Uber ordered to pay $1.1m to blind passenger who was denied rides 14 times

the majority of those doing this to blind people, do it for religious reasons

 

Well if anybody owes money it's Uber but the drivers. Sometime who drives for Uber drives their own vehicle. Nobody is entitled to a ride in someone's private vehicle. This bound lady should have called a car service instead of asking for rides.

 

once the Uber driver accepts the fair, they need to do their job

this is America, the ADA is clear on this, no one has the right to deny a blind person service because of their service dog

 

The problem was she had a dog. I wouldn't want someone's mangy mutt in my car.

I disagree. If you want to ride around in other people's cars with your dog you are at the mercy of the owner of the car. The Muslim connection never crossed my mind but yeah that would be like asking a Jew to let you put a pig in their car.

 

No they don't is their car. If you want them to let you into their car buy it from them and hire them to be your driver. I'd happily lose my Uber job of they tried to dictate to me what I can do in my car. They can ****ing buy it otherwise it isn't theirs. They don't pay to clean it

 

drivers need to follow Ubers policy (and the law) or not use their service

https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/accessibility/service-animal-user-guide/

"State and federal law prohibit drivers using the Uber Driver app from denying service to riders with service animals because of the service animals, and from otherwise discriminating against riders with service animals."

 

The ada has no authority in my car. They can buy it from me or they can **** off

 

Yes, drivers should have to follow the company's policy. Conservatives agree with that. But that should not be a policy dictated to them by government.

There is something called competition. If you don't like one company, you can go to another. But when the government takes over, you no longer have the choice to just use a different company.


And are you claiming drivers should be able to make their own choice about this, but just so long as they do not use the services of a big company? It is not entirely clear what you were implying.

 

No they don't it's not Uber's car. And there is no law stating you must give people rides.

Well Uber can fire me out buy their own damn car.

 

as they should fire you if you're denying blind people a ride after agreeing to their fair

the ADA is very clear on this, it's the law

when you signed up to use their service, you agreed to follow their rules

 

That's actually why Uber exists. Before Uber there were these disgusting cars that drove around calls taxis. They were expensive and nasty then Uber came along.

 

they do if you open it up to the public as a Taxi

you are charging people a fee, it's no longer "just" a private car

 

They should not have to.

This type of law will make many people less likely to want to share their personal property on the public market place.

How about someone opens up their home to AirBnB? Do they have to let a dog in there too? This is ridiculous.

 

Fine, my car my rules. If they don't like it they can buy their own damned cars.

I would never work for Uber. They think they have any say in my car. I'd sooner operate a limo service where I get the profits verses paying Uber for my car.

If the ADA doesn't hold the title to my vehicle, they can **** off.

 

It's not a taxi it's ride sharing.

Who's name is on the title?

 

To the Left, private property is no longer private property.

Collectivism.

 

you're charging people for a ride, you can't discriminate against the disabled

 

And I can quit, just like that.

 

The disabled are not actually being discriminated against. Just their dog. A dog they probably do not actually absolutely need.


Maybe the driver should talk in a voice that sounds like a Korean accent and talk about how "yummy" the dog looks, to make the dog owner feel very uncomfortable.
"I take your dog, make dinner. How much you want for it?"

Maybe even yank on the dog to make the owner feel like the driver is trying to take it.

 

Privately owned car. That means within I am supreme dictator.

If Uber doesn't like it they can buy their own ****ing car.

 

Yeah it's more then collectivism it's slavery. I have to do something? I have to perform that task. They can get out there and make me.

 

no one forced anyone to use the service at Uber and agree to their policy

denying the blind a ride is just sad

 

And then how does it help the blind person after you have quit?

 

yes, the blind are being discriminated against if they are denied a ride

why would you support treating the blind like that? talk about "eating their dog"?

"Maybe even yank on the dog to make the owner feel like the driver is trying to take it."

are you for real?

 

So you're saying people should be allowed to not accept dogs in their cars when they drive people for hire, just so long as they do not use the service Uber.