There is an interesting controversy growing over an alleged eviction by an Airbnb host in Philadelphia of Trump supporters. The conservative site Breitbart is reporting that “ballot chasers” for Trump were allegedly given an hour to clear out after the host learned that they were in Pennsylvania to get out the vote for Trump. If true, the incident raises a serious matter for Airbnb over hosts imposing political conditions for the use of their property.
Once again, we have not heard the other side to this controversy. However, if these allegations are established, it raises a variation of an issue that has been discussed for years on this blog: the role of private companies or businesses in censoring speech or blacklisting individuals.
First for the obvious threshold point. Private property owners have a right to exclude people from their property on any number of issues. This homeowner is likely to be lionized by many who agree with the decision. If an owner wants to run their home like an Airdnc, they have every right to do so. The question is whether they can do so as an Airbnb.
It is worth noting that many of the same individuals supporting this owner likely opposed the right of business owners in cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop and 303 Creative. In those cases, the owners refused to make products for celebrations that conflicted with their religious views.
I have previously written why businesses should have the right of such denial as a matter of free speech, including in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
In this case, an owner is accused of refusing service or rentals based on political grounds.
The question is not whether this owner has the right of exclusion in a home, but whether Airbnb is now allowing such threshold political tests to be applied by owners. It would create an uncertainty for guests who would not know if they may be tossed to the street if they reveal their political viewpoints or affiliations.
The incident could be a type of micro-cancel problem. We have seen universities and colleges cancel conservative and libertarian speakers under pressure from faculty and students who cannot tolerate opposing views from being spoken on campuses.
Citizens Alliance’s PA CHASE says that it is still pursuing a requested $5,000 refund.
Airbnb notes in its contractual language that
“Guest identity verification, reservation screening and the 24-hour safety line are tools or features used by Airbnb to help verify guest identities, screen reservations for potential party and property damage risk, and provide access to Airbnb’s 24-hour safety line.”
There is no indication that the group was planning large gatherings at the location. However, it could be cited by the owner.
If the group is mistaken or misrepresenting the facts, Airbnb should make that clear. It should also make clear what its policy is on possible political conditions for Airbnb listings. One possibility is that the owner will argue that he or she did not want the property used for a high-traffic political effort operating out of the home. A homeowner could reasonably demand that the property not be used for large parties or high-traffic enterprises.
Conversely, Citizens Alliance is suggesting that they were simply planning to stay at the home. Moreover, other guests have likely held parties on rented premises without such alleged peremptory action. Notably, Airbnb promises homeowners up to $3 million in insurance for any damage to property.
Airbnb has a strong anti-discrimination policy on race but is silent on political viewpoints.
If the host barred Trump supporters due simply to their political affiliations or the purpose of their visit, it would seem inimical to the business model of the company. However, there are difficult hypotheticals on the extremes.
For example, what if an owner came to hand over the keys only to find guests wearing KKK or neo-Nazi outfits? What if a pro-life owner learned that the home would be used at the base camp for a pro-abortion campaign? Do they have the right to decline service like a cake shop or web designer?
The difference may be based on the use of the property. Airbnb operates like an aggregated hotel chain using private owners to supply the rooms. Just as Hyatt cannot impose political litmus tests, it is unworkable to allow such a test by individual owners and still maintain a viable national chain.
If this owner was in compliance with Airbnb contractual conditions, the site should make that clear to renters. At a minimum, Airbnb would have to require owners to state upfront any threshold political conditions. That would be a nightmare for the company since the site would turn into a patchwork of threshold exclusions. That would destroy the premise of the site which treats the room stock as uniformly available and only differentiated on physical layout and pricing.
Notably, in cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop, the owner insisted that he would sell pre-made cakes to anyone who wanted to buy them. He only objected to preparing special cakes for ceremonies that contradicted his religious views.
