The article says that one way AirBnB is handling racial discrimination is to "accelerate the use of instant bookings, which lets renters book places immediately without host approval." It's not AirBnB's goal, but as a side effect it would affect bobjordan, so it is relevant.

(edit: it would depend on how they implement more instant booking. If they just encouraged renters to use it (but could they just encourage and still stop discrimination?), people like bobjordan could just opt out).

The skeptic in me says that pushing Instant Bookings is their primary goal as it lets them be closer to how hotels book. The discrimination angle is a great way to roll it out because it solves a another problem for them.

If you don't turn on instant bookings with your property, then you don't have anything to worry about.

https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/484/what-is-instant-book

What's relevant is that AirBnB is against the Freedom of Owners to select who stays at their place. In the end Owners should have the final word, no matter what, certainly not AirBnB.

I agree even if AirBnB is the booking driver.

1) AirBnB has a history of poor support for hosts that have troublesome renters.

2) AirBnB does a terrible job screening renters.

3) This could be easily used against a host improperly. I had a group of sorority girls that wanted to book my house. They told me they had almost 40 women so I declined. I don't have a problem with women but this could be used against me in a legal battle. You have to discriminate as a host. If 10 young guys wanted to book my house too my radar would be off that they MIGHT be there for a party. It has nothing to do with being a bigot against age or gender but minimizing risk which AirBnB does not help with.

If they enforce instant book I could be stuck with 40 women at my house in a city I'm legally approved for advertising and sleeping 14 (it's based on 200 sq ft per person). AirBnB doesn't have all the local rules.

4) Let's say someone is bigoted and they own a house - if you're a potential renter in a group they dislike, do you really want to shell over money to them and stay at their home? Also, what are the chances that the bigoted host is going to provide a good experience or good customer support when required?

These booking sites are taking more money and providing less. They want to drop your ADR like Uber wanted to drop fares for wider appeal. And they avoid all liability. It's getting more and more unfriendly for hosts.

Let's say someone is bigoted and they own a company - if you're a potential employee in a group they dislike, do you really want to spend your days in their workplace? Also, what are the chances that the bigoted employer is going to provide a good experience or career progression when required?

...so we're cool with dropping employment discrimination laws too?

You're comparing employment with staying at someone's HOME.

If you choose to make your home a place of business, you must comply with business rules.

They're providing a service in return for money, they have to declare the earnings from such for tax purposes... there is no line here. A psychiatrist who operates out of a home office has no legal right to discriminate based on race, either.

This is a case for dropping employment laws, not enforcing them on a wider class of people.

You're saying that evidence AirBnB hosts discriminate racially is a case for dropping employment laws?

The laws of the United States disagree with you. Unless you are renting out part of your own residence, you do not have the freedom to select who stays there on the basis of race.

Do you think employers should be free to select who works in their company, irrespective of any laws surrounding discrimination?