News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chariot for Women is a new ride sharing service for women... by ocdtrekkie on Friday April 08, 2016 @03:24PM (#11457178)
I find it amazing that anyone thinks this could even be legal, much less ethical. Both to refuse service based on gender, as well as refuse to hire anyone who is male? This can't possibly be a legal company to operate in the United States.

It's sexism, plain and simple.

Re:Chariot for Women is a new ride sharing service for women... by Torgo on Friday April 08, 2016 @08:44PM (#11459288)
To co-opt a recent argument from the bathroom debate, what are they going to do? Check people's genitals?
Re:Chariot for Women is a new ride sharing service for women... by ocdtrekkie on Friday April 08, 2016 @10:16PM (#11459584)
Probably need a birth certificate to prove your kid is only age 13, not 14.
Re:Chariot for Women is a new ride sharing service for women... by danielvf on Friday April 08, 2016 @06:36PM (#11458639)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_quali...

There's an exception to US anti discrimination laws for jobs that require a certain age/sex/gender/race etc. Catholic schools for example can exclude non-Catholics from being theology teachers, for instance. Actors can be excluded on the basis of race, if the character requires a certain race.

I'm not sure though if this qualifies though. Seems like there would be caselaw somewhere on it though.

Re:Chariot for Women is a new ride sharing service for women... by ocdtrekkie on Friday April 08, 2016 @06:44PM (#11458694)
"Bona fide occupational qualifications generally only apply to instances in which the BFOQ is considered reasonably necessary to the normal operation of a particular business. For example, a Catholic college may lawfully require such positions as president, chaplain, and teaching faculty to be Catholics, but membership in the Catholic Church would generally not be considered a BFOQ for occupations such as secretarial and janitorial positions.

Mere customer satisfaction, or lack thereof, is not enough to justify a BFOQ defense, as noted in the cases Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.[6] and Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co..[7] Therefore, customer preference for females does not make femininity a BFOQ for the occupation of flight attendant.[8] However, there may be cases in which customer preference is a BFOQ—for example, femininity is reasonably necessary for Playboy Bunnies.[9] Customer preference can "'be taken into account only when it is based on the company's inability to perform the primary function or service it offers,' that is, where sex or sex appeal is itself the dominant service provided."[10]"

My guess would be that excludes gender discriminating people driving cars outright. While obviously, as discussed in the article, women may prefer women drivers, the driver being a woman is not functionally necessary to drive a car.

Re:Chariot for Women is a new ride sharing service for women... by slckfielder08 on Saturday April 09, 2016 @01:42AM (#11460113)
This is why Hooters doesn't have to employ men as servers. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-wom...
Re:Chariot for Women is a new ride sharing service for women... by blackflame7000 on Friday April 08, 2016 @03:26PM (#11457197)
There are plenty examples of sexism in business that seems to go unregulated. Vegas night clubs for example sometimes charge men up to 4 times as much as women.
Re:Chariot for Women is a new ride sharing service for women... by ocdtrekkie on Friday April 08, 2016 @03:39PM (#11457299)
At the very least, the employment angle. Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;"

Re:Chariot for Women is a new ride sharing service for women... by blackflame7000 on Friday April 08, 2016 @04:01PM (#11457452)
Yea that sounds nice but in actuality there are numerous ways that businesses can skirt this rule.