Merely paying tax money that goes partially to public infrastructure does not put one in control of that public infrastructure.
The free market solution to the problem is very simple. If there are women customers who truly want a women-only taxi service, let them have it. Why should the government be involved in deciding who can and can’t ride in a particular taxi? It’s not as if the proposed service is going to make it impossible, or even slightly difficult, for any man to get a taxi when he wants it.
Well “less in tips” is a lot less compelling than “less likely to pull a gun on me and kill me” for sure. Actually I think as tippers go, women are right down there, too. But they’re less likely to pull something in a cab, not to mention that I believe some riders would do it just because they perceived a female cabbie as weaker.
In every town I’ve known, taxi’s are licensed - the “Medallion” - which cost thousands of dollars in SF.
There are only so many of these in existence.
If this "female only service actually has real licenses (not the “gypsy” cabs like lyft and the like), then they are licensed on the condition that they accept all fares.
Yes, there parts of big cities where you can call every cab in town and none of them will come.
That is NOT checking your sex. If the same person who can’t get a cab in the ghetto would call from a different area, a cab would come.
Again, the company in question is operating or planning to operate a livery service. They don’t have medallions and can’t be flagged down on the street. They can only respond to people who call in to the company and request a car.
That changes nothing. They’re still a commercial venture interfering with public transit that is refusing to accept customers of a protected class. No, you can’t do that on the excuse that you’re irrationally afraid of that class.
“No, your honor, it’s not that I hate black people, it’s that I’m just afraid of them.” :rolleyes:
But we’ve heard arguments in this thread that this is simply not the same because your preference for a white driver shows you invidious discrimination against other races.
Whereas a preferences for a female taxi driver doesn’t show a hatred for males in general, but simply a desire to be safe with a female taxi driver.
I think it is just linguistic sophistry.
One could easily say that he doesn’t hate other races in general but just prefers to be safer in a taxi with a white driver. Or that one doesn’t hate blacks in general but just prefers to golf or dine with other whites.
I think this highlights that you cannot be black and white about discrimination (hah!)
Meaning, you have to weigh up the harm caused to those being discriminated against the reasons for the discrimination.
Most people, for example, are completely fine with the existence of women-only gyms. No particular harm is done to men (while there are plenty of unisex and (de facto) mens gyms around), and the reason for doing it is not to generalize about all men, or restrict what men can do.
The examples in the OP are borderline though. I still can’t completely make my mind up, and maybe some more specifics about these policies could push me either way.
Ultimately, two wrongs don’t make a right. If men are causing women to feel uncomfortable in gyms or taxis (or wherever), then those men need to be dealt with. The thing is, some (but not all) of the time, the men are doing nothing wrong, and should not be discriminated against.
So, yes, I do have a problem with women-only gyms. But, I certainly don’t think that the answer would be simply to ban them, but to ensure that all gyms are safe and reasonably comfortable for women.
Taxis are already licensed and journeys logged, so there’s no great danger there.
I agree but for a different reason. I don’t have a problem with female only gyms because of the unique differences between the sexes. But if we say that men can’t have (public accommodations) golf courses, social clubs, and card rooms for the exact same reason then we have to be consistent.
But even worse, these female cab companies’ logic can equally apply to racial discrimination instead of simply gender. “I have a fear backed by statistical logic” if determined to be a proper standard, could bring back racial segregation.
Do they not have the option of requesting such at present? The worst that can happen is that they say they don’t have a female driver available.
Well, I suppose you might face some social stigma. Like if you phoned a taxi company and said “Can I have a white driver? Them niggers are trouble.”
Still, it’s definitely an option now. Another option is to cleanse yourself of hate and intolerance and realise a cab driver is a cab driver.
There’s been a spate of false accusations, from which the drivers escaped by showing footage from internal cameras. Every increasing numbers of taxis are installing cameras onboard, not to protect women from rape, but to protect their drivers from false accusations by women who don’t want to pay their fares.
I will not ride alone in a cab with a male driver unless I have my hand gun with me. And my hand will be in my purse with fingers on the trigger. I have had too many close calls to do otherwise. Men who consider a female-only livery service such a bad thing should consider that women who have had negative experiences with men are not going to be tolerant of any threatening or questionable behavior by a male driver. A lot of situations that could turn dangerous (or if not dangerous at least job jeopardizing) could be avoided if women have an option of not being forced alone with a man.
If I want to present an argument I’ll present it myself. I don’t think anyone needs you to take what I’ve said, mix your misunderstanding of my argument up with your misunderstanding of discrimination law, and serve it up along with an accusation of dishonesty in a little misbegotten cocktail to people you’ve judged to be on your side.
Uh, male-only social clubs exist. Fraternities and other college social associations are one example, stuff like the Knights of Colombus is another. I think it’s illegal to have a business that serves only men (I don’t necessarily agree with the law, but that’s the law as it stands), but a purely social club is not a business.
Suppressing a social club from discriminating against a certain gender (or for that matter a certain religion, etc.) seems like it would fairly obviously violate the right to free association.
I used to manage a 24 hour petrol station - I would not have hired a lady for the graveyard shift, we had a 50 something year old man doing the 11 till 7 shift.
Of course - would never say that “officially” - but there could be a reason why you don’t see so many ladies doing the night shift in skeevy places other than they don’t want to.