Uber bans far-right activist who complained about Muslim Uber drivers

originally posted by: seasonal

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: xuenchen

Glad Uber doesn't control grocery stores, or this lady would starve. Isn't the all knowing tech giants a great idea?

Let her hateful ass walk. I hope Lyft follows up and bans her too. Maybe she can wait for an bigot-based ride-sharing company to start up like "Racing Racists" or something like that and she can ride all she wants.

Freedom of speech is absolute. And dabbling in this issue os dangerous and I think is a civil rights law suit waiting to happen.

This loud mouth may have just won the lottery.

If you ran a diner and a customer called your employees fat, you could totally 86 them and nobody would blame you. Why are racists different?

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: seasonal

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: xuenchen

Glad Uber doesn't control grocery stores, or this lady would starve. Isn't the all knowing tech giants a great idea?

Let her hateful ass walk. I hope Lyft follows up and bans her too. Maybe she can wait for an bigot-based ride-sharing company to start up like "Racing Racists" or something like that and she can ride all she wants.

Freedom of speech is absolute. And dabbling in this issue os dangerous and I think is a civil rights law suit waiting to happen.

This loud mouth may have just won the lottery.

If you ran a diner and a customer called your employees fat, you could totally 86 them and nobody would blame you. Why are racists different?

Because gay wedding cakes...I guess.

a reply to: Abysha

The situation you describe is a personal upclose and personal interaction.

Uber as a corp has dipped it's toe into curtailing free speech by punishing a person who they disagree with. This is indeed very dangerous ground they are standing on.

Not everyone can recognize this.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krakatoa

But, what if it has nothing to do with the sexual orientation but the conduct involved in that situation (i.e. sexual conduct) they do not agree with? After all for some people, sex is only supposed to occur for the purpose or procreation and not personal gratification.

What the hell are you talking about?

If a business disagrees with that gratification conduct, then is it not the same as this Uber situation?

Unless they were gratifying themselves inside the business and involving the employees, I fail to see how it is similar at all.

Because, in making the cake they claimed it would be the equivalent of participating in the wedding of a couple that do have conduct they disagree with on religious grounds. It is the refusal to participate in that conduct that is the issue in their eyes.

For clarity: I do not condone or agree with the above ideals (i.e. against same-sex couples), but I am only asking for the explanation of your false equivalency claim of the two situations.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Abysha

Public accommodation.

Even assholes are people.

Are assholes a protected class?

I didn't think so.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Abysha

The situation you describe is a personal upclose and personal interaction.

Uber as a corp has dipped it's toe into curtailing free speech by punishing a person who they disagree with. This is indeed very dangerous ground they are standing on.

Not everyone can recognize this.

Oh my god, no they are not. How can you not see that? If she had said that to one driver, she could be banned. Instead, she said that to all of the drivers.

Free speech doesn't mean that businesses have to cater to jerks who publicly disparage them! Are you guys seriously not understanding this?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: xuenchen

Glad Uber doesn't control grocery stores, or this lady would starve. Isn't the all knowing tech giants a great idea?

Can they control our gardens and hunting?

Didn't think so.

stymied by taxis the master race collapsed.

a reply to: Krakatoa

So by riding with a Muslim driver it's participating in terrorism?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krakatoa

But, what if it has nothing to do with the sexual orientation but the conduct involved in that situation (i.e. sexual conduct) they do not agree with? After all for some people, sex is only supposed to occur for the purpose or procreation and not personal gratification.

What the hell are you talking about?

If a business disagrees with that gratification conduct, then is it not the same as this Uber situation?

Unless they were gratifying themselves inside the business and involving the employees, I fail to see how it is similar at all.

Because, in making the cake they claimed it would be the equivalent of participating in the wedding of a couple that do have conduct they disagree with on religious grounds. It is the refusal to participate in that conduct that is the issue in their eyes.

For clarity: I do not condone or agree with the above ideals (i.e. against same-sex couples), but I am only asking for the explanation of your false equivalency claim of the two situations.

That explanation has already been provided.

Banning someone because of their conduct towards their employees is not the same as refusing to bake a cake because the people purchasing it engage in homosexual acts.

Those bakers were idiots because the only conduct they had to engage in was to bake a cake and sell it to the customer.

a reply to: xuenchen

This little PR student will likely backfire on Uber and boost LL’s popularity.

Ironic, the Manhattan feral Islamic rental truck terrorist was an Uber driver.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: xuenchen

This little PR student will likely backfire on Uber and boost LL’s popularity.

