Airbnb Host Who Canceled Reservation Using Racist Comment Must Pay $5,000

heatlesssun said:
Nope:

View attachment 30625

This is the definition of racism and people like you keep defending it.
Click to expand...

No it's not, it sure as fuck is the definition of trying to find racism anywhere and everywhere.

heatlesssun said:
Someone says in clear terms that they would never do business with me because of race but there are some other facts. Nonsense.

Someone tells me to fuck off because I'm black but hey, there's more to the story? That's just not how it works. People like you will blast others for bringing race into a conversation but defend others to the ends of the earth?

Why the fuck did Baker bring race into this? Time and time and time and time and time and time and a million other times people like you blast the holly hell out of people bringing up race into a dispute but this time you ignore it?

It's so obvious I don't even get why people try that nonsense.
Click to expand...

This is getting fucking pathetic, she never said she would never do business with Asians, she said she wouldn't do business with ONE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL.

nilepez said:
to summarize: bigots don't believe this is racist, because to acknowledge that would mean they'd have to acknowledge their own bigotry, which doesn't exist, because there is no racism.
Click to expand...

To summarize: everything is racist to liberals because it's too hard to use critical thinking.
 
Stryke1983 said:
9 pages of arguments because some people insist on defending (to varying degrees and in different ways) a person who was caught, in 'writing', denying someone a service based on their race.

The only possible aspect of this that needs debating is the severity and type of punishment for two illegal actions (1. denial of service based on race; 2. breach of contract). Not whether both actions occurred and are illegal/deserve punishment.
Click to expand...

It does, as you say, come down to the two points you stated.
1. Denial of Service based on race did NOT occur. The airbnb owner rented to the (hated/despised) Asian.
2. Breach of Contract DID occur. The (hated/despised) Asian tried, at the last minute, to keep the same rate for the rental, but added two additional adults and two dogs.

The airbnb's (hatred/despising) feelings towards Asians did NOT change her business perspective. Had the renter NOT tried to change the terms of the contract, would any of this happened? No. There was a breach of contract...by the renter.
 
doz said:
So because blacks have more difficulty owning businesses for whatever reason, its OK for them to discriminate.

Got it.
Click to expand...
The black businesses in the link you quoted but didn't read aren't refusing to cater to white customers. It was an article about a woman writing a book and doing a series of TED talks to encourage black customers to spend money in black owned businesses to increase wealth in black communities.

If you really want to go down this road and claim that black customers choosing to spend their money in black businesses is discriminatory and racist go ahead and look the fool, but at least realize the difference that it's not illegal whereas black businesses (or white businesses) refusing to serve customers based on race is.
 
c3k said:
It does, as you say, come down to the two points you stated.
1. Denial of Service based on race did NOT occur. The airbnb owner rented to the (hated/despised) Asian.
2. Breach of Contract DID occur. The (hated/despised) Asian tried, at the last minute, to keep the same rate for the rental, but added two additional adults and two dogs.

The airbnb's (hatred/despising) feelings towards Asians did NOT change her business perspective. Had the renter NOT tried to change the terms of the contract, would any of this happened? No. There was a breach of contract...by the renter.
Click to expand...
Was the renter denied access to the property? Yes. Therefore service was denied. If access has been granted previously it doesn't change the fact that service was denied now.

Was the renter's race used as all or part of the reason for denying service? Yes. Therefore it's denial of service due to race which is specifically prohibited.

This is an extremely clear case. All that's left is to debate the severity and method of punishment.
 
"D.C. Council passes emergency legislation giving pot dispensing preference to black businesses"

hahahaha...gotta luv you sum Democrats...keeping the black race right where they want them...

first line:

"The D.C. Council has given minorities a hand up in the city’s new marijuana business as D.C. Department of Health statistics show that many local African-Americans are struggling with marijuana abuse.

The council has passed emergency legislation mandating that medical marijuana dispensary permits be given preferentially to minority-owned companies and small businesses.

The emergency law went into effect late last month. Its sponsor, council member Robert White, said it is needed to help minorities and small business entrepreneurs overcome an economic disadvantage."


they are trying to put all of the "independent" street corner dope sellers out of business...blatant racism
 
Stryke1983 said:
Was the renter denied access to the property? Yes. Therefore service was denied. If access has been granted previously it doesn't change the fact that service was denied now.

Was the renter's race used as all or part of the reason for denying service? Yes. Therefore it's denial of service due to race which is specifically prohibited.

This is an extremely clear case. All that's left is to debate the severity and method of punishment.
Click to expand...