In the same way, Airbnb could make clear that, so long as the property itself will not be used for political or advocacy activities, owners are expected to adopt a non-discriminatory policy on political viewpoints. The cost of renting out your home to strangers is that you will likely disagree with the values of many of the renters.
Airbnb is reportedly still looking at the refund request.
How was the host going to evict, by calling the police?
The host would have to present the particular contract restrictions for the police to act to evict.
The “ballot chasers” should have called the police to evict the evictors for possessing no actionable legal basis.
*And to document
Jonathan: For many landlords signing up with Airbnb can be a living nightmare–squatters who refuse to leave after the short term stay to those who want to turn a room into “party central”.
So now comes along “Citizens Alliance PA CHASE” that wanted to turn their Philadelphia accommodations into their DJT “party central”. And they got evicted. Then you jump on the story based apparently solely on the Breitbart story. Even you admit “we have not heard the other side of this controversy”. Breitbart is not a reliable source. It deals in wild conspiracy theories without any factual basis. In it’s article Breitbart cites a statement from PA CHASE founder Cliff Maloney: “Let me be clear. We will not back down…We will not let off the gas until we crush the commies [?] and claim victory on November 5… This blatant political discrimination will not hinder our team, especially when the enemy [?] is advocating for the cutting off of private parts of America’s children [?]”. Did Breitbart bother to investigate the controversy to get both sides of the story? Nope. It simply quoted the bizarre and unfounded claims of Maloney.
And neither did you. You simple provide an echo chamber for Breitbart and its conspiracy theory that the “dnc” must be behind the decision by Airbnb to cancel the rental. The Q is why would a law professor endorse a conspiracy theory without checking out ALL the facts? You wouldn’t do that with your law students. Would you give one of your law students credit for presenting only one side of a case?
Now you cite the Masterpiece Cake Shop case where the SC held the owner of a bakery did not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because Phillips claimed it would violate his religious beliefs. Without any facts, but assuming the Philly landlord decided he didn’t like the political views of Maloney’s group, how is that decision different than the Masterpiece case?
One is political assembly and activity the other is religious beliefs and speech. Politics and religion are contrasting points.
A guess
@Dennis
You cited no nothing in your traditionally long and ignorant screed, only a statement made to a paper that this is a political action. You state that 1) they were evicted. That’s a legal process which requires notice, a court, the whole thing. Did that happen? Or were they simply notified to leave, which of course completely blows up your straw man argument that others have become squatters. 2) you (again) falsely claim that the article claimed the DNC was behind this. I know your reading comprehensive is at best suspect, but this is a new and random low.
It is made cleat that if AirBnb is acting as a hotel/broker then it would be required to adhere to the 14th amendment and and the commerce clause as hotels in the Democrat Jim Crow South were required to do in the 1960s. Perhaps a better argument (if you’re even capable of anything other than an AI generated word vomit) would be that political affiliation is not a protected class. Maybe. That’s still not been entirely adjudicated. But to the point of the article, it is at this point unclear if this is simply a breach of contract case (which would make it completely separate from Cakes or 303. A contract was signed and must be honored unless there is a breach. At this point we don’t know.
Truly, your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance. But you never cease to entertain. Both legally and politically ignorant, but sharing both with all of us! Thank you!
Excellent, just to clarify – Even if political discrimination in renting is legal – it is NOT legal AFTER the fact.
You have a right to refuse to enter a contract – for any reason – though I would guess that AirBnb will drop you if you routinely do so.
But once you enter a contract – you are bound by it. You are NOT free to say “oops, I did not know you were engaging in political activity, I cancel the contract”
John Say,
Excellent pointing out the rule of law! Unfortunately, rule of law is not something Dennis is aware of, and Democrats tend to ignore when it is an inconvenience to them.
“For many landlords signing up with Airbnb can be a living nightmare–squatters who refuse to leave after the short term stay to those who want to turn a room into “party central”.”
All commmerce involves potential problems – as anyone who has ever been in any business would know.
