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

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

So businesses can ban people if they don't agree with the customers ideology.

Let's celebrate with a cake!

Anyone know any bakers?

The baker refused to bake a cake because of their own bigotry. Uber banned this rider because of her bigotry.

Again, the people wanting the cake didn't walk into the bakery disparaging Christians or white people; they just wanted a cake. The activist in the OP, however, did say things like that against a large population of their employees. Uber did not ban her for being white, straight, Christian, etc. She was banned for being an asshole and Uber bans those every single day.

I know you can see the difference.

This is her quote from twitter.

"I'm late to the NYPD press conference because I couldn't find a non Muslim cab or @Uber @lyft driver for over 30 min! This is insanity," Loomer wrote.

What do you think the response would have been by the Company if she had substituted non Christian for non Muslim? Do you think it would have been different or the same?

a reply to: 3daysgone

I'd support that, too. Drivers are able to report that. If a rider said I don't want to ride with you because you are a Christian, they could get banned.

Uber doesn't like you being a dick to any of their drivers.

a reply to: smurfy

Holy crap, you nailed it with that comparison.

If I told ATS that I'm waiting for a white mod before I listen, I'm pretty sure I'd be banned and I'd imagine almost all of the members would understand why.

a reply to: 3daysgone

I think the bigger point is the assumption of faith due to skin colour.

Unless she is actively questioning cab drivers about Islam it's going to be an assumption upon skin colour.

If someone refuses to hire a Mexican due to ethnicity do you honestly think it's because a good chance exists that he/she was raised Catholic?

Or do you think it's due to stereotypical stigma associated with Latinos?

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: 3daysgone

I'd support that, too. Drivers are able to report that. If a rider said I don't want to ride with you because you are a Christian, they could get banned.

Uber doesn't like you being a dick to any of their drivers.

So it doesn't matter to you which ideology is being used, you would be in support of a company banning people who think differently than the company?

a reply to: RAY1990

I think the bigger point is the assumption of faith due to skin colour.

How do you get that?

Unless she is actively questioning cab drivers about Islam it's going to be an assumption upon skin colour.

So she didn't comment on religion, but she actually commented on skin color? Because if she didn't, your assumption is only that, an assumption.

If someone refuses to hire a Mexican due to ethnicity do you honestly think it's because a good chance exists that he/she was raised Catholic?

Now you are talking about a race and not a religion, and you are "assuming" all Mexican's are Catholic. That is racial profiling, not religious profiling.

Or do you think it's due to stereotypical stigma associated with Latinos?

It depends on the reason he wasn't hired.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
I wonder if certain alt-right folks would have crapped their pants if it was a Sikh driver.

Only if you're still stuck in the 80's.

Then again, this is all new for you isn't it. We did this decades ago. good thing twitter wasn't around then.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Abysha

The person just wanted a cab ride.

Now that person is banned because of thought.

So you are against Uber's decision? Besides she was waiting for a non-Muslim driver and got late because of it. That is like waiting for a non-Black driver.

If you are for this, then you must be for punishing people who think differently.

Basically discriminating against people who don't think like you.

I can't recall but for some reason I thought you support businesses' right to refuse service to anyone based on religious beliefs?

And her religious beliefs are that they are opposed to islams.

Religion isn't a skin suit you wear, it's a way of thinking. And this is one more nail in the coffin that islam is a prissy, weak willed, reactionary and oppressive religion.

"You say bad things about us! WE BAN YOUI!!!!"

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Abysha

So you are okay with businesses banning people if the people are being jerks?

Are you not ok with businesses kicking sweating and shirtless men with strong BOs out?

Did the person complaining have no shirt and strong BO and was sweaty?

No shirt.
No shoes.
No service.

Conditions of entry.

When they include "No racist thoughts. No right wing politics. No cultural appropriation. No patriotism." in the list, I'm sure you won't mind, either.

a reply to: introvert

Jesus would only do those things out of pity. Not love.

Or throw them to the lions to appease his followers, he wasn't always kind to those not of his tribe.