No way this is a clear case, as i already explained at #189 post.
 
I put Hypergreatthing on my ignore list, thinking that I wouldn't be getting any more content alerts. Was I wrong.

IdiotInCharge said:
Except, again, she didn't say that. She said that she wouldn't rent to Dyne Suh, if she were the last person on earth, in the context of Suh's repeated attempts to modify the contract post agreement.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, you're ignoring the facts.
Click to expand...

Tami Barker said, quote, "I wouldn't rent to u if u were the last person on earth. One word says it all. Asian." That is a fact. Tami Barker brought up the topic of race in a discriminatory fashion in a business transaction, which is illegal.

This thread is 11 pages long now (and counting?) because people like you go out of your way to try to make the word "Asian" disappear from Tami Barker's words. In the above quote, you literally acted as if Tami Barker never brought up Dyne Suh's race, as if she just said "I wouldn't rent to u if u were the last person on earth," end sentence. Well, that's not all she said. Barker added one more sentence: "One word says it all. Asian."

In the context of two people talking, it is not against the law to be racist against Asians. But in the context of a business transaction, it is against the law to apply racism in the transaction, and doing so is what got Barker into trouble with the California DFEH.

There's two things you people refuse to understand. First, the DFEH is not some power hungry unlimited budget state agency that pursues every complaint and shakes down every defendant for cash. They actually dismiss nearly 60% of all the complaints they receive. So even in a state as "liberal" as California, where you think "racism" has too broad of a definition, they still dismiss over half the complaints they get.

This complaint was not dismissed! Even though more than half of them are overall! There was an investigation following state law. Both sides participates with lawyers involved, and the conclusion of the investigation was that Tami Barker violated laws that the DFEH is empowered to enforce.

Second, you people set such a high bar for racism/discrimination that basically, nothing is racist. All of you seem to believe that the only way this could be a racial discrimination case is if race was the only reason Tami Barker denied service to Dyne Suh. If there is a non-racial reason in addition to the racial reason, you people conclude, "see? It wasn't all about race, therefore there's no racism, no discrimination here. Just more of the usual race baiting from SJWs."

It's apparently too difficult for you people to understand that when you make a decision for multiple reasons, if some of the reasons are illegal, you get into trouble for the illegal reasons. You don't get into trouble for the legal ones, just the illegal ones.
 
Okay, here's a question/analogy.

Black business owner runs a market. He sells milk. (All colors of milk. ;) ) A white guy comes in after 3 black guys and ahead of another black guy. They all get 1 gallon jugs of milk and stand in line at the counter. The first 3 guys get rung up and leave. The white guy gets there and the owner says, "Huh. Even if you were the last customer in the world, I wouldn't sell you any milk. Whites." And no sale. The next guy buys and leaves.

Obviously, that would be illegal denial of service based on race.

That is NOT what happened at the airbnb.

Let's take my first example and change it slightly.

Right over the cash register is a sign, "All sales are final. No refunds, no returns." So, the same guys show up in the same order and buy the same jugs of milk. (Multi-hued, because rainbows are inclusive.) The owner does not deny the white guy the ability to buy his jug. However, of all the sales, the white guy comes back a few hours later. Half the jug is gone. He goes up to the owner and demands a refund. He states that the milk was "off". Or, it just didn't meet his wife's standards. (She likes 1% skim, not whole milk.) Whatever. The owner merely points up to the sign and says, "No."

Is the owner's action illegal?

Now...change it. The owner points the sign and says, "No. Whites, always trying to get one over."

Is there a difference between the two examples? Is the owner not allowed to append his personal comment and STILL be within the law?
 
FearTheCow said:
Ah yes, the classic inability to listen/hear what someone says and instead you apply your filter to others words, which is interesting because you love to rant about racism, ever think that your the racist one projecting racism on everyone else?

It's fucking sad and embarrassing that anyone would think it makes sense for someone to rent a house out knowing someone is Asian, then say that owner is racist for saying something stupid in anger after the person renting tries to fuck with the terms.

Interesting enough, this thread shows exactly why the country is going conservative, we are tired of the fucking race/racism card being played over everything.
Click to expand...

This is how mentally deranged you people are. Tami Barker brought up race in a discriminatory way: "I wouldn't rent to u if u were the last person on earth. One word says it all. Asian." She brought up race, not Dyne Suh. And you can't say it's racist. You can only say it's "something stupid in anger." And then you manage to conclude, somehow, that Dyne Suh played the race card even though it was Tami Barker who brought up race.
 
alexyang said:
I put Hypergreatthing on my ignore list, thinking that I wouldn't be getting any more content alerts. Was I wrong.



