly are.
Out of curiosity, where did you get the transcripts that give you this information? Further down the thread, someone points to [1], but even that is incomplete (the final exchange is missing one side of the conversation; there's a Washington Post article that seems to have more there [2].
> 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.
This is the part that I find most ambiguous -- notably one of the final exchanges in the video
> If you think 4 people and 2 dogs [and] getting a room [for] $50 a night on big bear mountain during the busiest weekend of the year ..... You are insanely high
It was pretty clear from the earlier messages that the extra two guests were an _additional_ $50/night -- was there an attempt to renegotiate to a total rate of $50/night?
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
144 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 198 ms ] threadI 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.
While there are logical fallacies, like the implications asians can't be racist, they are the kinds of fallacies renters might use.
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.
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.
Where people want to have a white only hotel today, they can still effectively have one. They just have to be slightly more careful.
>> Black folks should have to stay where they can find black hotels or black airbnb hosts?
Not what I said at all. I don't think blacks should have any restrictions on where they travel on the basis of their race. But if I was black and I checked into a B&B and got the distinct albeit subtle impression that the person was a racist and only accomodated me because it was too late for them to back out with legal ramifications, would I feel comfortable spending the night and eating the breakfast they prepared for me? Not remotely.
I wouldn't vote yes on a ballot measure to repeal all laws against discrimination, but I'm also not entirely convinced that they have much to do with actually causing the progress that's been made for minorities.
Historically, it was nearly impossible for many people to find a hotel room owned by someone without overwhelming hate for their race, which is why we have laws against acting on those beliefs. While the situation has improved, there's still enough widespread discrimination that these laws are necessary. Nobody wants to sleep in a home occupied by a racist, but they also don't want to be barred from going on vacation at all.
Sure, 50 years ago if you were a white business owner and you took a black guys money, you might be ostracized by your community.
Racism in an economic sense today only hurts the racist. Do you think banks are going to turn down the profit of a black mortgage if it is profitable? Do you think this lady on the mountain is just going to turn down money because the renter is Asian?
I'm just saying it's not the norm. Do people have stereotypes about cultures? Of course. Would someone rather have someone of the same ethnic or cultural background stay in their house? Probably, and I don't think thats entirely unreasonable. But it's not a acceptable in our society and I think that's a good thing. In order to bridge the gap there are certain conditions, protocols and expectations that are followed.
In this case there are two people of different cultures (and culture may not have had anything to do with it, all cultures have ass's), one is bending over backwards for the other, who seems to have very little respect for the rules that are in place to bridge the divide between people and create a fair, equitable and nondiscriminutory enviroment.
Rules are in place to set a standard that otherwise might not exist across cultures.
Break the rules, then complain that you have been stereotyped by acting out the exact stereotype? Seems a touch hypocritical.
I'm sure you've heard of redlining, and yes it does still happen: https://archives.hud.gov/news/2015/pr15-064b.cfm
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/business/dealbook/evans-b...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-consum...
Those are just a few examples that happen to be linked on Wikipedia.
> Do you think this lady on the mountain is just going to turn down money because the renter is Asian?
Yes, because that's what she said. I do my best to take people at their word unless there's a good reason not to.
> I'm just saying it's not the norm.
We could argue about what "norm" means, but at the very least, it's common. It's not just isolated incidents of crazy people doing crazy things.
I'm sorry but I didn't really follow the rest of your comment. As far as I can tell there's no culture clash or unwritten rules at issue in this story.
Except that she had already accepted the money and I would presume the first time she saw the client's ethnicity didn't occur between accepting the booking and the final outburst. A bunch of other, unrelated stuff happened that made her angry. And then she dropped the racist stuff. That's an important distinction for that parent is saying.
Sex/gender is included.
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.
If it was a roommate request, then it is viewed differently. If the property was at most 3 units and the landlord lives there, then the landlord cannot advertise that they will discriminate on gender but the landlord is allowed to. (Who said that the laws had to make sense?)
I don't like the mentality that leads to this kind of confused legal situation. But if I squint sideways and pretend that I don't have a brain, I can kinda see how someone could have thought this a good idea.