Regardless, choose to operate an AirBnb or not – up to you.
“So now comes along “Citizens Alliance PA CHASE” that wanted to turn their Philadelphia accommodations into their DJT “party central”.”
No they wanted a place to stay – just like anyone else, while they were engaged in acts outside the apartment that were none of the landlords business.
“And they got evicted.”
No they got thrown out. Something that may result in a messy lawsuit and damages.
While AirBnb hosts are free to exclude gusts for any reason they wish. They formed a contract to rent to these people, and that contract did NOT have provisions that restricted activities of guest outside the apartment – and such restrictions would likely be frowned on by the courts.
There is a shortage of facts, here, but it appears that these renters were forced to leave AFTER a valid contract was agreed to – if so they have a very strong claim for reasonable damages – lost time finding another appartment, there costs relocating, return of any funds collected.
You are free to exclude whoever you wish.
You are not free to form a contract with someone and then breach that contract.
” Then you jump on the story based apparently solely on the Breitbart story.”
So ? Is something false just because you do not like those who reported it ?
“Even you admit “we have not heard the other side of this controversy”.”
We have not – but it seems HIGHLY unlikely this gets better for the landlord.
The KEY questions are:
Was there a valid contract for the apartment ?
Was that contract breached ?
While it is not 100% clear that there was a valid contract, and that the contract was NOT breached by the tenants,
It is extremely probable that there was a valid contract and there was no breach.
You have a right to discriminate. You do so by REFUSING to enter a contract.
Once you have entered the contract – you have surrendered your right to discriminate EXCEPT for the reasons in the contract.
AirBnb contracts do not have a political clause. Nor are they likely to in the future.
AirBnb is in the business of making money – not avoiding making money.
“Breitbart is not a reliable source.”
They are 10000 times more rliable than you.
Regardless, do you think this is made up ?
Pkease if you have evidence Brietbart is lying – provide it ?
“It deals in wild conspiracy theories without any factual basis.”
The allegations of those involved are NOT conspiracy theories. They are testable assertions of fact.
If you can demonstrate error – please do.
“In it’s article Breitbart cites a statement from PA CHASE founder Cliff Maloney: “Let me be clear. We will not back down…We will not let off the gas until we crush the commies [?] and claim victory on November 5… This blatant political discrimination will not hinder our team, especially when the enemy [?] is advocating for the cutting off of private parts of America’s children [?]”.”
So ? Do you have a point ?
If Maloney said “Gayly bedight a gallant night in sunshine and in shadow” – how would that change anything ?
The relevant questions here are: Did PA Chase have a valid contract ? It is highly likely they did, going to AirBnb’s website and working through the process of renting a place IS forming a valid contract. Those renting their homes generally have conditions – you are free to refuse to enter a contract for nearly any reason. But once you have, you can only exist the contract if the other party breaches the contract.
It is the Sellors job to reject unsuitable buyers BEFORE forming a contract. AirBnb allows selors to put conditions on their listings.
There is no evidence there is a condition applicable to this fat pattern.
“Did Breitbart bother to investigate the controversy to get both sides of the story? Nope.”
You know this how ?
“It simply quoted the bizarre and unfounded claims of Maloney.”
The Maloney quote you cite has NOTHING to do with the controversey here. There are also no unfounded claims in the quote that you cite.
“And neither did you. You simple provide an echo chamber for Breitbart and its conspiracy theory that the “dnc” must be behind the decision by Airbnb to cancel the rental. ”
Aside from the Cheeky word play – AirDNC – there is no allegation I am aware of that the DNC was involved – if they were that would likely result in a massive lawsuit – starting with Tortuous interferance in contracts, civil rights violations – and possibly even criminal violations of rights and criminal election fraud.
At this time there is no evidence the DNC was involved.
There is no evidence that AirBnb itself had any involving in what is highly likely a breach of contract.
The allegations that we currently have are that a property owner entered an agreement to rent out their property, and AFTER entering a contract, breached that contract.
