> a host who was nice to me when I met him and then wasn't as nice 5 minutes later once my wife arrived

I don't doubt the presence of racism in our society, but this seems like an overly subjective and crude way to label someone a racist. Off the top of my head they could be threatened by the other's attractiveness (surprisingly common), they find the person awkward to speak with or annoying/ out of touch, they are shy/uncomfortable around social situations with multiple people, they could even be a minsogynst, they could have terrible social skills, or a hundred other reasons why someone might give off bad vibes to someone else.

How do you differentiate so assuredly between "this person just doesn't like this person and/ or the situation" and "this person is a racist"?

I've lived in countries where I felt like I got a ton of looks/ distance, and if someone was rude to me, I found myself jumping to "racism" a lot, a lot of the x-pats did. Yet when I come back home I still encounter the same kind of rudeness but suddenly it's not racism anymore, it's just people being assholes. Not sure where I'm going with this, it just does bother me that people are so quick to pull the racism card in such ambiguous, subjective situations, especially when it's against people who are younger than my grandparent's generation, who in the US at least are a lot less likely to actually be racist.

Well, when the guy says "Make sure to clean up, it's not like in your country where everything's dirty", it's pretty obvious :-)

It's also in Europe in a smaller city and the guy was middle aged... I find that in smaller cities in Europe people tend to be more racist than in bigger cosmopolitan cities.

It's fine to analyze potential racism experienced by oneself in this fashion, but it really is out of bounds to analyze potential racism experienced by other people in this way. Perhaps that isn't fair to those of us who rarely experience potential racism, but so what?

Other people's perceptions are no less prone to error and misjudgment than one's own. It's not polite to challenge someone's interpretation of their own experiences, but to declare it "out of bounds" or somehow morally wrong is a cheap shaming tactic.

The person I was responding to was not the experiencer of the racism, as you meant it. Yes this is a good guideline in general, but there are also times when probing further is necessary for an actual meaningful discussion.

I agree with your general observations with respect to misunderstanding and assumptions. I just don't see how the questions you asked could lead to edifying answers. It is a mistake to concentrate on particulars like this, and would have been even if OP agreed with you rather than responding with a dispositive contradictory detail.

My comment was addressed to the HN readership in the way that most are, it's not just about OP's response. Problems with criteria for labeling someone as racist in ambiguous, subjective situations bears some importance within our dialog on racism. Saying it's out of bounds to raise issues like this, apriori, will not improve this dialog.

If I understand correctly, you're happy to be the one discriminating against disabled people, old people and people with children.

But you're not happy if you're on the receiving end of any discrimination.

Don't you see the contradiction there ?

Anti-discrimination policies are about ensuring people have equal access to services and facilities (whether it's contentious toilets or hotels or whatever).

You seem to indicate in your jurisdiction that renting an apartment without safety rails is OK, but in many others it's not OK and you'd be in violation of safety laws (and also discrimination laws). It doesn't matter that you live there sometime - you're renting it as a facility and should be expected to comply with safety and whatever other laws apply. And if you do it via AirBnB, you also need to comply with their rules regardless of legal requirements. And AirBnB get to change the rules when they want and you either agree or stop using them.

The main thing, is that I'm not a professional renter. The primary use of the apartment is for myself almost half of the year. I also rent more than half of the time outside of airbnb on Homeaway...

In the jurisdiction where I'm renting, there's no requirements for handrails. The requirements for short terms rental are basically the same as the requirements for renting an apartment long term and not all apartments are disabled friendly... It's also in an historical district, even if we wanted to we would never get the permit to install an elevator...

Also, I've never said I wouldn't accept old people. If they have no disabilities that would present a risk for them, they're welcome.

If I owned a hotel, I would have rooms with disabled access of course. But, it's different when you're renting the apartment that is also your habitation (which is the original purpose of Airbnb)...

Now, that said, I fully support laws that force businesses to accommodate people with disabilities. I also think that any new buildings should be built with this in mind. But are we going to destroy historic old buildings because they don't conform to the current regulations?

why the attack?

the fact that he didn't put in enough safety in complicated apartment is the reason for you to attack him? Well maybe it technically challenging, would make the place ugly or is near impossible given the layout of the place or materials used to build it. You cannot just drill anywhere you want in buildings that are few hundred years old for example.

there is a distinction between sharing an apt and going to hotel. Latter is vastly more regulated, former is a bit wild west and exactly the reason why people are using it (because with this comes usually lower price if more people will be accommodated, more homely feel with more equipment ala full kitchen etc.).

Let's not try to make private apartments hotels, because then we end up with... just more fugly hotels.

My comments are far from an attack; an attack would have been more than summarizing his comments in 2 lines and then pointing out there was a discrepancy.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting anyone should 'just drill anywhere' from ?

As an old person or a disabled person, looking on AirBnB, I can see what the apartment has and how it is laid out (provided good pictures and description are provided).

Being old or disabled does not stop me being mentally competent to decide for myself whether I'm capable of climbing stairs or negotiating the apartment. It is actually a very offensive and discriminatory thing to suggest either of these personal attributes make me mentally incompetent and this is the core of what makes such discrimination offensive - and illegal - in many jurisdictions around the world.