Tami Barker said, quote, "I wouldn't rent to u if u were the last person on earth. One word says it all. Asian." That is a fact. Tami Barker brought up the topic of race in a discriminatory fashion in a business transaction, which is illegal.

This thread is 11 pages long now (and counting?) because people like you go out of your way to try to make the word "Asian" disappear from Tami Barker's words. In the above quote, you literally acted as if Tami Barker never brought up Dyne Suh's race, as if she just said "I wouldn't rent to u if u were the last person on earth," end sentence. Well, that's not all she said. Barker added one more sentence: "One word says it all. Asian."

In the context of two people talking, it is not against the law to be racist against Asians. But in the context of a business transaction, it is against the law to apply racism in the transaction, and doing so is what got Barker into trouble with the California DFEH.

There's two things you people refuse to understand. First, the DFEH is not some power hungry unlimited budget state agency that pursues every complaint and shakes down every defendant for cash. They actually dismiss nearly 60% of all the complaints they receive. So even in a state as "liberal" as California, where you think "racism" has too broad of a definition, they still dismiss over half the complaints they get.

This complaint was not dismissed! Even though more than half of them are overall! There was an investigation following state law. Both sides participates with lawyers involved, and the conclusion of the investigation was that Tami Barker violated laws that the DFEH is empowered to enforce.

Second, you people set such a high bar for racism/discrimination that basically, nothing is racist. All of you seem to believe that the only way this could be a racial discrimination case is if race was the only reason Tami Barker denied service to Dyne Suh. If there is a non-racial reason in addition to the racial reason, you people conclude, "see? It wasn't all about race, therefore there's no racism, no discrimination here. Just more of the usual race baiting from SJWs."

It's apparently too difficult for you people to understand that when you make a decision for multiple reasons, if some of the reasons are illegal, you get into trouble for the illegal reasons. You don't get into trouble for the legal ones, just the illegal ones.
Click to expand...
Can't win the argument, moves to ignoring people and name calling. Typical behavior.
Bad logic and analogies that have already been debunked. 60% dismissal rate doesn't apply as to how often they're right. Conflating the two together doesn't make sense.
Both quotes that tami said weren't made at the same time. She also said "Go ahead, I wouldn't rent to you if you were the last person on earth.
Go ahead? As i explained before, the only logical inference is that dyne was threatening tami with something.
 
c3k said:
Okay, here's a question/analogy.

Black business owner runs a market. He sells milk. (All colors of milk. ;) ) A white guy comes in after 3 black guys and ahead of another black guy. They all get 1 gallon jugs of milk and stand in line at the counter. The first 3 guys get rung up and leave. The white guy gets there and the owner says, "Huh. Even if you were the last customer in the world, I wouldn't sell you any milk. Whites." And no sale. The next guy buys and leaves.

Obviously, that would be illegal denial of service based on race.

That is NOT what happened at the airbnb.

Let's take my first example and change it slightly.

Right over the cash register is a sign, "All sales are final. No refunds, no returns." So, the same guys show up in the same order and buy the same jugs of milk. (Multi-hued, because rainbows are inclusive.) The owner does not deny the white guy the ability to buy his jug. However, of all the sales, the white guy comes back a few hours later. Half the jug is gone. He goes up to the owner and demands a refund. He states that the milk was "off". Or, it just didn't meet his wife's standards. (She likes 1% skim, not whole milk.) Whatever. The owner merely points up to the sign and says, "No."

Is the owner's action illegal?

Now...change it. The owner points the sign and says, "No. Whites, always trying to get one over."

Is there a difference between the two examples? Is the owner not allowed to append his personal comment and STILL be within the law?
Click to expand...

Decisions can be made for MULTIPLE REASONS. You never get into trouble for the legal reasons. You only get into trouble for the illegal reasons.

If the owner had just said "No," of course there would be no problem. But if the owner said, "No, and even if I gave refunds, I wouldn't give them to you. One word says it all: white," guess what? Owner might get sued, and if he gets sued, he'll lose.

I do not understand why it is so difficult for you people to understand that decisions can be made based on more than one reason, and if some of the reasons are illegal, those (and only those) reasons are the ones that land you in hot water.
 
alexyang said:
Decisions can be made for MULTIPLE REASONS. You never get into trouble for the legal reasons. You only get into trouble for the illegal reasons.

If the owner had just said "No," of course there would be no problem. But if the owner said, "No, and even if I gave refunds, I wouldn't give them to you. One word says it all: white," guess what? Owner might get sued, and if he gets sued, he'll lose.

