- 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
0
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:54 pm to ocelot4ark
quote:Let me help some of you confused souls out here: The Constitution doesn't say shite about private discrimination. It's "constitutional" for a company to do pretty much whatever the frick it likes as long as it's not acting as an agent of the state.
Does the constitution allow for a company that provides a public service, which NYC considers taxi/car services to offer (licensing), to discriminate as to who they offer their public service? Or to discriminate in their hiring practices by refusing to hire men?
You're thinking of the statutory Civil Rights Act, which doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution except that it was justified under the interstate commerce clause (like pretty much every other federal statute). You're not dealing with the Constitution, you're dealing with a federal statute and a byzantine bureauracy.
With that clarification in mind, the answer to your question is a resounding "maybe." I can tell you that they would have a much tougher argument on the employment side of things than on the customer side of things, since gender is in Title VII but not Title II. (But not an impossible one, because as I implied on Page 1, the iron heel of the EEOC has not yet fallen upon Hooters.)
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:03 pm to ocelot4ark
quote:
Does the constitution allow for a company that provides a public service, which NYC considers taxi/car services to offer (licensing), to discriminate as to who they offer their public service? Or to discriminate in their hiring practices by refusing to hire men?
Would those enlightened people on this site who have no problem with the "shetaxis" also have no problem if instead of providing "shetaxis" those companies provided "hetaxis" for only men to use which had only men drivers?
After all, a lot of men feel "uncomfortable" having a woman driver since they believe women are worse drivers than men.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:06 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
This is only more evidence that women are segregationists.
No, they probably just like to segregate from you. Are you a 67yo virgin?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:07 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
so you don't think a private company should be allowed to make it's own choices as to the clientele it accepts?
I really hope for your sake you've never advocated christian bakeries and flower shops be forced to serve the gays. Because if I find a post from you stating as such, you'll never hear the end of it.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:17 pm to Iosh
quote:
Let me help some of you confused souls out here: The Constitution doesn't say shite about private discrimination. It's "constitutional" for a company to do pretty much whatever the frick it likes as long as it's not acting as an agent of the state.
The Equal Protection clause of the Constitution does apply when the company is providing a service to the general public.
Even a private business that opens a store to provide a service to the general public cannot discriminate against someone based on their gender because that store is considered a "public place" since the general public is given access to it.
That's why private clubs like golf clubs which charge a fee for membership can discriminate against someone because of their gender.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:22 pm to Sentrius
quote:
I really hope for your sake you've never advocated christian bakeries and flower shops be forced to serve the gays. Because if I find a post from you stating as such, you'll never hear the end of it.
Even if he did that's a whole different issue because religious beliefs are involved as well as sexual preference.
It has nothing to do with discrimination based solely on gender.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:25 pm to DawgfaninCa
I'm not talking about religious beliefs or feelings towards genders and sexual orientation, I'm talking about private property rights and doing whatever the owner does why he wants with his labor and property and the selective attitude on it from progressives.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:25 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Even if he did that's a whole different issue because religious beliefs are involved as well as sexual preference.
It has nothing to do with discrimination based solely on gender.
Are women considered to be a protected class?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:28 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
No, they probably just like to segregate from you.
If that's the case then those women are really irrational since I live in California.
quote:
Are you a 67yo virgin?"
Nope and all of the women I fricked were better looking than any of the women you fricked.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:37 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Are women considered to be a protected class?
Since for 50 years there has been Affirmative Action and diversity outreach programs for women which has resulted in more women than men in college and more women than men with jobs, women should no longer be a protected class.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:43 pm to Sentrius
quote:
I'm not talking about religious beliefs or feelings towards genders and sexual orientation, I'm talking about private property rights and doing whatever the owner does why he wants with his labor and property and the selective attitude on it from progressives.
And I just explained that private companies doing business with the general public on private property cannot discriminate against someone based on their gender since that private property is considered a "public place".
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:58 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Would those enlightened people on this site who have no problem with the "shetaxis" also have no problem if instead of providing "shetaxis" those companies provided "hetaxis" for only men to use which had only men drivers?
No problem with that concept at all- I'm all into the idea of niche markets.
But HeTaxis would probably fail miserably because I seriously doubt there are enough men who give a crap one way or another.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:02 pm to sacredcow
quote:Pretty much. I'd be damned if I am going to use an app to call for a taxi with a guaranteed male driver.
But HeTaxis would probably fail miserably because I seriously doubt there are enough men who give a crap one way or another.
Of course a lot of black people would use an app to call for ANY taxi to pick them up in the rain.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:11 pm to ocelot4ark
quote:This isn't a taxi service, which is why they have to be called "SheRide" in NYC. In any case, men aren't suffering as they aren't being denied the service of the cab. They can call the cab company directly or flag down the very same cab. If they wanted to call the cab company and ask for a male driver the company would likely get you one.
Does the constitution allow for a company that provides a public service, which NYC considers taxi/car services to offer (licensing), to discriminate as to who they offer their public service? Or to discriminate in their hiring practices by refusing to hire men?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:37 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Of course a lot of black people would use an app to call for ANY taxi to pick them up in the rain.
I spent a good bit of time in Seattle last summer (much of it without a vehicle), and Uber is a VAST improvement over traditional taxis that may or may not show up after repeated calls. But then again, Seattle has great public transit, too- including insane entertainers most of the time!
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:45 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
This isn't a taxi service, which is why they have to be called "SheRide" in NYC.
That's incorrect.
It is a taxi service.
According to the article:
quote:
The service will be called SheTaxis — SheRides in New York City because of regulations barring it from using “taxi” in its name — and aims to serve women who may feel uncomfortable being driven by men, or who simply prefer the company of other women.
It is only in NYC that it can't use "taxi" in its name.
Everywhere else it is called "SheTaxis".
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:57 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
In any case, men aren't suffering as they aren't being denied the service of the cab. They can call the cab company directly or flag down the very same cab.
So if a man is standing on the side of the road trying to hail down an empty taxi whose female driver is wearing a hot pink pashmina scarve will she stop and pick the man up?
Also, it sounds to me like Shetaxis is a private company.
According to the article:
quote:
SheTaxis will partner with existing livery companies to provide the rides at competitive rates, Ms. Mateo said. SheTaxis, which has a staff of six, has already recruited 50 female drivers, ranging in age from 21 to 70.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 6:05 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:Where did you get your law degree?
The Equal Protection clause of the Constitution does apply when the company is providing a service to the general public.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 6:38 pm to Iosh
quote:
The Equal Protection clause of the Constitution does apply when the company is providing a service to the general public.
quote:
Where did you get your law degree?
Prove me wrong, counselor.
BTW, back in 1976 I filed a civil suit against an individual who battered me on the street and I represented myself.
The defendent was represented by Ephraim Margolin.
Not only did I win the case but I had Mr. Margolin held in contempt of court for lying to the court when Mr. Margolin told the court that he was representing his client for free because his client had no money.
I knew that his client had filed for bankruptcy in order to avoid paying the judgment I got against him so I got the papers he filed. In them he had to list all the people he owed money to and one of the people listed was Ephraim Margolin.
When I showed the bankruptcy paper to the Judge he found Mr. Margolin in contempt of court for lying to the court.
Not bad for a non attorney.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 7:10 pm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News