- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NY "women only" cab company
Posted on 9/12/14 at 7:50 pm to DawgfaninCa
Posted on 9/12/14 at 7:50 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
DawgfaninCa
why have you never been married?
2
Posted on 9/12/14 at 7:53 pm to Toddy
quote:
Toddy
why have you never been married?
Oh yeah.......oops
Posted on 9/12/14 at 8:41 pm to Toddy
quote:
why have you never been married?
I remember when I was a young boy about eight and I went to visit my father's best friend who my brother and i affectionately called "Uncle Wes".
He was about forty and was a bachelor.
He had a beautiful house right on Oyster Bay on Long Island, New York.
His house was full of beautiful nautical objects and the walls were all made of knotty pine.
As we all sat in the living room, Uncle Wes smoked his pipe full of cherry tobacco and told us how happy he was because he loved his house and being a bachelor.
He could do anything he wanted anytime he wanted.
It was then that I decided I wouldn't mind being a bachelor.
A year or so later, my father told my brother and I that Uncle Wes got married and that we couldn't visit him anymore.
When we asked why he said Uncle Wes was henpecked because his wife was a bitch (he didn't use that word) and that she controlled everything so she told him that he couldn't invite his friends to his house anymore.
A few years later I asked my dad whatever became of Uncle Wes.
He said that Uncle Wes was not the same man as he used to be when he was a bachelor because his wife treated him so miserably that he finally divorced her but she took everything from him including his beautiful house which he was so proud of.
It was then that I decided I would make sure that I married the right women who I loved and who loved me for who I am and not for what I own.
I never met that woman but I am the happy bachelor that my Uncle Wes was.
I have done whatever I wanted whenever I wanted and right now I am sitting back in my bachelor pad smoking my pipe except it's not tobacco that is in my pipe.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 9:14 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 8:55 pm to DawgfaninCa
I don't have a problem with this. Of course in this day and age I don't have a problem with any private business wanting to cater to whoever they want. They can offer a specialized service that serves a real need. I can tell you that if my wife had her car break down in New Orleans at night, I would feel safer if she used this kind of service.
Would it be fool proof? No. Unfortunately there are some sick people in this world and a woman is just as capable of violence for monetary gain as a man, but I do think that it would be safer as far the risk of getting raped is concerned.
Would it be fool proof? No. Unfortunately there are some sick people in this world and a woman is just as capable of violence for monetary gain as a man, but I do think that it would be safer as far the risk of getting raped is concerned.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:04 pm to Wolf
quote:
I can tell you that if my wife had her car break down in New Orleans at night, I would feel safer if she used this kind of service.
I understand why you and your wife as well as other women would like this service because y'all feel it is safer.
However, just because it is safer doesn't mean it is legal.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:12 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:Because it doesn't qualify as an actual taxi service. NYC is pretty strict because they have a number of different car services.
It is only in NYC that it can't use "taxi" in its name.
Everywhere else it is called "SheTaxis".
It works by partnering with existing taxi and car services who employ women drivers. When they get assigned a pickup through "SheRides" the driver of whatever company is available and closest pulls a pink scarf out of her glove compartment and puts it on and goes to pick up the fare. It is a service to allow women to find women drivers without calling 5-10 different cab companies.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:12 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
However, just because it is safer doesn't mean it is legal.
Well lately what is actually legal is meaning less and less to the people passing the laws and to the ones interpreting it. However, if it's not legal it should be. For the record I would have no problem with a black only service, a a restaurant that only serves Asians, a white only bar, or whatever example you could come up with.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 9:21 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:22 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Because it doesn't qualify as an actual taxi service. NYC is pretty strict because they have a number of different car services.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
quote:
It works by partnering with existing taxi and car services who employ women drivers. When they get assigned a pickup through "SheRides" the driver of whatever company is available and closest pulls a pink scarf out of her glove compartment and puts it on and goes to pick up the fare. It is a service to allow women to find women drivers without calling 5-10 different cab companies.
I know.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:31 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:Okay.
Prove me wrong, counselor.
quote:And just a whole mess of state action doctrine cases, but I'll quote Rendell-Baker v Kohn:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
quote:But I'm sure this won't be sufficient for you and you'll find some new thing to be angry, ignorant, and vaguely condescending about. Your posting is a testament to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Since the respondent in Flagg Brothers claimed that the warehouseman violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection, and the Fourteenth Amendment is only offended by action of the state, we held that no claim for relief had been stated.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:48 pm to Iosh
quote:
equal protection: an overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights.
Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.
The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V.
LINK
quote:quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The bold portion means any law not just State laws.
Therefore, Any NY municipal law regulating cab (or any other type of vehicle) companies that allows those companies to discriminate against someone based on gender is violating the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:08 pm to DawgfaninCa
Nothing in your Cornell legal encyclopedia quote contradicts my post or justifies the assertion in yours. I suggest you re-read the following two sentences in particular: The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application.
Thus, a municipal code allowing taxis to discriminate on gender, as long as it allowed all taxis to discriminate equally, would be totally fine. I doubt NYC's taxi code has any specific language about this scenario but I know several states and localities have language explicitly exempting gyms, bars, and other "traditionally" gender-selective establishments from their state gender discrimination statutes and thereby "allowing" them to discriminate.
The bold portion is also from the Privileges and Immunities clause and not the Equal Protection Clause. Just FYI.
Thus, a municipal code allowing taxis to discriminate on gender, as long as it allowed all taxis to discriminate equally, would be totally fine. I doubt NYC's taxi code has any specific language about this scenario but I know several states and localities have language explicitly exempting gyms, bars, and other "traditionally" gender-selective establishments from their state gender discrimination statutes and thereby "allowing" them to discriminate.
The bold portion is also from the Privileges and Immunities clause and not the Equal Protection Clause. Just FYI.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:23 pm to Iosh
quote:
Nothing in your Cornell legal encyclopedia quote contradicts my post or justifies the assertion in yours.
Sure it does.
BTW, did you catch the part about "the right to travel"?
quote:
The bold portion is also from the Privileges and Immunities clause and not the Equal Protection Clause. Just FYI.
Now you are just splitting hairs.
The part about equal protection is separated by a semi colon from the part about Privileges and Immunities but The equal protection part applies to the Privileges and Immunities part.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:32 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:The "right to travel" is a part of the Privileges and Immunities clause that has nothing to do with the Equal Protection Clause and certainly doesn't imply a right to a taxi service.
BTW, did you catch the part about "the right to travel"?
LINK
quote:I'm sure this will lead further down the infinitely stupid regress where you assert that "welcome visitor" totally means you get a taxi
The right to travel embraces three different components: the right to enter and leave another State; the right to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily present in another State; and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.
PROVE ME WRONG COUNSELOR , so I think we're about done here for the night, or I am. Feel free to declare Internet victory over yet another lawyer, as judging by the tendentiousness of your replies, you clearly need an Internet victory a lot more than I do.This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 11:37 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:43 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:this explains a lot
and who loved me for who I am
Posted on 9/13/14 at 11:52 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
It was then that I decided I would make sure that I married the right women who I loved and who loved me for who I am and not for what I own.
I was right. Posted on 9/13/14 at 2:06 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I have done whatever I wanted whenever I wanted and right now I am sitting back in my bachelor pad smoking my pipe except it's not tobacco that is in my pipe.
Fair enough.
Thanks for responding.Posted on 9/14/14 at 3:27 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
and who loved me for who I am
quote:
this explains a lot
I am the person who started and organized "The Coed March for Equality" at UGA on April 10, 1968 which resulted in a 3 day sit-in in the administration building.
As a result of that protest, the women's rules were changed so that women could stay out later than 11 P.M., could wear shorts on campus without having to wear a raincoat over them, allowed women to be in a man's dorm room without having to leave the door open at least 3 book widths, allowed women to sit on a man's bed in his door room and got rid of other ridiculous rules.
Yeah, that's the man I am.
BTW, I still have the newspaper articles to prove it.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 9/14/14 at 3:39 pm to Iosh
quote:
The "right to travel" is a part of the Privileges and Immunities clause that has nothing to do with the Equal Protection Clause and certainly doesn't imply a right to a taxi service.
quote:
The right to travel embraces three different components: the right to enter and leave another State; the right to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily present in another State; and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.
quote:
I'm sure this will lead further down the infinitely stupid regress where you assert that "welcome visitor" totally means you get a taxi
If women can claim and the courts can rule that the right of privacy includes a woman's right to have an abortion then I can claim that the right to travel includes a person's right to get a taxi without being denied that right because of their gender.
As an attorney, you should know that there are always new cases and decisions that set a precedent.
BTW, what type of law do you specialize in?
Posted on 9/14/14 at 5:09 pm to Wolf
quote:
Well lately what is actually legal is meaning less and less to the people passing the laws and to the ones interpreting it
This here.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News