I do not understand why it is so difficult for you people to understand that decisions can be made based on more than one reason, and if some of the reasons are illegal, those (and only those) reasons are the ones that land you in hot water.
Click to expand...

This is the insanity with which so many of us disagree. You are stating that an act can be legal or illegal, the SAME act, based on the "intent" or "reason" of the person perpetrating that act. That is...crazy. Is a rapist guilty if he rapes a woman and has anger in his heart but is not guilty if he means it as an expressing an act of love towards his victim??? Of course not!

The law should be applied based on ACTIONS. We can talk "intent" all we want. Did OJ Simpson mean to "steal" something from that Las Vegas hotel room or was his INTENT to recover his own property??? I could go on.

In the example I gave of the storeowner not granting a refund, THAT is the act: no refund. It does not matter WHY he did not grant the refund, merely that he did not do so. Does the law support his right to refuse the refund? If so, then no external party applying "intent" to his action should matter.

Where does it end?
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Can't win the argument, moves to ignoring people and name calling. Typical behavior.
Bad logic and analogies that have already been debunked. 60% dismissal rate doesn't apply as to how often they're right. Conflating the two together doesn't make sense.
Both quotes that tami said weren't made at the same time. She also said "Go ahead, I wouldn't rent to you if you were the last person on earth.
Go ahead? As i explained before, the only logical inference is that dyne was threatening tami with something.
Click to expand...

From the fact that alexyang deliberately & arbitrary unites the defendant's 2-separate posts into a single one, shows his willingness to alter the facts [*even if he does it without realising this, (- and to be honest i don't know which one is worst-) , which i'm beginning to doubt it ]
 
shad0w4life said:
There's way more to this story than this nonsense.

Dyne Suh, texted last minute saying Hey we have 2 dogs and 2 extra people, she did not get confirmation prior to this, she has shown ZERO proof but tried to screw over the airbnb host.

pretty sure the host knew she was asian prior along with her photo, and RIGHT after she was told this horrific news she ran into a news agency? Not to mention that she's a huge SJW that supports the BLM terrorist group.

So chances are way more than meets the eye.
No idea wtf the airbnb host was saying with the Asian remark, that's just idiotic
Click to expand...

Yea I am sure there is more to story. But its just plain dumb to say what she did. You are running a business! she could have said oh sorry that wasn't the original deal, I really apologize that I regretfully cancel the reservation. So say you are the last person on earth and asian crap is just stupid. You don't run business like that. lol
 
alexyang said:
Decisions can be made for MULTIPLE REASONS. You never get into trouble for the legal reasons. You only get into trouble for the illegal reasons.

If the owner had just said "No," of course there would be no problem. But if the owner said, "No, and even if I gave refunds, I wouldn't give them to you. One word says it all: white," guess what? Owner might get sued, and if he gets sued, he'll lose.

I do not understand why it is so difficult for you people to understand that decisions can be made based on more than one reason, and if some of the reasons are illegal, those (and only those) reasons are the ones that land you in hot water.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'd have an easier time understanding it if you took off whatever direction-facing race blinders you have on and just read it like a normal person.

You clearly don't have all the facts. It's unfortunate that you think after reading one source--all sources, by the way, have a bias; have you bothered to figure out where this one is?--you somehow have all the information and can reach an informed conclusion.

How do you think stories like these show up in papers? People shop them. People email and call and say "Hey look at this thing that happened, pay particular attention to quote 3 and quote 17, in fact 3+17 makes a pretty good story headline, don't you think?" That's how it starts, which means it usually starts with the shopper's bias. In fact if you read the REST of the "victim"'s postings and wording (i.e.: "I guess she didn't know about my ACLU and BLM and AMBU and SUKASUKU and VOODOO background," a very condescending and "How stupid of her" tone), there's clearly bias in the initial presentation.

We get it.. you really like the idea of someone being lynched for making an anti-Asian statement. Woohoo. I'm only sorry you're more interested in keeping that flame burning than at least acknowledging that there's probably a litany of other discourse that you haven't even seen. That you don't even really know what the conversation was and you're not even interested because it's more important to you to scream burn the Asian hater is unfortunate for you. And you're the one saying statements can be made for multiple reasons? While at the same time ignoring the rest of the conversation you haven't even seen and saying "Clearly it's all about anti-Asian!"

*shakeshead*

Stupid for any business owner to get upset enough to make any personally-charged comments, they always backfire. But there was obviously something inciting the response. I guess you just don't care what that was, probably because it wouldn't throw water on your anger flame. So much for "reasons," huh?