They'll have to put her on Fox now.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krakatoa

But, what if it has nothing to do with the sexual orientation but the conduct involved in that situation (i.e. sexual conduct) they do not agree with? After all for some people, sex is only supposed to occur for the purpose or procreation and not personal gratification.

What the hell are you talking about?

If a business disagrees with that gratification conduct, then is it not the same as this Uber situation?

Unless they were gratifying themselves inside the business and involving the employees, I fail to see how it is similar at all.

Because, in making the cake they claimed it would be the equivalent of participating in the wedding of a couple that do have conduct they disagree with on religious grounds. It is the refusal to participate in that conduct that is the issue in their eyes.

For clarity: I do not condone or agree with the above ideals (i.e. against same-sex couples), but I am only asking for the explanation of your false equivalency claim of the two situations.

That explanation has already been provided.

Banning someone because of their conduct towards their employees is not the same as refusing to bake a cake because the people purchasing it engage in homosexual acts.

Those bakers were idiots because the only conduct they had to engage in was to bake a cake and sell it to the customer.

But (as a married man myself) the cake decorator is part of the entire wedding. They not only bake a cake, but they work with the couple to create the cake they want to represent them and their life at the wedding. Then the baker also needs to deliver, setup, and be paid by the couple. They are a part of the wedding.

It is the set of these aspects that were debated at the time as being against their religion, and being forced to participate was against their religious beliefs.

In this case, I can see the reporter was really railing against the religious beliefs of the Muslim drivers as those beliefs are codified in the Koran which advocated such behavior as killing unbelievers.

It is a case of religious freedom in both, is it not?

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: xuenchen

This little PR student will likely backfire on Uber and boost LL’s popularity.

I really doubt that. A lot (perhaps most) Uber drivers are minorities and it's pretty rare for a rider to espouse bigot garbage and continue riding for very long. Most people who use Uber already know this. If anything, it might win back some clientele who switched to Lyft over the whole sexism thing.

I think the only people who think this is weird are people who aren't familiar with ride-share. These are private vehicles... why should a Muslim be forced to pick up an outspoken racist and drive her around in the same car he picks up his children in?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: xuenchen

This little PR student will likely backfire on Uber and boost LL’s popularity.

They'll have to put her on Fox now.

True. Fox is known for propping-up idiots.

The fact she used to be part of Project Veritas will only add to her Right Wing nuttery creds.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Abysha

I wonder how somebody knew it was Laura Loomer?

Have you ever taken an Uber? All of your identification and payment info is known ahead of time. You can't just jump in one and pay with cash.

Sounds good to me, who wants dirty Harry if he may have a bullet left...but doesn't know?
It also looks like DB went for the falsies, could that just be an unconsidered bias?

Oop's just had a thought, I wonder is Tweetie pie banned! Or would Uber be forced to comply

a reply to: Krakatoa

But (as a married man myself) the cake decorator is part of the entire wedding. They not only bake a cake, but they work with the couple to create the cake they want to represent them and their life at the wedding. Then the baker also needs to deliver, setup, and be paid by the couple. They are a part of the wedding.

Ok. In any part of that process if they are asked to take part in any conduct that they do not agree with, or are abused in any way, then they can refuse service.

It is the set of these aspects that were debated at the time as being against their religion, and being forced to participate was against their religious beliefs.

How is baking a cake, working with people, driving to the location and setting a cake up on a table against their beliefs?

It is the set of these aspects that were debated at the time as being against their religion, and being forced to participate was against their religious beliefs.

Forced to do what they would do for any heterosexual couple, without any concern about where their would stick their private parts later.

In this case, I can see the reporter was really railing against the religious beliefs of the Muslim drivers as those beliefs are codified in the Koran which advocated such behavior as killing unbelievers.

Sure. She was bashing Uber employees and Uber said take your business elsewhere.

It is a case of religious freedom in both, is it not?

No.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Abysha

The situation you describe is a personal upclose and personal interaction.

Uber as a corp has dipped it's toe into curtailing free speech by punishing a person who they disagree with. This is indeed very dangerous ground they are standing on.

Not everyone can recognize this.

Oh my god, no they are not. How can you not see that? If she had said that to one driver, she could be banned. Instead, she said that to all of the drivers.

Free speech doesn't mean that businesses have to cater to jerks who publicly disparage them! Are you guys seriously not understanding this?

Shopping around for a baker until you find one that politely declines because of their personal faith, then suing them, is pretty jerky.

I wonder if certain alt-right folks would have crapped their pants if it was a Sikh driver.