4 ms·

Of note: this is a recurring issue that has decades of history. See, for instance, http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Taxicab_Report.pdf?docID=242

by scarmig 12y ago

Of note: this is a recurring issue that has decades of history. See, for instance, http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Taxicab_Report.pdf?docID=242 http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Taxicab_Repo... Another issue that got some press for a couple years after 9/11 is Muslim drivers refusing to let guide dogs into their cars. (Aside: this would probably be legal under all the religious freedom restoration acts going around.) The best thing about Uber consolidating the taxi industry is that it rationalizes these practices and makes them legible to democratic processes and regulation.

fennecfoxen 12y ago
> (Aside: this would probably be legal under all the religious freedom restoration acts going around.) Under most of the RFRAs, a government with a compelling interest (e.g. allowing the blind to take taxis) would have to use the least restrictive means to achieve it. In the case of something like a car service company or Uber, this could mean permitting individual drivers to decline the hail, but guaranteeing that someone will be available to answer it. Then, if all goes well, the blind person gets his or her ride, the religious person goes about his or her religious life without losing his job, and everyone's happy. Consider also Utah, which permits a county clerk to opt out of officiating a same-sex marriage out of religious objections... if a substitute is available. (For cities with more street-hailed cabs, in the style of London and New York, this may not be enough, but enforcement of any rules on street hails is problematic, as anyone who has tried to take a NYC taxi somewhere inconvenient is able to tell you.)
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
The first time this issue was reported I did some digging, and yes a lot of the drivers were Muslim. Or rather, you could very easily infer so, because only a few of them actually said that, or made it clear and then changed their story when they later learned their religion wasn't a defense. One person changed their story to "severe allergies" for instance.

by scarmig 12y ago

fennecfoxen 12y ago

> (Aside: this would probably be legal under all the religious freedom restoration acts going around.) Under most of the RFRAs, a government with a compelling interest (e.g. allowing the blind to take taxis) would have to use the least restrictive means to achieve it. In the case of something like a car service company or Uber, this could mean permitting individual drivers to decline the hail, but guaranteeing that someone will be available to answer it. Then, if all goes well, the blind person gets his or her ride, the religious person goes about his or her religious life without losing his job, and everyone's happy. Consider also Utah, which permits a county clerk to opt out of officiating a same-sex marriage out of religious objections... if a substitute is available. (For cities with more street-hailed cabs, in the style of London and New York, this may not be enough, but enforcement of any rules on street hails is problematic, as anyone who has tried to take a NYC taxi somewhere inconvenient is able to tell you.)

A_COMPUTER 12y ago

The first time this issue was reported I did some digging, and yes a lot of the drivers were Muslim. Or rather, you could very easily infer so, because only a few of them actually said that, or made it clear and then changed their story when they later learned their religion wasn't a defense. One person changed their story to "severe allergies" for instance.