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.
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.
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)?
Actually, I think the forced class makes the situation worse. My life experiences tells me classes and other attempts at "re-education" only hardens the attitudes for hatred and discrimination.
For a person to change their racism/homophobia, it requires interaction with another human that triggers an emotional component. For example, a person who despises gays has a child grow up to be gay which changes their mind. Or a somebody who hates blacks later ends up stuck in the front line of a war with other blacks watching each others' backs and it eliminates (or lessens) the prejudice.
It doesn't mean that positive human interactions will always "cure" everyone but it seems to be more effective than classes.
Classes are more useful for cultural/etiquette topics (e.g. how to hold business cards with 2 hands in Japan).
Really, though, how does one actually "deprogram" someone with opinions like this? Can it actually be done?
Casual racists are a toxic population whose opinions and behaviors in favor of said racism bring no value to society. How on earth do we eliminate it?
I used to think that the steamroller of progress and information would gradually eliminate racism and sexism and denial of science and logic as older generations died out, but the rise of the next generation of racists and MRAs and flat earthers seems to be a fairly strong counterpoint to that.
I fear for the future of humanity.
It's the same story, over and over.
Which begs the question: can we ever achieve a society that is both multicultural and welcoming to all races? All the science suggests no; we can either have our cake, or eat it. We must choose.
[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2012....
[2] http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/4/311.short
[3] http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/3/1211.abstract
[4] http://cos.sagepub.com/content/53/2/120.abstract
[5] http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.j...
[6] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
[7] http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-1705-1_1...
[8] http://spq.sagepub.com/content/78/4/324.short
[9] http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/1/249
[10] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/juaf.12015/abstra...
[11] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X14...
[12] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X14...
[13] https://www.jstor.org/stable/425106?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont...
[14] http://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?Referen...
[15] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912...
[16] https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079
[17] http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/study-asks-is-a-better-wor...
[18] ...
Let's see some proper citations that actual prove your ridiculous claim instead of just dumping a bunch of links and saying that this proves your pseudo scientific claim. No wonder you made a throwaway.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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"?
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
I agree with OP. The woman was stupid enough to use racist remarks but the reasons she cancelled the reservation was definitely not racist.
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."
No, I think this person is not racist, but acted like one in the heat of the argument.
>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?
If I understood this correctly, I don't see how that follows.
>I'm sure she's very nice to OTHER, better behaving Asian law students
She was nice for most of the conversation that is available until the guest kept adding dogs and people to the arrangement even though the host said they can't allow dogs.
Having watched the video, I am pretty sure the guest specifically tried to get a reaction that she could use and was successfully able to do so. Some of the conversation is missing and I hope the host makes it public to make matters clear.
This is just untrue to such an astonishing degree.
> "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-ca...
Looking at a chat history they show in the video (around 55 sec) it does not look like the host has approved extra guests and dogs https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=55&v=nuZn8iVQbSc
"Come!" says the newly created account "Ignore the vitriol of the victimizer and excoriate the unrelated, perhaps imaginary failings of the victim!"
The law school curriculum is ever evolving isn't it..
> giant weekend party
Hmm my frame of reference for 'giant party' must be different.
Ignoring the veracity if your claims for a moment, let's consider: Rather than taking the host's comments at face value regarding the reason they cancelled the reservation, you chose an alternative interpretation that you manufactured very nearly from whole cloth.
Why?
This looks like a textbook example of confirmation bias to me.
(http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-airbnb-disc...)
"According to local media reports, Dyne Suh, a law student in Riverside, said she and her fiance had been looking forward to a short vacation over Presidents Day weekend in Big Bear Lake, a popular ski getaway about a two-hour drive east of Los Angeles.
About a month before their trip, Suh booked a mountain cabin on Airbnb listed as a "Tree House Loft and Private Bathroom" in Running Springs, Calif. Suh said she later messaged the host to ask if she could add two friends to the reservation and was told it would not be a problem."
> 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.