She did something to set this off. She smiled when what she did worked and the homeowner responded with personal insults. She smiled even harder when she shopped it to the papers and she's smiling even harder now that she's got hoards of people supporting her without even knowing what the true story is or what really happened.

Keep making her smile. You don't even really know whose rights have been obstructed. But you're so sure you do. Because of one word: Asian? That's really all it takes to override your ability to reason?
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
You posted a fraction of the facts, and then used your misinterpretation of them to form a flawed argument.

-FTFY
Click to expand...

If you are running a damn business you don't say stupid shit like that. Plain and simple. Stop trying to defend it and all the bullshit that comes along with it. If I said i am not renting to you because you are white yea I expect to get shit for it. Thats now how you do business and flat out say it in a text. Never rent it to you if you were the last person on earth, one word! Asian!

Too hard to understand for you. She may not be racist she may be angry, I get it! But you don't say that when you are running a business. You have to respectfully decline your client and move on! She could have said, sorry I won't be responding to your text you changed the original terms and I no longer feel comfortable renting the place since you have pets. Done! not rocket fuckin science.
 
c3k said:
This is the insanity with which so many of us disagree. You are stating that an act can be legal or illegal, the SAME act, based on the "intent" or "reason" of the person perpetrating that act. That is...crazy.
Click to expand...

I am not stating that. The law in our country states that.

Unless you have an employment contract stating otherwise, are a public employee, or belong to a union, you are in all likelihood an ‘at-will employee.’ This means that you can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all – just not for an unlawful reason.
Click to expand...

http://www.swartzemploymentlaw.com/...eason-at-all-just-not-for-an-unlawful-reason/

So yes, the same act - firing someone - can be legal or illegal depending on the reasons for it.

This is a very simple concept that you try to overcomplicate by introducing "intent" in the context of mind reading. There's no mind reading involved in the Barker-Suh case; Barker explicitly brought up race!

So the mind reading "intent" thing is a distraction. The real issue here is that you either do not know, do not understand, or do not agree with the fact that in this country, legally speaking, the same act can be legal or illegal depending on the reasons for it. You could have 99 good reasons to fire someone, deny service, etc., but if you say 1 unlawful reason, you're going to be in trouble for that 1 unlawful reason. Not for the 99 good reasons.
 
Drakensoul said:
Maybe you'd have an easier time understanding it if you took off whatever direction-facing race blinders you have on and just read it like a normal person.

You clearly don't have all the facts. It's unfortunate that you think after reading one source--all sources, by the way, have a bias; have you bothered to figure out where this one is?--you somehow have all the information and can reach an informed conclusion.
Click to expand...

No, I don't have all the facts. Because I am not an employee of the California DFEH and thus was not part of the investigation the DFEH undertook in this case and played no part in the DFEH's conclusion to fine Tami Barker $5,000 in this case.

Wait, when you said "facts," you were referring to the facts that the California DFEH undertook an investigation and fined Tami Barker $5,000 for violations of civil rights laws the DFEH is empowered to enforce, right? Or were you referring to something else?

How do you think stories like these show up in papers? People shop them. People email and call and say "Hey look at this thing that happened, pay particular attention to quote 3 and quote 17, in fact 3+17 makes a pretty good story headline, don't you think?" That's how it starts, which means it usually starts with the shopper's bias. In fact if you read the REST of the "victim"'s postings and wording (i.e.: "I guess she didn't know about my ACLU and BLM and AMBU and SUKASUKU and VOODOO background," a very condescending and "How stupid of her" tone), there's clearly bias in the initial presentation.
Click to expand...

You're aware that this is the end of the case, not the beginning, right? Did you even read the title of this thread before you started posting?

We get it.. you really like the idea of someone being lynched for making an anti-Asian statement. Woohoo. I'm only sorry you're more interested in keeping that flame burning than at least acknowledging that there's probably a litany of other discourse that you haven't even seen. That you don't even really know what the conversation was and you're not even interested because it's more important to you to scream burn the Asian hater is unfortunate for you. And you're the one saying statements can be made for multiple reasons? While at the same time ignoring the rest of the conversation you haven't even seen and saying "Clearly it's all about anti-Asian!"

*shakeshead*

Stupid for any business owner to get upset enough to make any personally-charged comments, they always backfire. But there was obviously something inciting the response. I guess you just don't care what that was, probably because it wouldn't throw water on your anger flame. So much for "reasons," huh?