“The Q is why would a law professor endorse a conspiracy theory without checking out ALL the facts?”
Because it is NOT a conspiracy theory and that is NOT how the real world works.
Even after guilty verdicts in criminal trials – we rarely know ALL the facts.
From the moment that a controversy arrises we deal with the FACTS that we know or are alleged at the time.
There are two legal questions raised by this story.
The first is
Can a sellor refuse an offer for political reasons.
The answer is that a sellor can refuese an offer for political reasons and hould be able to refuse an offer for ANY reason.
The second is can a party to a contract void the contract for political reasons.
The answer is that absent a violation of the terms of the contract – which does not appear to have any political conditions, NO.
” You wouldn’t do that with your law students.”
Of course he would. Hypotheticals – often based on the real world are used all the time.
“Would you give one of your law students credit for presenting only one side of a case?”
Yes, that is precisely how lawyers work. They advocate for their clients.
My wife was a keedy cup winner at UofP law many years ago – advocating for a position that she does not personally agree with.
In debate and law you often do not get to pick the side you are to advocate for. You are still expected to do your best.
“Now you cite the Masterpiece Cake Shop case where the SC held the owner of a bakery did not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because Phillips claimed it would violate his religious beliefs. Without any facts, but assuming the Philly landlord decided he didn’t like the political views of Maloney’s group, how is that decision different than the Masterpiece case?”
If the Philly property owner refused to contract with a Trump group or any other, for whatever reasons he might have – then the case is NOT different.
But if a valid contract was formed to rent this property – then the owner breached the contract and is liable.
There is or should be an absolute right to REFUSE to enter a contract.
Once in however, it is ONLY the terms of the contract that provide you a way out.
I highly doubt there is a clause in an AirBnb contract barring tenants from political activity OUTSIDE the property.
Do You really beleive AirBnb has such a clause ?
To put it in MasterCake terms – Phillips can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
However he can not take an order for a cake for a gay wedding and THEN refuse to provide the cake.
Dude, you are so insecure…..
Can I be against ANY out-of-staters trying to influence the vote in Pennsylvania?….Can I stick to this view without any partisan double-standard?
One of these days, state govts. are going to wake up to out-of-state interference in state elections, carving out an exception for national media and Presidential candidate visits. I wouldn’t even allow fundraising done out of state.
We’re drifting ever so much farther from political competition restricted to authentic discussions of policy options going forward. We need much stricter rules, and referees to enforce them on-the-spot in realtime. The campaigns obviously refuse to compete solely on those terms.
Even if states wake up to it, I doubt they can do anything about it without violating the constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom to travel.
* freedom to travel exturpated under covid and same for speech.
“One of these days, state govts. are going to wake up to out-of-state interference in state elections”
If that does not happen soon (it could already be too late), States as political entities, with the authorities reserved to them by the Constitution, could be marginalized to the point of virtual non-existence. Which, I believe, is the very objective of the out-of-state interference.
The vote was intended to be restricted by state legislatures.
The first qualifications were generally male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
Democracy has been of the restricted-vote republic form since inception in Greece and perpetuation in Rome and America.
Never was America intended to be a one-man, one-vote democracy.
“Persons as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own,” “persons of indigent fortunes,” or “persons such as are under the immediate dominion of others,” “are excluded from voting,” according to Blackstone and Hamilton.
__________________________________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
This is absurd. There is absolutely nothing occuring today that has not occured more than a century ago.
In FACT mailin voting has driven political parties back to all the same offensive and intrusive and fraudulent conduct that occurred int he 19th century.
38 states passed constitutional amendments requiring secret ballots specifically to thwart this nonsense and the fraud that comes with it.
When state courts start to impose the conditions in their constitutions – THAT will correct alot of these problems.
What does that mean ?
Paper ballots ONLY printed by the state,
Ballots NEVER leave the custody of the state.
