Hacker News Reader

which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence

Tons and tons of places on AirBnB are not residences but full-time hotels. This is why the site is so hated by established interest groups. Tons of entrepreneurs are out there buying up or renting long-term housing and converting it into short-term rentals, all while avoiding the fees and regulations that apply to traditional hotel businesses.

> There may be a grey area regarding a larger 6-bedroom home that the owner occupies but is renting out for a week while he's out of town. The owner doesn't have to physically share the space simultaneously with the renter. I can't tell if anti-discrimination laws applies to that situation.

Exemptions to federal statues may not apply in this case if the owner is renting out >4 bedrooms.

The owner-occupied housing exemption only applies to buildings with 4 or fewer units.

The single family home exemption may still apply, but if you're rending out all the bedrooms, it's probably gray enough that you should avoid overt racial discrimination.

But you really ought to avoid overt racial discrimination in any case...

> Basically, is legal for homeowners to discriminate on race

There is a big difference between "not a violation of federal law" and "legal". Many states have anti-discrimination laws with broader scope than the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Most states also have a Roommate exemption in their laws

Which may be substantially narrower in applicability than the federal one. (That difference is actually the main relevant difference I was thinking of when I posted the grandparent post.)

>Many states have anti-discrimination laws with broader scope than the Federal Fair Housing Act.

That's true but I can't think of one example of a state having tougher discrimination laws than the Federal code in regards to a homeowner's personal dwelling.

California's roomer/roommate exemption is significantly more limited than the Federal one, so that's at least one state:

1. The federal exemption is a blanket one from the anti-discrimination rules, California's allows most discrimination but still limits advertising and still prohibits discrimination on medical condition or age (over 40)

2. the federal exception applies up to 5 rooms for rent, California's applies only when the owner is renting to a single roomer or boarder.

>and still prohibits discrimination on medical condition or age (over 40)

The webpage (you cited previously) from the California Department of Consumer Affairs that mentions "medical" and "age" doesn't look to be correct.

For reference, the source laws it cites are the following:

(51) California's Unruh Civil Rights Act: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...

(51.2) (special case for senior citizens housing): http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...

Government Code Section 12927(a)(2)(A): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&gr...

Government Code Section 12955(c): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&gr...

Reading the actual laws doesn't find any exceptions to the exemptions for roommates and homeowners renting out a private room. The "medical condition" and "age" (along with "gender", "race", etc) are all part of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The only age-specific laws (51.2) was discrimination against younger people being acceptable so as to maintain the housing for senior citizens.

In any case, it looks like the exemption for roommates based on it not being a "business". The law in (51) is directed at business establishments and not roommates/homeowners sharing a house/apartment. Based on a plain reading of the previous 4 cites, an 18-year-old girl in California can refuse to share accommodations with a 70-year-old asthma sufferer with a noisy oxygen tank.

>2. the federal exception applies up to 5 rooms for rent, California's applies only when the owner is renting to a single roomer or boarder.

Ok got it. But I wasn't using "tougher discrimination" in the sense that one state allows 1 room (or some other threshold number) instead of 5. Instead, I meant "tougher" as in certain state says you can't discriminate on race for the private bedroom in your house -- whereas FHA says you can.