Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Not gonna lie, this actually presents a pretty fascinating case maybe?
If a male Uber driver claims discrimination on the basis of sex due to Uber’s decision to allow this, but not allow the inverse, would that hold up in court?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Constitutionally its not a problem unless this provides a financial advantage and if anything its probably a disadvantage to both the passenger and driver. The issue would come with the civil rights act and is a reason Ron Paul believes the civil rights act is unconstitutional. There are legitimate reasons to discriminate that arent about hating others. Would a blacks only club not have appeal to black people? Does it really have to be about hating whites. Same with vice versa. Uber will claim this is just about safety and that many of the passengers and drivers might not have even ever used the service if not for that option. The other side will point out that the safety argument is arbitrary as every group does bad shit. At the least I would think there should be an option for female only passengers for male drivers if the claim is that men are dangerous. Then they say no its not about violence its about sexual violence. So they will be asked if straight men can get an option to not take gay men. Which will obviously be denied. My guess is Uber agrees to provide an equivalent option for men when they asses that the legal bill for fighting it will be far greater than the cost to make the equivalent option for men.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
With the Supreme Courts recent ruling on Birthright Citizenship the gutting of the 14th amendment from this court is just appalling. First they rule that we need the consent of the co-conspirators of an insurrection to enact the DQ clause effectively making it worthless. If they let the South vote on it it never would have passed in the first place. So how was it ever supposed to be used? To keep Joe Exotic from running if he tried to overthrow the government? The Birthright citizenship one is just stupidly retarded and is going to cause nothing but chaos because it will eventually be reversed. I would not generally advocate for lower courts to ignore precedent by a higher court but they cant honor their oath they took and rule someone born in the US isnt a US citizen. I can only imagine the cost of the future lawsuits when this is overturned.