Uber sued for allegedly refusing rides to the blind

Re:Uber sued for allegedly refusing rides to the blind by iaw on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:01PM (#8300281)

I think you may be a bit ignorant of the law here. Read 'where service animals are allowed' at [1]. The American Disabilities Act states pretty clearly that to deny reasonable accommodations to disabled people is illegal.

To create an analog to your argument. Lets say an individual is in a wheelchair and a store doesn't have ramp accessibility. In your argument, it would be perfectly fine for the individual to abandon their chair and crawl into the store because the store isn't barring that individual from entry. The issue in this analog (as with your argument) is that for the disabled person to function they need access to their wheelchair (or dog). Denying access for the dog is equivalent to denying access to wheelchairs which is equivalent to denying access to the individual.

[1] http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber sued for allegedly refusing rides to the blind by totony on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @11:34PM (#8300736)

Here, the ramp is a specific accomodation for the disabled person. A better analogy would be a scenario where law would require every stairs accessing the building (driver) to have an associated ramp (allowing dogs). For Uber, in my opinion, certain "dogs-allowed" cars should be added (as suggested somewhere else in this thread), but not every driver should be required to allow them.

Also, I was stating that law SHOULDN'T force people. Not that it doesn't.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber sued for allegedly refusing rides to the blind by ASneakyFox on Thursday September 11, 2014 @04:51AM (#8301531)

Not all drivers have to allow dogs in their car. Just the ones who drive people places as a business.

Buildings are the same way. Most residential homes do not have ramps unless some one lives there who needs it.

[ Parent | on HN ]