Bus drivers refuse to transport Jewish people to pro Israel rally

Does anyone know the name of the bus company? These drivers work for someone. That particular company is responsible. All I can find is "the bus company". Pretty sure it has a name, and everyone has a right to know.

 

Seems that the boycott of the participants at the pro-Israel rally in Detroit was initiated by a number of drivers, not the bus company.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/alleg...900-detroit-jews-trek-to-dc-pro-israel-rally/

 

Really off-topic question (probably better to debate in a separate thread), but should a company be responsible for the individual actions of its employees?

Those on the Left often seem to think so, but conservatives unhesitatingly say no.

(I guess this is more like an economic / ideological / philosophical / political-legal question)

 

The drivers should be fired, of course. The abandoned passengers should sue the bus company for the cost of their coming to Detroit.

 

Odd you would comment this seeing that a right winger started a thread to name and shame the company involved.

Followed by another one more right than the first saying the company should be sued.

Ironic even

A company should be held responsible only to their actions and responses to an incident or if the individual is speaking on behalf of a company.

 

I don't think that's a left vs right thing. Lot of conservatives agree that an employee is a representative of the employer and employer can be held liable for the actions of the employee under the "respondeat superior" (=the superior is resonsible) view. The law agrees with that

 

Only if the company stands behind the employee. If they are fired for their actions, the company should not be responsible for more than damages.

 

But if the company declines to fire the drivers for doing this, does that make the company "responsible"?

 

That's kind of a vague wording. If all the company does is simply not respond by firing the employee, is that really "standing behind the employee"?

You would still hold the company responsible for "damages" even if they fired the employee??

 

I guess I'm pretty old-fashioned and "conservative", compared to the point where modern society seems to be at the present time.
I believe that a company should be allowed to discriminate for ANY REASON.
(with maybe only a few possible exceptions, in special situations)

That's not to say that the company is not wrong, but I do not believe the government should be getting involved. (Not when it comes to smaller companies and plenty of competition exists)

Also, firing an employee seems kind of stupid. If an employee makes a mistake, do you think they should never be allowed to work at all?
Otherwise, firing them from one company so they can work at another company seems kind of illogical and stupid.
I doubt most people really have given much thought to this.

 

The employee is a representative of the brand. Those denied transportation did business with the company, not the employee. I would think that the company is liable for damages. Im not a lawyer. (I do know some lawyer jokes)

 

this is ridiculous, I have heard of some Muslims refusing to give the blind rides due to their service dogs too

denying services like this based on race, religion or disability is wrong

Christians opened the door to this nonsense with denying cakes, pizza and refusing to fill prescriptions

 

What "damages" would that be, in your opinion? I see no financial damages. Nothing with a direct financial equivalent.

Seems some people want to invent "damages".

In my personal opinion, we need to put a STOP to this type of mentality. This type of thinking needs to end. Companies do not owe you anything.

This is all part of an overly entitled mentality, cultivated for years and years by the wacky progressive Left.

 

If you don't fire the employee, then you are the one refusing transportation to Jews. Refusing service because of ones religion brings many problems.

 

I don't think it's that simple.

Also, some will argue that the discrimination (which was committed by the individual drivers) was based not directly on ethnicity but on politics.
The passengers were denied being driven not because they were Jews but because they were headed to a pro-Israel rally.

 

They contracted with the company to provide transportation. The company breached the contract. They are liable for the added expense. What is more illogical and stupid is taking ownership of the employees actions. Would you want your company represented by such people?

 

In my opinion they should just get a refund and that should be it.

 

Fire them.

If they would have discriminated against anyone but Jews or Whites, you would know the the bus company's name.

 

So they have to eat the Uber ride?

 

Isn't there another bus company that can transport them?

Why don't you think they should be able to sue the individual driver?

Does a consumer even have the right to not be discriminated against for using that service to engage in a political activity?

I'm guessing the contract they signed with the bus company included no provisions for special damages if the company was unable to provide them with the ride.

 

Somehow with you, you always find a way to circle back around and try to make it the fault of white conservative Christians.

It's always, yeah but..... Christians or conservatives... No matter what the actual topic is

 

I agree, so long as companies make clear their bias. If Jews arent allowed on the bus, there should be a sign. Not only will this avoid confusion and confrontation from unknowing passengers, but it will allow the market to properly respond to their discrimination (hopefully by boycotting them until they change their practices).

 

Unfortunately it's more complicated and not as simple as that.
It was a policy implemented by individual drivers. A driver might be reluctant to put up an actual sign, because it would make it more likely the driver could end up in trouble from his company, or from legal authorities (even if the policy was arguably not actually illegal).
And a company can't realistically put up signs giving customers full information about everything and every unanticipated situation where it might discriminate.

 

So is this a union thing, or what? If I owned a bus company, I don't think I would allow the drivers to make those sorts of policies on their own... not if its my name on the side of the bus.

 

You're still using vague language without any real definite logical meaning. What does "allow" really mean?

If I can make an observation, you seem to be treating all this as if these companies and individual people were computers and robots, open to some sort of clear programming.
That's not how things work.