Voters must Come to election offices to vote, where they vote secretly with election workers assuring that no one influences their vote and that their ballot never leaves the polls.
With at best limited for cause exceptions for absentee ballots – still cast at a state election fascility, voting is done on election day and ONLY election day.
Secret ballot laws limit all this nonsense that is bothering you.
“Can I be against ANY out-of-staters trying to influence the vote in Pennsylvania?….Can I stick to this view without any partisan double-standard?”
You can but you would be violating the constitution. Political campaigns are LITERALLY efforts to influence elections.
ANYONE is free to “influence an election” EXCEPT those in government.
All political speech is an attempt to influence something – often elections.
“One of these days, state govts. are going to wake up to out-of-state interference in state elections, carving out an exception for national media and Presidential candidate visits. I wouldn’t even allow fundraising done out of state.”
No they are not – any such laws would be unconstitutional.
“We’re drifting ever so much farther from political competition restricted to authentic discussions of policy options going forward. We need much stricter rules, and referees to enforce them on-the-spot in realtime. The campaigns obviously refuse to compete solely on those terms.”
Again – such rules would be unconstitutional. Candidates are free to lie about each other, as is the media, as is voters.
The “referee’s” are the voters, if you do not like the legal and constitutional conduct of one party or candidate – do not vote for them.
As is typical of those on the left – you are CONSTANTLY trying to impose constraints on the perfectly legal conduct of others.
We have spent all of human existance deriving constitutions, law and the social contract.
Government is free to use FORCE against those who have initiated the use of force to infringe on the rights of others.
Government MAY NOT act to preclude people from making decisions that it deems unwise that do not involve the use of force to infringe on the rights of others.
Put differently – you can not make up and pass any law that you wish.
There are no censorship limits for Democrats Jonathan. None. They are frantically trying to criminalize free speech, and views with which they disagree, as dangerous misinformation and a threat to public safety as in Britain.
* Actually dems deleted “freedom” of speech and their speech is strongarmed having nothing to do with freedom. It’s the boot on the neck.
Odd people don’t see it. Easter bunny isn’t real either.
In Other News: “Politicians order followers to accept ‘Ewe’ as their Second
Person Personal Pronoun”
~+~
In their latest proclamation mandated upon loyal supporters, the political leadership compelled their sycophants to transition from the Second Person Personal Pronoun “You” to the more fitting neologism “Ewe”, as the latter better defines both the blind-following, herd mentality of these voters and how disrespected they are by their dear leaders.
An example of the NewSpeak would be where a senator formerly would address followers by “I call on each of you to support my new initiative” will now be “I call on each of ewe to support my new initiative”.
Leaked documents allude to the probability of a political steering committee being responsible for substituting the pronoun ‘You’ with ‘Ewe’. The committee sought to initiate the genesis of a new breed of voter, completely amenable to everything put before them…the end goal being of course the full utilization of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in creating a Sheep-Lemming hybrid who votes, kowtows, and donates often.
Politicians so far believe there is much promise in extracting active loyalists if the results of test groups prove their benefit. A form of mutualism began to coopt the sycophant voter with the vainglorious politician. The voter lost all sense of worth and self-respect which in turn stroked the politician’s need for superiority provided by arse kissers who demand to be taken advantage of.
There was a worry at first when a Control was introduced into the study–a free thinker was concealed within each study group–who initially balked at what he regarded as “stupid, pronoun nonsense” the control was however made irrelevant after being attacked by the proto-sheep-lemming hybrids for being a disloyal malefactor. Paradoxically, the more the control contested the pronoun’s adoption, the more the rest of the participants bleated the pronoun’s necessity.
In the end, the pronoun change seemed to work best with the most obedient voter: to which all other voters clamored to prove they themselves were truly the most obedient, subservient voter of them all.
At the conclusion of the study, the audience of voters was given its marching orders uneventfully yet they each collapsed into a frenzy of joy when presented with their new official mantra…
“Ask not what ewer country can do for ewe. Ask what ewer country can do TO ewe.”
