Yes, but it looks like owner-occupied homes that are renting out a bedroom on AirBnB are exempt[1] from those discrimination laws. Paraphrase of law: "other than ... a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as his residence"

Basically, it is legal for homeowners to discriminate on race for their personal dwelling. The concept appears to be related to the "roommate wanted" being exempted from the FHA Fair Housing Act.[2]

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.

[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

[2]https://blog.splitwise.com/2012/02/07/court-allows-discrimin...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.