Actually, the renter asked the host if she could add 2 extra people and pay more. The host agreed.
It was only after they were arriving that the host cancelled.
So now that you know this, I'm wondering if you are willing to change your mind?
if someone is spouting off the N word while beating up a black dude i seriously doubt you'd demonstrate the ignorance or audacity required to call it irrelevant. so what's the difference?
Actually the vibe I'm getting from OP is that he would find some way to blame the black guy.
Deciding to bring friends and pets to a weekend stay is normal human behaviour, and if this was an entire cabin, as described, the maximum allowed guests was quite likely more than one. There's also nothing to say that pets weren't allowed on the property.
And I don't get out that much, but being snowed in with two friends and their dogs doesn't sound like a "giant weekend party". Were they big dogs :-P ?
> 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.
Citation needed. What evidence do you have that she was doing anything other than trying to offer her extra money to house her and her friends dogs during a snowstorm?
> 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.
This, combined with your choice to focus on them being a law student and calling them an "entitled idiot" when I don't really see an evidence of that... your bias is showing.
> All users must commit to treating others “regardless of race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or age, with respect, and without judgment or bias."
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-airbnb-disc...
> The host was triggered into a racist tirade > The host screwed up and injected race into the equation, and that is why she is being punished.
Someone this racist isn't INJECTING race, it's their worldview. Do you seriously think someone who is this close to going on a racist tirade is behaving in an unbiased manner when dealing with possible clients? "One word says it all: Asian."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuZn8iVQbSc
Man, where have you been the last few hundred years? The prior owners of the lunch counter at Woolworth’s in Greensboro, NC would like to have a word with you (as just one of hundreds of examples I could trot out).
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.
edit: 2 extra friends.
> "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".
They didn't put all the text messages in the video.
I think she was just stupid enough to make those remarks and I hope she is being punished for that. Otherwise, this is wrong.
It is also entirely possible the racist person did this intentionally to maximize the inconvenience to the renter. There are hundred other ways to explain this. Some racist and some not racist, but dropping phrases as overtly racist as hers has a way of sounding truthful in situation like this.
Which "words" are we talking about? Had she avoided saying "one word: Asian", this would not have been a story.
I'm sure someone will try to argue that "foreigners" isn't racist because race and country of origin are different, but the intent is obvious enough.
edit: Though the article doesn't mention it, I suppose the land lord could also own more properties than what the exemptions allow for.
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.
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.
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).
If you had a nasty fight with someone, and it ended with that person saying, "Well, it's because you're white (or Indian or whatever you are). That's why," would you immediately assume this person hated everyone of your race? Or would you assume you'd gotten under his skin enough that he reached down into his bag of dirty insults and pulled out anything he could find to hit you with?
It'd be one thing if this host never rented to Asians, or responded to an initial query with a message like, "I don't rent to Asians."
But in this case, it looks like a nasty fight between two women, one of whom picked the wrong (politically sensitive) angle to insult the other on, and the other who decided to play up the victim card and record video of herself crying and make a big sob story, and collect a nice little payday for the trouble.
I'd be very curious to know more about Miss Suh's background. In my experience with these sorts of cases, it is rarely the plaintiff's first rodeo.
That's where I think my responders are missing my point. If this were just some fight between random women on the street, or two close friends, or neighbors, your description would be accurate. It would neither surprise me, nor give me reason to think much about it. This is not, however, just "between two women". It's a business relationship. That makes things a little different, including entire legal frameworks are built around business relationships. AFAIK, no laws exist that dictate my relationships with personal friends.
Suppose a similar conversation, with similar closing comments, took place at work? Still think it's a fight between two women? Would you get upset if someone got marched down to HR for a little re-education?
Look, I get what y'all are saying; I wouldn't rent to her, either, for the good reasons already outlined. But when we ask ourselves who opened this can of worms, the host is standing there with a dirty can opener. Had the host just cancelled, we probably wouldn't be reading about because nearly everyone would be on the side of the host. But the host just had to bring race into it in a fit of temper. Now all those good reasons go out the window. If you can't keep your temper, and keep your mouth under control, maybe being an AirBnb host isn't for you.