Ohh you mean fantasy jesus.. the made up one, who gives puppies and kittens to everyone and we all sing Jesus Loves the little children...

Im not defending her statements at all but her problem with Uber began a while back when a Muslim driver kicked her and another lady (who has confirmed the story and they have their own discrimination case in the works) out of the car bc the driver heard them talking about being Jewish.

a reply to: Abysha

She didn’t say “not white”... I don’t agree with what she said or the way she said it but what you said Is false. She said she couldn’t find a “non-Muslim” driver. That’s not the same at all as saying she said she had to have a white driver. She said nothing about skin color at all. reply to: Abysha

a reply to: xuenchen

How lame,for many years one of the jobs from people of the middle east was owning taxi service,as well as driving,why is it an issue now?,because the liberal MSM must keep up their whining

Wow I have walked into the twilight zone.

Conservatives arguing that private business should be forced to do something they don't want to do.
While at the same time a bunch of liberals defending private business rights.

Normally it's the right wing that says a private business should have the right to refuse survive .
Normally it's the left wing that wants more laws or regulation on our private business.

Why is this case gotten everyone to switch sides I wonder???

a reply to: badw0lf

ATS can and has banned people for being overtly racist. /r/The_Donald will ban you if you speak out against Trump.

Websites have been denying service to people for years based on ideology. So don't act like this is something new that is specifically being used to target the Right.

Just like with those websites, when you sign up for Uber you agree to certain T&Cs. You break those and they have every right to ban your ass.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

Cause and effect.

If you complain about a product or service, don't be surprised when that product or service is refused in the future.

Reminds me of a sign I once saw in a bar:

"We maintain the right to refuse service to assholes like you".

Be an asshole, get treated like one.

So it's okay for Christian hating homosexuals to force a Christian bakery to make a cake they disagree with (and countless other examples). But when it's Uber it's not okay to be forced to provide a service for someone who doesn't agree with you.

Great Logic!

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: 3daysgone

I'd support that, too. Drivers are able to report that. If a rider said I don't want to ride with you because you are a Christian, they could get banned.

Uber doesn't like you being a dick to any of their drivers.

So it doesn't matter to you which ideology is being used, you would be in support of a company banning people who think differently than the company?

I have always been in support of refusing service to people who are abusive to employees.

And if there's a company that "thinks differently" than having a general aversion to racism, they can go screw themselves.

It's so sad how many of you are willing to twist and turn in the wind, allowing racism to linger on your lips of # logic, calling it valid "unpopular opinion" or an ideology that is okay to side with because you feel you must now defend racism as part of your platform. The true racists among your peers are grateful for it, I am sure.

When did ATS start defending racists and start attacking free enterprise?

Thought I would point out that Muslim is not a race.

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

Cause and effect.

If you complain about a product or service, don't be surprised when that product or service is refused in the future.

Reminds me of a sign I once saw in a bar:

"We maintain the right to refuse service to assholes like you".

Be an asshole, get treated like one.

So it's okay for Christian hating homosexuals to force a Christian bakery to make a cake they disagree with (and countless other examples). But when it's Uber it's not okay to be forced to provide a service for someone who doesn't agree with you.

Great Logic!

You're smarter than this. They weren't forced to bake a gay cake. They refused service to somebody solely based on demographics. That is discrimination and is against the law. Either make the cake or get out of cake making.

Uber refuses service every day to people who are abusive to their drivers. Being racist towards their drivers is easily classified as abusive.

If that gay couple marched into the bakery and said all Christians are terrorists and you demand an atheist to bake your cake so you won't get poisoned, you'd get kicked out. And that would be totally fine.

Y'all need to quit playing dumb. You know the difference.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Thought I would point out that Muslim is not a race.

So how do you think she was determining who was and was not a Muslim when she saw them? I'll give you a hint: it starts with an "r" and sort of rhymes with "fascism".

So no #. But when a woman is referring to all the brown folks with funny names as "Muslims", that is driven by racism. And you know this.

WHY ARE YOU ALL PRETENDING TO BE SO NAIVE ABOUT THIS? None of you were ever this thick before and I refuse to believe it's not an act.