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

if you were the cashier, you should not be able to deny people the ability to buy food with peanuts, like the cartoon I posted earlier

 

But you can terminate it at any moment and it's not a violation of any kind of thing.

Again you're not required to have a wheelchair accessible van.

 

There could be another reasonable way to make sure they get the peanuts. Or say, sorry, the only person on shift today is allergic to peanuts, so we cannot roast the peanuts for you today. Try one of the many other items on our menu.

 

The Left will probably force all taxi services to offer one, one day.
And it will be ridiculous and impractically expensive.

Companies like Uber will then be forced to contract out services to a taxi service - at financial loss to them - to pay for vans to come pick people up in wheelchairs.

Are you aware how, during Obama, many small hotels were forced to close down their pools because they could not afford the $10,000 installation of an electric pool chair for handicap access?

 

Even with taxis the taxi service doesn't own the asset the taxi is owned by the driver.

The way it works is if I can't accommodate you because I'm not equipped or unable to for some reason then I don't have to.

If you weigh a thousand pounds I don't have to be able to provide you with a vehicle that can transport you you have to call a flatbed tow truck or whatever

It's how airlines can charge you for two seats if you're obese that can be considered the disability but they don't have to eat the cost for you.

 

I'm saying they will try to force the company like Uber to contract out with someone else to provide the service, or they will try to shut Uber down.

Uber will take a big financial loss to be able to provide these vans, to comply with the stupid law. All the other customers will be paying for it in higher prices.

The modern progressive Left will try to shut you down, if you can't supply the services to comply with the law.

Like I explained, many small hotels were forced to shut down access to their pools, because they did not have the expensive electric handicap pool access chair.

 

I would not want to be the defendant in a case trying to defend why I discriminated against a blind person, most juries would not vote favorably for such a person

 

Juries in many progressive places are a mob mentality, with lots of emotion and little logic. (I suspect something about their IQ too, but that is a topic for another discussion)

Maybe they will be more sympathetic to a small time driver who is only earning $24,000 a year even though he works very long hours.

 

most Republicans and Democrats would not vote favorably for someone discriminating against a blind person

 

they have tried in fact they've actually banned them from certain cities I don't know how you do that I could just drive into the city with my car and not have the Uber on it when I go to pick up my ride just hold it up and say yeah I'm with Uber.

we left in a lot of places is like the mafia. New York tried to ban Uber because they want their money from selling taxi medallions and if nobody rides a taxi anymore then they don't get to sell a medallion.

And since Uber isn't a taxi service it's just an app and the people driving are just people driving they don't really have any control over it.

 

Most Republicans would be on my side on this. And we have one Democrat in this thread who vehemently disagrees with you.

 

It would be easy she had a dog I'm allergic to dogs.

I'm not required to put myself in danger because of someone else's disability

 

Again it wasn't against against the blind person It was against the dog If you hire a lawyer to defend you they make that defense no doubt Republicans and Democrats would vote in favor of me.

 

It depends what part of the country. In some parts of the country, like the San Francisco Bay Area or Los Angeles, "Progressive" Democrats would vote against you.

There's plenty of places now in the big cities of Texas that have turned wacky and would vote against you.

 

but when signing up for Uber, you agreed to follow the ADA, you should of disagreed right?

personally, I am for the option where the driver can say I will not give people with dogs rides and users can filter them out

 

One could argue you were coerced into it, if government was also requiring all Uber's competitors to also do this.
In that case, it's not an issue of loyalty to Uber or betraying them. They may not really have wanted to make that part of the deal, but were forced to from up above.

 

no one forced anyone to lie

 

Coercion and government pressure was used.

 

nope, a simple question was asked, all one had to do is answer honestly or not at all

 

And what happens if you honestly answer and give the wrong answer? Then the company has to cut you off because the government is threatening them if you don't.

 

I don't think anybody would agree that I should be forced to tote around the dog that I don't want.

 

No. I didn't agree to follow the Ada the Ada would require me to have a wheelchair lift van.

Uber agreed to that that's why they are paying the fine or settlement or whatever.

Yeah Uber should have done that they didn't they're up fault they screwed up not the drivers.

 

no it does not require that

 

then you won't be accepted as a member, and should not be - that is part of the Rules to be a driver on Uber, by answering "no" or not answering, you're saying you will not abide by their rules

is bearing false witness ok, but driving a blind person with a service dog a sin?

 

You seem unable to see the big picture.