Non-racists don't suddenly start making racial comments they don't believe just because they're in a nasty fight.
Racial discrimination doesn't have to be absolute. Saying it can't be discrimination because she didn't reject this guest up-front is nonsensical. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
> Providing false information on the availability of a property for sale or rental based on a person's protected class status—even if that information is based on the owner’s desires. > Don't say: “There’s no point in your showing the Smith’s house to that Hispanic couple; the Smiths will never sell to them.”
[1] http://realtormag.realtor.org/tool-kit/fair-housing/article/...
I seriously don't know. I want to say yes, but maybe not?
I was thinking about this in another context today. When people piss you off, many people (including myself) want to say things to them that will illicit a negative reaction. Often, offensive words seem like a good choice to accomplish that goal. If telling someone "you're a responsible human being who loves his mother" caused someone to be offended, lots of people would say that when they are angry.
I'm totally on the judges sides in this case, once those words come out of your mouth there is no going back and you should be responsible for them.
I guess I just wonder if there is a relatively easy and sure-fire way to piss people off without being offensive? What's a better way for people to express their anger in a childish way ?
I'll assume we've gone beyond the topic at hand, as I wonder who would wonder how to piss people off as an AirBnB host? :-)
Frankly, I find racial insults to be cheap and unimaginative. Oh, so I'm a $RACIAL_EPITAPH? Well, can't help how I was born. Nice try, though. No points for effort, though. "Maybe you wouldn't have that problem if you'd grow up, learn to accept responsibility, and quit blaming your problems on the actions of others. That failed business? That's wasn't a market problem, an employee problem, that was a you problem."? Oooh, well, that kind of hits close to home.
Never go for the easy insult. Take a few extra moments, find that weak spot, and give that knife a good twist if you're genuinely intending to communicate insult.
http://allowe.com/laughs/book/When%20Insults%20Had%20Class.h...
Some of those are pretty targeted and cut rather close...
I'm under the impression that part of you actually does believe it if you say it. I don't see the mind as one homogeneous thing that requires all thoughts be polarized in the same direction.
Definitely poor behavior on guest's part but if only the host had not sent the last messages referring to "Asians"...
Anyone who objectively looks at the situation would conclude that Suh was a spoiled entitled brat who exploited this situation. It's disgusting how she used her crocodile tears to exploit the media and the people.
I really don't see how you conclude that. Barker approve the deal then reneged with racist language. What makes Suh entitled or spoiled? If Barker didn't like the deal she had plenty of time to cancel or just say no upfront.
> If Barker didn't like the deal she had plenty of time to cancel or just say no upfront.
She did cancel it. After Suh kept changing the terms. The deal was for 2 people. Then Suh added a few more people. Then added a few more dogs.
Sure, the racist language wasn't called for but Suh was in the wrong.
This is the third time I'm posting this excerpt:
"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-ca...
I don't see a spoiled brat. Why is it so hard to believe that Suh wasn't in the wrong?
> 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.
This is the part that I find most ambiguous -- notably one of the final exchanges in the video
> If you think 4 people and 2 dogs [and] getting a room [for] $50 a night on big bear mountain during the busiest weekend of the year ..... You are insanely high
It was pretty clear from the earlier messages that the extra two guests were an _additional_ $50/night -- was there an attempt to renegotiate to a total rate of $50/night?
[1] https://www.everipedia.com/tami-barker-airbnb-host/
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/04/07/o...
> 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.
This is the part that I find most ambiguous -- notably one of the final exchanges in the video
> If you think 4 people and 2 dogs [and] getting a room [for] $50 a night on big bear mountain during the busiest weekend of the year ..... You are insanely high
It was pretty clear from the earlier messages that the extra two guests were an _additional_ $50/night -- was there an attempt to renegotiate to a total rate of $50/night?
[1] https://www.everipedia.com/tami-barker-airbnb-host/
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/04/07/o...
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...
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?
However I think that people should be punished for explicitly commenting on protected classes in a hateful or angry manner in business related situations.
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.