If there is a legal requirement to have safety rails on stairs (or any other regulation), saying the building is X years old is not an excuse for failure to comply. If you're worried about damage being caused in trying to fit them yourself, you hire a professional to do it instead and then it's their job to ensure the building is still sound after the installation. You're operating what is essentially a business, so costs like that are reasonable business expenses to offset against your profits and the result is you get an improved, safer, house for you and guests and essentially get the guests to pay for it, making you ahead.

I don't understand why you're so upset.

> If there is a legal requirement to have safety rails on stairs (or any other regulation), saying the building is X years old is not an excuse for failure to comply.

Of course it is. Otherwise every time a new building code gets published, the entire city suddenly has to remodel. This might be acceptable for stuff like stair handrails, but is totally ridiculous for stuff like electrical connections. You really gonna make everybody change their electrical service and rip all the wire out of their home?

In theory it would be nice to be able to go into every building and expect certain features to be present. In practice it would be impossible.

OP said "The idea of the host (who was prejudice against OP's wife) receiving my money was galling".

OP wasn't complaining about the discrimination, he was complaining about _doing business with the person who discriminated_.

Wildly different things.

Laws (or rules) don't exist in a vacuum, and blindly following them is dumb. If a company rolls out a bad rule, you can either follow it, ignore it, or try to change it.

Just because it exists means nothing.

It seems like a sensible statement to make? We're talking about renting out owner occupied apartments for a limited amount of time during the year. Some properties just can't be modified to accommodate people with certain (certain, not all) disabilities. And neither would some people want to, if you're only renting them out a few months a year.

There are plenty of hotels which are "adults only" for any number of reasons and I have not heard a complaint that these are discrimination.

Even under the US ADA, only hotels built after 1993 are required to provide compliant facilities. That means there are actual 100% for-profit hotels which are out of compliance. Perhaps frustration is more appropriately directed at them, or the provisions of the ADA than an individual trying to share his personal residence in a practical manner?

I'm blind. Would you not rent this property to me because you fear for my safety therein?

Would it make a difference if I've said I've skied, biked solo, rock-climbed? If so, why should I have to do so when others don't, and are trusted to make up their own minds as to whether your property works for them?

Do you feel more confident than I am in determining my own limits?

Disclosure: I've been denied many opportunities because an unqualified person determined what was and was not safe/possible/healthy/OK for me to do, and find it upsetting to be denied my agency because of it. Glad to see these changes landing. If I've misinterpreted your post then I do apologize, but it looks like you're making choices and denying opportunities for capable adults, and I'm not OK with that if that's the case.

It is not about your safetly alone. It is about his liability. If there is something unsafe in his apartment, and you get hurt, you can sue him. He just doesn't want to get sued.

Exactly, that's why before I accept, I'd call my insurance to make sure that I do not have any legal risks in accepting him. If I accept him and then there's an accident and the insurance tells me that I'm not covered because my apartment doesn't have x safety features then it's a huge issue for me.

I'd actually most likely rent it to you after I've made sure that you really know what you're getting and I've phoned my insurance to make sure it's not an issue...

I'm slightly biased though since my flat mate in university was legally blind and I've seen him be extremely independent.

It's mostly for people who have difficulties moving that I couldn't rent it since there's a lot of stairs with no elevators, the stairs are old and not that stable and inside the house, the stairs have no handrails to support oneself and the sidewalks of the street of the apartment are extremely narrow, badly maintained with people driving very fast in that street. I love the area and the place and it has a lot of rustic charm but it is dangerous and inconvenient.

I mean when I broke my leg and had it in a cast, I rented an apartment in the same city because it was to dangerous to access my own apartment.

Now, outside of renting my apartment, if I were hiring, I would certainly never discriminate against anyone who is disabled or anyone else.

Do you see any problem with home owners saying no to those that require the assistance of a service animal?

No. I have seen this system abused many times. There are misbehaved pets in the store all the time now.

Yes.

Then you and I would likely have a problem. I wouldn't let a dog into my house because of family members with severe asthma and allergy issues. My medical needs take priority over yours in my house.

You'll never discriminate on anything, except the things that are important to you and you don't like. Got it.

> Similarly in term of age, I would not rent to couples with young children because it's too risky.

I am not sure age matters with children at all since they don't have legal status and can't enter into contracts etc. So on that basis alone it's a non issue. Meaning it wouldn't be discrimination.

In other words you can't get in trouble for refusing to hire someone who is 10 years old because legally you can't hire them anyway. Likewise if there is some other rule w/o respect to age discrimination (lodging) since they have no legal status (and the parent would be renting) it really wouldn't matter that age was the issue. Would be the same really as "I don't rent to people who wear yellow shirts".

To play devils advocate your are saying some personal discrimination is okay because of what you feel are valid arguments, but other people should not be able to have their own set of rules for their discrimination?

"Similarly in term of age, I would not rent to couples with young children because it's too risky."

This is definitely discrimination, even though I don't object to it.