Darren,
Awesome!
I’ve always preferred “undocumented withdrawel”, to “bank robbery” myself.
Sounds much more joyful…
Illegal withdrawal is too harsh.
* I’ll incorporate that.
Practice : ewer funny
There’s a cult member comment-bombing today. His delusion is that he thinks everyone else is the member of a “MAGA cult” (a derogatory term that members of his cult use when referring to people who love America and want it to be a great nation again after serious decay under a Democrat administration). Best to just ignore him. He is mentally deranged and answering him will only encourage more of his delusional behavior.
OldManFromKS,
Well said and spot on.
They feel threatened by the facts. That is why they are so desperate as their narrative continues to fail.
We should also note the incident where a restaurant kicked out then White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Would not want to bring up that discrimination. And now this recent incident only furthers how Democrats continue to discriminate. They truly are a hateful bunch of people.
Upstate- true. Pretty much every single instance of intolerance is the Left refusing to tolerate anyone who has a conservative viewpoint. Virtually never the other way around. The Left is fueled by hatred of anyone who isn’t like them and insecurity that their ideas can withstand critical examination. If it were not so they would be much more tolerant of diversity and would welcome a robust debate where winners are based on merit. Instead they censor and cancel. They are not the good guys, those who censor never are.
OldManFromKS,
Another good comment and well said about those who attempt to censor or cancel. Reminds me ever so much of 1930s Germany. They are the brownshirts.
OldManFromKS,
It should also be noted, our delusional troll thinks anyone who is not on the Democrat plantation, must be a MAGA cult member.
Sounds awfully cult like thinking.
Indeed, and after thousands of instances of discrimination, censorship, cancellations, disruption, and expulsions that Professor Turley has written about, and thousands more reported elsewhere, he will claim it is “just one instance,” again showing his complete detachment from reality, i.e., his psychosis.
OldManFromKS,
Exactly. Every time the good professor points out another instance, pointing out their failing narrative, they have a melt down. They try to gaslight us, saying it is not true, nothing but some right wing conspiracy theory and not believe our own eyes and ears.
Here is an excellent example of left wing intolerance and cancellation brought to you by The Free Press, Penn Professor Amy Wax Punished for ‘Inconvenient Facts’
https://www.thefp.com/p/penn-professor-amy-wax-suspended-race-free-press
And another example brought to you by The Free Press, My French Teacher Was Beloved for 25 Years. Then She Was Asked About Hijabs.
https://www.thefp.com/p/spence-teacher-sues-after-firing-france-hihab-ban
And I didn’t even mention the repeated attempts by ActBlue donors to try to murder the GOP presidential nominee.
Wasn’t the owner in breach of contract? Maybe not if the actual political activity was taking place on the property, but it’s hard to tell from the linked article whether that was happening or the guests just rented it as a place to stay.
Also, the analogy to Masterpiece Cake is inapt. That was a First Amendment freedom of speech case involving the right to be free of coerced speech. Here, the issue is property rights, not expressive rights.
let them eat cake
Yep. I’ve wondered about this private and public property for some time. The focus is “use” as to public and again use as to private. The ownership is irrelevant if the use is public? The focus is “use”.
This is a well known attribute AirBNB and their property owners, and has been for years. Do try to keep up.
Let me be clear: we will not back down… we will not stop… and we will not let off the gas until we crush the commies and claim victory on November 5,” he added
Breitbart article
Pure gold
* Can a private business deny service to people and persons based on political affiliations?
No, if it regards the constitution on speech, press and assembly. The redress is registering voters. Denying shelter based on political affiliation is persecution. Is airbnb a monopoly? Are the alternatives lesser accommodations or more expensive?
Airbnb will plead safety. Is it more likely the accommodation will be attacked by opposition resulting in property damage? Insurance coverage suffices?