She did something to set this off. She smiled when what she did worked and the homeowner responded with personal insults. She smiled even harder when she shopped it to the papers and she's smiling even harder now that she's got hoards of people supporting her without even knowing what the true story is or what really happened.

Keep making her smile. You don't even really know whose rights have been obstructed. But you're so sure you do. Because of one word: Asian? That's really all it takes to override your ability to reason?
Click to expand...

Dude, did you actually waste 10 minutes or so writing this crap because you didn't even bother to read the title of this thread?
 
alexyang said:
............................ Barker explicitly brought up race!
Click to expand...

And since when the mention of race is condemnable? !!! o_O . Since when is it forbidden to say an American...... American ? !!:depressed:
By now i must have mentioned it 200 times, but i'll say it one more : The race-part was mentioned on a 2nd separate post which said : "One word says it all. Asian" .
Where on earth!!! can you see a racist comment on this post? !! You can't combine an earlier post with this one, because there are separate posts and there is NO way you can prove that the 2nd post is continuing the thoughts of the 1st post . What someone believes is irrelevant, is what you can prove that matters, unless the general rules of Justice don't apply anymore. (*again check the #189 post )
 
NKD said:
If you are running a damn business you don't say stupid shit like that. Plain and simple. Stop trying to defend it and all the bullshit that comes along with it. If I said i am not renting to you because you are white yea I expect to get shit for it. Thats now how you do business and flat out say it in a text. Never rent it to you if you were the last person on earth, one word! Asian!

Too hard to understand for you. She may not be racist she may be angry, I get it! But you don't say that when you are running a business. You have to respectfully decline your client and move on! She could have said, sorry I won't be responding to your text you changed the original terms and I no longer feel comfortable renting the place since you have pets. Done! not rocket fuckin science.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree that what she said is really dumb. That's really not what the argument is about.
The argument is that because she said those things that she broke the rental agreement. That's the entire argument.
On one side, you have people who analyze the texts and say there was a disagreement on the price, some sort of haggling at the last minute occured which caused them to get into a fight, thus breaking the agreement. There are like 5-6 texts which either confirm this or allude to it directly.
On the other side, you have people saying that since she brought up race, that she's clearly a racist and she broke the rental agreement because of said racial prejudices. Heartlesssun and AlexYang vehemently belong to this camp of thought.
 
FearTheCow said:
It's fucking sad and embarrassing that anyone would think it makes sense for someone to rent a house out knowing someone is Asian, then say that owner is racist for saying something stupid in anger after the person renting tries to fuck with the terms.
Click to expand...

You're trying to mind read, I'm simply taking someone at their word. If someone tells me that don't want to do business me flat out because of my race, regardless of the circumstances, why should I not believe them yet believe someone trying read their mind?
 
FearTheCow said:
No it's not, it sure as fuck is the definition of trying to find racism anywhere and everywhere.
Click to expand...

A person says I wouldn't do business with you if you were the last person on earth because in a word, Asian. Not hard to find the racism there. It's in the statement. That is the definition of racism.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Why do you think your conception of old-school racism, as you put it, as 100% applicable to the owner?

Do you not see your own bigotry here?
Click to expand...

We're talking about a woman saying to someone that she wouldn't rent to someone flat out because of their race and I'm the bigot? Wow. That's beyond nonsensical and why I know that if I ever said something like this in the same context as this airbnb hostess I'd never get the same benefit of doubt from the people defending her.
 
heatlesssun said:
It's really dumb because it was racist. DUH!
Click to expand...
sigh
The fact that she mentioned race doesn't mean that the statement was racist.
It was stupid because businesses should only see one color, green. Regardless of the person or persons using the services or buying goods they should all be treated the same.
I don't think anyone is going to argue this.

It's also stupid because it can land the business owner into hot water legally if there's claims of denying services/goods because of race. Apparently there are others out there who agree with your assessment in that dyne was denied the room because Tami is racist.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
sigh
The fact that she mentioned race doesn't mean that the statement was racist.
Click to expand...

"Go ahead. I wouldn't rent to u if u were the last person one earth" "One word says it all. Asian"
Click to expand...

This is the textbook definition of racism. Period. I'm not trying to read the woman's mind or say she wasn't angry or feels this way in her heart. I am simply taking the words for their crystal clear meaning.
 
heatlesssun said:
This is the textbook definition of racism. Period. I'm not trying to read the woman's mind or say she wasn't angry or feels this way in her heart. I am simply taking the words for their crystal clear meaning.
Click to expand...

