No, its not. Its an express limitation on the applicability of the homeowner exception, and applies to any use of any rental (or sale) services of a broker, agent, or person in the business of renting (or selling) real estate in support of a discriminatory rental, after December 31, 1969.

Its only legal (since 1970) under the federal fair housing act to discriminate, even as a homeowner renting their own home, if the rental is arranged without the use of some commercial rental-arrangement service.

(And even them it may be illegal under state fair housing laws.)

> The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

That's certainly the argument a discriminating owner using AirBnB (or possible AirBnB themselves) would try to make, but AirBnB's financial and substantive involvement in the transaction is very different than that of a hands-off listing service like a newspaper classified section, so I don't think that argument would fly. If AirBnB actually acted like a newspaper classified service, that argument might be valid, but that's not what AirBnB does (if we were talking, instead, about Craigslist, that would be a good argument.)

To be clear, my response was not disagreeing with this part.

Except that AirBnB:

- collects money and acts as a financial intermediary

- provides some measure of insurance to both sides of the transaction

- provides some measure of support before/during/after a stay

- more?

Basically, it's nothing like a newspaper classified.