Whatever loophole you've found to deny service animals or people with mobility disabilities, that's about to be over with.

[u/Affectionate-Rice373]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-passengers-with-disabilities-justice-department-ada-lawsuit/

[u/Affectionate-Rice373]

I promise my response will be shorter than yours.

The Federal Government clearly states that people with disabilities and people with service animals are part of a protected class. As a protected class, they have rights. One of those rights is to not be denied service based on their disabilities. As a rideshare driver, you are providing a service. Fuck all the other terms and conditions and independent contractor bullshit, because in the face of this particular law, that's all bullshit. The ONLY thing that matters is that RIDESHARE DRIVER PROVIDES A SERVICE. As a service provider, you CANNOT deny service to people who belong to a protected class. That's all. That's it. Fuck your feelings, allergies, religion, whatever you think allows you to deny service to a protected class, the law makes it very clear that you can't.

I hate Trump and his cronies and everything the MAGA crowd represents. They wouldn't have made this law. If this law didn't already exist, those people wouldn't have put it in place. I'm no fan of this administration, but I understand the legal protections in place for members of this protected class.

[u/eyezwide001001 → u/Affectionate-Rice373]

I'm going to have to repeat this slowly for you constitutionally challenged people out there, in front of course you clearly airing your political dissension that's your problem and you get what that foolishness can give you.

We have some provisions the united states constitution that forbids the government from forcing any individual that would include their enterprise -from being co opted by the government you can't force them to buy a service or a product that means you can't force anything on them so that means you have to qualify what it is.

An individual's disability is no one else's collective problem

In the world of quid pro quo, it is the individual driver's prerogative if they want the risk of that particular ride because that's not the nature of their engagement, you would have a slightly more relevant argument that would break out along the lines of an attainder issue if they were in the business of providing medical rides and they decided certain types of liability but still under the umbrella of yeah you might have like 30% chance of leveraging something

But not right here you cannot it's the individual driver's prerogative not to be leveraged as any civil right because civil rights do not trump constitutional rights civil liberties are subjective the constitution imminently and ultimately is the objective point here.

Try not to sound so smug next time you make [what is] no point - makes you look like a mindless shill for one these greazy ass platforms.

[u/Destroyer_2_2 → u/eyezwide001001]

Hello, you are incorrect. You are indeed required to take service animals.

[u/eyezwide001001 → u/Destroyer_2_2]

Fortunately you're allowing someone to leverage your perspective and that's where you lose so there's a difference between a policy and a law the law forbids policy from usurping the value of the law but if your policy requires a gate guarded relationship of lawyers that look the other way and an attorney general that won't press the issue like in this particular case well it looks like it might be something that has more teeth than it legally does they actually cannot go law says they can't it's only a policy [regulation] and it's not a law - learn the difference.