NO !
"Go ahead. I wouldn't rent to u if u were the last person one earth" and a minute later, at another post , "One word says it all. Asian". Prove that this is a continuous thought between the 2 separate posts.
 
c3k said:
I don't care if the airbnb owner was/is racist. That's not an issue. Unless you're an SJW/snowflake. The issue is whether there was a breach of contract.

Of course, in our Brave New World, the "intent" must be sussed out. Once we have "intent", we have a window into the thought process. Was there a "hate crime"? Was a "hate crime" =about= to be committed? I may be in the Minority (Report) here, but, obviously, we need to proactively prevent such heinous acts by intervening.

No, the biggest issue is that the airbnb owner be re-educated. Obviously her (his?) thought process is double plus ungood and needs correction. Gotta fix her. Public humiliation on top of the fine, followed by indoctrination courses. Yeah, that's the solution.

A breach of contract is a breach of contract. The foundation of our legal system is rooted in contract law. This SJW crap is going to have horrible ramifications. Right now in California, "you" and "your gang" can impose your values on everyone. Are you going to be supportive of this system when "they" get to impose "their" values on you? Pure democracy is gang-rule. Imposing morality by gang rule is a dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...

c3k said:
My bold: if holding racist views is not a crime, why was the penalty assessed against her based on her being racist? Did she breach the contract? If so, then the breach, regardless of the reason, should be treated the same as any other breach of contract. If she did NOT breach the contract, but the renter did (by adding more people and animals), then the airbnb's racist comments should not matter one whit. But they do. To you and to the California tort system. So, to you and California, holding racist views IS a crime.

Again: did the renter breach the contract? If so, NOTHING the airbnb owner said or did should matter.
Click to expand...


Holding racist views isn't a crime, acting upon them or in a manner that suggests it motivated your actions does have consequences. Intent matters for the same reason is does in other areas of law. There's a difference between, as an extreme example, killing someone because of an unforeseeable accident, a preventable accident that you are partially responsible for, an intentional killing done in response to a reasonable threat, an intentional killing done in passion, and an intentionally killing done with malice aforethought. That's not "Brave New World", it's quite old in our legal system and makes up a core part of the law.

Here's the thing, Tami could have stopped at "I wouldn't rent to you if you were the last person on earth." It was when she gave insight into her mind and reasons that anti-discrimination law kicked in. She could have held those beliefs privately as much as she wanted, but acting upon a way that is inextricable from those privately held and/or expressed thoughts is not without consequence.
 
Sith'ari said:
NO !
"Go ahead. I wouldn't rent to u if u were the last person one earth" and a minute later, at another post , "One word says it all. Asian". Prove that this is a continuous thought between the 2 separate posts.
Click to expand...

It's not racist because of a small time gap? That makes no sense. It's like some are trying to make up anything to "prove" that a blatantly racist statement isn't racist.
 
Sith'ari said:
NO !
"Go ahead. I wouldn't rent to u if u were the last person one earth" and a minute later, at another post , "One word says it all. Asian". Prove that this is a continuous thought between the 2 separate posts.
Click to expand...
See there's two ways to interpret this.
One is it was a continuous line of thought. The flaws to me on this is that it's not in the same message, they were arguing about something ("Go ahead" to me sounds like dyne was threatening some sort of action), there's the quote in the article discussing money "if you think 50$ is enough for 4 people and 2 dogs, you must be high" (paraphrasing but fairly accurate quote), saying "this isn't a bogo buffet", "Want something for nothing" all point directly to the reason why tami denied dyne the room.

The other was that it was the owner making a stupid statement to rub salt in the wound. The argument over price or haggling or something happened, they could not reach an agreement and tami broke off the contract. Then she proceded to make a statement knowing that it would piss off dyne. To me this is a non-professional way to run a business and is the cause of the entire problem. Without saying this single statement there couldn't even be ANY rational discussion whether dyne was denied the room because of race, thus falling into hot water with the law and public opinion.
 
Tawnos said:
...............................................
Here's the thing, Tami could have stopped at "I wouldn't rent to you if you were the last person on earth." It was when she gave insight into her mind and reasons that anti-discrimination law kicked in. She could have held those beliefs privately as much as she wanted, but acting upon a way that is inextricable from those privately held and/or expressed thoughts is not without consequence.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, Tami DID STOP at "I wouldn't rent to you if you were the last person on earth." And later she made another post. I already gave an example of what she could driven her to make the 2nd post, at my comment at #189. The fact that my explanation might be an unlikely one, with let's say.... 1% chance to be true and 99% chance to be false, doesn't mean anything. Justice works with proves , not with probabilities, that's what i'm saying all this time !!
 
heatlesssun said:
It's not racist because of a small time gap? That makes no sense. It's like some are trying to make up anything to "prove" that a blatantly racist statement isn't racist.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why this thread is 11 pages long (and counting). The people defending (or "explaining", cough) what Tami Barker did have set the bar for racism so high that basically, nothing is ever racist. It's only racist if

  1. race was the exclusive, singular, sole, only reason for denying service, firing, etc. There can't be any other reasons for denying service etc. If there are, then those reasons make the racial reason go away.
  2. the people involved know each other. Strangers can't be racist to each other because raisins.
  3. the person who is the target of the racism can't be a SJW. Otherwise, the person who is the target of the racism is a race baiter and is therefore the real racist here.

