A Carload of Lawsuits

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

A new "women-only Uber" aimed at providing female drivers to women and children is going to face a difficult time staying out of court, according to "Evil H.R. Lady" Suzanne Lucas:

What's wrong with a female-staffed business that caters only to females (and male children up to age 13)? Well, lots of things. To make it easy to see the problem, simply switch the genders. What about a ride sharing service that employees [sic] only men? Or that says, "white people are more comfortable riding with white people, so we only hire white people and only give rides to white people and children of any race under age 13"? Yeah, the problem is pretty obvious.

There are some jobs where gender is actually a valid hiring requirement. It's called a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) and it's not handed out to make people feel more comfortable. For instance, customer preferences aren't a valid reason for limiting your hiring pool by race, gender, religion, or other characteristic. [links in original]
Whatever one might think of such segregated businesses, the kinds of laws that will probably kill off this company shouldn't even be on the books because they violate freedom of contract. Although I would boycott any racially-segregated taxi service that would have me as a customer and (along the lines suggested by Lucas) question the need for a female-only service, I think it is morally wrong (and contrary to the proper purpose of government) to prevent such a business from operating.

Anyone who has, in the past, supported laws violating freedom of contract should reconsider such support, whether the laws prevent someone (e.g., a non-govenment employer) from acting based on discrimination or force one to discriminate (e.g., through hiring quotas). When thinking about such laws, a good maxim might be: "Never advocate political power for your friends that you would fear in the hands of your worst enemy." While the situation for Chariot might not exactly correspond to that hypothetical situation, it is close enough to be illustrative, given that many women mistakenly support laws that prohibit sex-based discrimination.

-- CAV


Kyle Haight said...

If we lived under a legal system that upheld the freedom of association, as we should, this kind of business would be fine. But given that the law and legal precedent is as it is, these people should be sued into oblivion.

What I fear in this case is some sort of 'carve-out' based on the idea that this kind of leftist-friendly discrimination isn't 'real' discrimination and shouldn't be outlawed, which would lead directly to a neo-feudal system in which the annointed aristocrats have rights that are denied to the mere serfs. My position, in short, is that unless Christian bakers can decline to bake wedding cakes for homosexual weddings these feminists can choke on it.

If the left wants to be honest about what they really want, they should propose a revision to the 1964 Civil Rights act to make it prohibit discrimination on the basis of race (except against whites), gender (except against men), religion (except against Christians) and sexual orientation (except against straights). Until they do that and get it enacted the law should be enforced against them as much as it is against anyone else.

Gus Van Horn said...


You are absolutely correct, and I think your fear is, in this case, more of a prediction, given our current cultural, political, and legal climates.