Are political organizations protected under the constitution publicly and privately. The homes are private property even with a contract to rent out but they are not primary dwellings. They are public businesses.
Disregarding the constitution as a piece of trash paper indicates anyone can do anything.
Can public businesses deny service to political organizations. The distinction between private and public blurs at service and ownership. Whom is being served? A private home does not serve the public and there is no quartering of the enemy. These homes serve the public.
Masterpiece cakeshop is in play. The error is in ” the public can buy any cake”. All cakes from that public business must be Christian cakes? That’s untrue. Even King David ate the show bread.
* The distinction for public and private money is an error. It’s the use of the goods and service that delineates. The public uses the goods and services. A private dwelling is not in public use nor is a religious building or an establishment of a religion. People would not go to a private synogogue and demand a christian service. The service offered to the public is Judaism. People can erect an establishment next door for public Christian services. These are private as to service and goods publicly offered.
Masterpiece cakes might list goods and services offered. Christian wedding cakes are listed. Moslem bakeries don’t have BLTs on the menu. It really is the same idea.
Political organizations are public. Airbnbs are public. People cannot be persecuted for assembly nor prosecuted. Harvard serves the public. It is public no matter the origin of the finances. There aren’t private institutions of education in reality. Is it possible to have private institutions for Christians or Moslems or white people or black people? Not if the public is served.
* Harvard can become private as to service if they construct a mission statement. Harvard prides it’s itself in the existential philosophy it offers throughout its offerings. We expound clearly upon an anti western civilization as it has produced the most oppressive nation ever known to mankind, the United States of America.
The article suggests that there is a legal issue surrounding discrimination based on political affiliation, but in reality, political views or affiliations are not protected from discrimination. This means that a company can legally terminate an employee due to their political affiliation or even if they display a bumper sticker on their car that the owner disagrees with. The comparison to the Masterpiece Cake Shop case is irrelevant to the Airbnb issue, as the policies do not mention political affiliation. Therefore, an Airbnb property owner is within their rights to ask a guest to leave if they disagree with the guest’s political party. The article seems to be more of an attempt to provoke supporters of a particular political party and maintain readership rather than a genuine legal concern. It’s important to note that political affiliation is not considered a protected status, neither constitutionally nor legally.
* What happened to freedom of assembly? Ewer saying a person can be prosecuted for political affiliation and persecuted no less.
Existentialists would agree.
“Therefore, an Airbnb property owner is within their rights to ask a guest to leave if they disagree with the guest’s political party. “
@ Svelaz George: Think again. Once the renter pays the fee and has the contract, especially if occupying the premises, the renter has control over them (according to the contract), not the owner. Where you get your ideas is an enigma to me. You should study more and talk less.
Never used an AIRBNB or rented a house out and never would do either. The only time we had to was when we rented a condo in Florida. The previous renters refused to leave despite their contract being expired. We were stuck on the landing with 2 small children and 2 weeks of plans and visits to disney, shopping etc. The condo president gave us their place which was better room and master bedroom window opened right on to beach. Bigger also . We were lucky they had a kind president but we stayed in hotels from then on. Seems there is too much here we don’t know to really make a judgement. Not going to get hot and bothered by this one.
So now will there be an Airbnb Green Book for American Conservatives?
It’s only going to get worse until one ideology overcomes the other and that needs to happen quickly.
Loved the ‘AirBnB to Airdnc’.
Me, too 🙂
Airbnb better get out from underneath this ASAP and disavow the owners actions. $5000 is chicken feed compared to the massive legal fees to fight a lawsuit that they will likely lose, in addition to the bad will that this is generate. Remember Bud Light. We have the power of the purse.
One big risk for Airbnb is lawfare. Just imagine Trump supporters doing what the Left does all the time, going into districts with sympathetic judges and looking for someone to sue. Lots of money in them thar hills. Then Airbnb would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to escape the local judges and still possibly lose.
