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

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

No need to twist.

Refusing to serve someone based on the person's conduct towards a companie's employees is not the same as refusing to serve a customer because of their sexual orientation.

Look at her twitter feed. She actually has idiots asking for her advice based on the name of their Uber driver.

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

“It’s not because you’re gay, it’s because you have gay sex.”

Fantastic reasoning.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Sexual orientation is a protected class. Racial preference is not.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: jjkenobi

Sexual orientation is a protected class. Racial preference is not.

"Muslim drivers".

Muslim is not a race.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Religious preference also isn't a protected class.

That said she wasn't asking all these drivers their religion. She was basing it off their appearance and name. She just assumed that all brown guys with an Arabic name are Muslim. That means she was basing it off race and not actually their religion.

a reply to: Abysha

I'm not even following the story but saw repeated claims of racism for anti-Islamic statements.
That's all.
I don't trust Loomer after las vegas.
She seems like a plant of some sort to me.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Abysha

I'm not even following the story but saw repeated claims of racism for anti-Islamic statements.
That's all.
I don't trust Loomer after las vegas.
She seems like a plant of some sort to me.

She refused to get in a car until she could find a non-brown person without an Arabic name. We know this because we know she doesn't have some magic Islam-detecting-radar.

a reply to: Abysha


they're employing karl rove's tactic here -


Contain
Your job is to prevent the presentation and spread of Liberal viewpoints.
Do anything you must do to prevent a Liberal poster from presenting a well-reasoned argument or starting a civil discussion.
Don't allow a Liberal to present their dogma unchallenged EVER.

link

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Abysha


they're employing karl rove's tactic here -


Contain
Your job is to prevent the presentation and spread of Liberal viewpoints.
Do anything you must do to prevent a Liberal poster from presenting a well-reasoned argument or starting a civil discussion.
Don't allow a Liberal to present their dogma unchallenged EVER.

link

To a T.

I think that document should be referenced by mods so they can see when this is being done. It's intentional misdirection. Nobody is truly as stupid as these people are pretending they are, not understanding why it's fine to refuse service to an abusive customer.

I'm not sure why being a Uber driver has anything to do with this. He needed to work and had a clean record up to the attack. What if he sold shoes...lol

Maybe we need to ban rich people from gambling since you know they can go off and shoot 500 people.

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.

I don't think the government banned her, I think Uber banned her for violating their terms.

a reply to: 3daysgone

How do you get that? 

How is she determining faith?

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.

She seemingly didn't comment on skin colour.

Hence my curiosity on how she determined the faith of taxi drivers. Yes, I assume she did so on skin colour.

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. 

No I am not.

I'm talking about stereotyping and profiling upon appearance.

Not all Egyptians are Muslim either, I'll ask again though how is she determining the faith of a taxi driver?

It depends on the reason he wasn't hired.

Don't act coy, I already stated that hypothetically the Mexican wasn't hired due to his nationality and/or ethnicity. I was alluding to the statistical chance that such prejudice would be based upon the faith the individual has.

I'm not sure what was difficult to comprehend on how I expressed my POV...

Either way faith is a protected characteristic, skin colour is a protected characteristic. I can make hypothetical situations all day, it won't change the legalities of refusing a service or refusing service due to a protected characteristic.

Again, how did she determine the faith of a taxi driver?

Also, do you think it's OK to hold prejudice against a human being based upon their faith?

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

Are religion and religious practices not protected in the US?

Obviously as long as it breaks no laws, I couldn't come to the US and practice cannibalism...

a reply to: badw0lf

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.

Uh Uber does have "conditions of entry". It's in the agreement.
I'm sure you won't mind customers being abusive towards business owners, employees and other customers? You'll be fine with racists screaming racist epithets towards your black employees and customers? Hmm?
I shall await your answer.

originally posted by: badw0lf

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.

Based on your posts I probably have been around much longer than you.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

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

No we didn't switch sides. Being abusive is not a protected right.

Looks like Laura has done some serious triggering with this.

a reply to: xuenchen

Triggered?

If a "debate" about aspects of a human that are protected by law is triggering to you then you should probably take your glasses off or get new ones.

I mean it's barely a debate...

I just suspect people are acting thick, you too by the looks of things. Either that are it's delusion.

I'm hoping the former.

a reply to: xuenchenso she spoke out about a terrorist who was using uber as a cover to plan his attacks and she gets banned i hope they refunded her money she had left on her account . also MUSLIM IS NOT A RACE JUST AS BEING A CHRISTIAN IS NOT A RACE. so she is not a racist .they banned her because she was pointing out one of there employees and it was making them look bad thats the real reason she was banned

What is it with these Uber drivers? They are drivers used to take you from A to B. Are they instructed to hold debates with their customers? Are they to judge their customers on race, religion, political affiliations.
No, no and no again they should keep their mouths shut and their race, religious, political persuasions AND more importantly their judgement of their fare and just transport them from A to B for the money that they're really after.

a reply to: Abysha

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

What abuse are you referring to?

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

Who is the racist you are referring to?

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.

Racism against who, from who?

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

I am not sure. I have never read a post on here that defends racism. Could you please show me? I don't see any racist behavior in this thread. I see questions, comments and some answers.

You see, Islam is not a race. It is a culture. A certain belief, if you will, that is just like all the other beliefs in this world. Just that. A belief. The belief that someone can be racist toward another culture is absurd. Racism is a dividing mechanism that is based on the physical appear of the skin type. I think the word we would need to have a conversation about what I see in this OP we would have to use the term Cultural-ism.