I concede that today's so-called SJWs have set the bar for racism so low that everything is racist. But doing the opposite - setting the bar so high that nothing is racist - isn't any better.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
See there's two ways to interpret this.
One is it was a continuous line of thought. The flaws to me on this is that it's not in the same message, they were arguing about something ("Go ahead" to me sounds like dyne was threatening some sort of action), there's the quote in the article discussing money "if you think 50$ is enough for 4 people and 2 dogs, you must be high" (paraphrasing but fairly accurate quote), saying "this isn't a bogo buffet", "Want something for nothing" all point directly to the reason why tami denied dyne the room.

The other was that it was the owner making a stupid statement to rub salt in the wound. The argument over price or haggling or something happened, they could not reach an agreement and tami broke off the contract. Then she proceded to make a statement knowing that it would piss off dyne. To me this is a non-professional way to run a business and is the cause of the entire problem. Without saying this single statement there couldn't even be ANY rational discussion whether dyne was denied the room because of race, thus falling into hot water with the law and public opinion.
Click to expand...

If someone were to say to me that they would never do business with me even if I was the last person on Earth because of my race and that’s how the conversation ended, I would take them at their word. What’s hilarious about this debate is that any self-respecting adult would do the same thing.
 
mope54 said:
I can't believe you guys are still arguing with these trolls.

Anyway, here are some screenshots from Tami agreeing to the extra guests and dogs before the conversation broke down
https://asamnews.com/2017/04/09/som...oubts-about-victim-in-racist-airbnb-incident/

Maybe they're doctored, lol.
Click to expand...
That was never the argument. The screen shots were known and they did negotiate for extra people. However the parts that don't make sense is the following which happened the day the contract was broken:
“If you think 4 people and 2 dogs ate getting a room fir $50 a night on big bear mountain during the busiest weekend of the year ..… You are insanely high,”
"then act like one with respect and dignity instead of a bogo buffet"
"Want something for nothing"

Explain why if race was the key issue here there seems to be a problem with the amount to be paid the day of?
You're ignoring the facts.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Explain why if race was the key issue here there seems to be a problem with the amount to be paid the day of?
You're ignoring the facts.
Click to expand...

No one is disputing that there wasn't a general argument over the terms of this deal. As racist statement is still a racist statement. If someone were to say that to me I'd take them at their word. Like any adult with an ounce of dignity would.
 
heatlesssun said:
No one is disputing that there wasn't a general argument over the terms of this deal. As racist statement is still a racist statement. If someone were to say that to me I'd take them at their word. Like any adult with an ounce of dignity would.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue.
The problem isn't that Tami said something racist or is a racist. That's just an opinion either way. The issue is that was the deal broken because of race or was it broken because of the modification of the terms/paying issue?

That's what it distills to. If you agree that there was a problem with the money or haggling of the deal and the deal was broken, why do you insist that race was the reason?

As far as i know, airbnb is paid before getting to the place. You don't pay in cash the day of. Why is payment even an issue at this point? Even if it was negotiated before hand to have extra people and dogs, why is still an issue the day of? Why is 50$ a direct quote from tami for the amount paid per night?
 
heatlesssun said:
It's not an opinion, the statement in question is the definition of racism. Period.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It's an opinion. She said that her experience with dyne reinforces her generalization of asians. Generalizations themselves are not racist. She didn't treat tami differently up until that point where the issue with payment or haggling began. If Tami had paid or hadn't haggled in the end she would have gotten that room without issue. Of course that last statement is my opinion on the issue because tami seems more interested in money (like any business should be) than anything else. Only after the contract/deal was broken did she say that statement, which you are mis-interpreting to mean that she wouldn't rent to dyne because she's asian.

The only conclusion i can come up with is that your lack of comprehension or biases are leading you to combine both messages together to perform a mix of meaning. You saw the statement, came to your conclusion and then went forward with a single mindset and are unable to change it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top