Some commentators are saying this is exactly what the right should do. If you want to stop the lawfare, tit-for-tat. I agree.
That is interesting.
So, will Airbnb property owners now have to disclose whom is allow to stay at their property? No one from this political party or that political party. No one of this sexual orientation or that sexual orientation. No one of this religion or that religion. No one without a college degree. What is next? No one from the Kiwanis?
The question I have, what if the property owner found out they were Harris supporters, doing get out the vote for the DNC? Would there be outcry?
Perhaps we need to look at this as not a bad thing. Everyone put there political affiliation on the door of their business. Then let the consumers decide. We could have our own version of political segregation, only GOP or DNC voters allowed! Third party or Independents might be allowed. Could be fun to see how things go.
* good little existentialists. Without the burden of the constitution imagine what can be when unburdened by the burden of what was as time is the time unburdening be …
* No, not fun easy rider.
All of this seems to me to represent contractual issues between AirBNB, its accommodation providers, and its customers. Have the Trump supporters requested any kind of State or Federal enforcement action be taken against the reneging renter? If not, I am puzzled about what elevates this to make it worthy of today’s headline story.
Just wait. It’s coming.
* Well, MAGA is the ugly step-child.
Airbnb is a scourge to neighborhoods and communities. People that can’t afford their dream home on the beach buy a condo and then rent it out 45 weeks a year as the neighbors all have to live with transient non-involved people that come and go with no interest at all in the community.
A) If you can’t afford that dream house on the beach…you can’t afford that dream house on the beach.
B) If you can’t afford to rent a hotel room run by professionals…maybe wait a year to take your vacation.
Cost is not the issue. Our VRBOs and AirBnBs are often more than hotel costs. We enjoy visiting the new sites across the country with our grandchildren. Obviously, we cannot afford a new home in every location we visit. We reject hotels because they are not comfortable with a family. When a young child goes to bed, an adult must stay and monitor for security. In a hotel, there is no common place to gather, play games, watch movies, visit etc. There is more noise, less privacy, and less comfort.
“People that can’t afford their dream home on the beach buy a condo and then rent it out 45 weeks a year as the neighbors all have to live with transient non-involved people that come and go with no interest at all in the community.”
Isn’t that the definition of “tourism”? Seems to me that many communities depend on tourists to prosper, or in some cases, survive. Also, AirBNB didn’t invent the phenomenon of people owning a home in a tourist area that they could not afford if they did not rent it out for the tourist season; all it did was apply a bit of unification and streamlining to the process of putting property owners and renters together.
You are correct, Hulbobby. Such transient, non-involved communities can be hurt. If your community faces that problem, did you find any solution?
Check your HOA rules and CC&Rs.
If this is true and it stands then the possibilities are endless and will, eventually, destroy the industry or balkanize it enormously. Don’t like Trump supporters? Ok, how about Protestants or Mormons or, heaven forbid Jews?? Chevy guys sure don’t want Ford nerds in their abode! If this stands it looks like AirBnB will need quite a bit of additional coding to list all the endless things an owner might not like but, but, on a positive note at least us Ford people wont have to take the chance of sharing the space with stupid Chevy memorabilia and that’s worth paying more for!
Ah, the brave new world we live in (or will soon) wherein none of us ever have to have our prescious little bubble disturbed. Cant wait.
” will, eventually, destroy the industry or balkanize it enormously.”
Meh. If AirBNB effs this up badly enough, and there is a viable market for such services (evidently true), then another party will step in to try to do it better. IIRC, there are already a number of smaller competitors to AirBNB, one of them could potentially step up and take over. That is how the free market is supposed to work.
I hope so, because I love the concept but I have hated doing business with AirBnB! I keep doing it because I haven’t found an alternative. I hate doing business with so many companies who hate me!
Monopolies
* How about no children allowed?
OBVIOUSLY discrimination by politics is unconstitutional.
The repubs should have gotten a police report.
Very important decision Airbnb.
Don’t screw it up!