By the 1960s the Pickrick had expanded to feed 400 diners - all white. And that made Maddox a target for African-American protest. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it also brought him into conflict with the federal law. But it made him a hero to white working-class Georgians and small businessmen, who bitterly resented being told what to do by Washington.Contrary to mythology, Maddox never beat any black people, though the day after the passage of the act, he did dent the roof of a black minister's car. He also waved a pistol and was put on trial on gun charges, but was acquitted by an all-white jury. In the summer of 1964, Maddox organised a rally in Atlanta for George Wallace and also for Calvin Craig, the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.To liberals, Maddox became an ugly symbol of southern "redneck" racism. To himself, and to many of his customers, the issue was not about race but about freedom. He saw himself as a small businessman whose rights over his property were being taken from him. When he closed his restaurant, rather than allow blacks to eat there as ordered by a federal injunction, he said that "my president, my Congress and the communists have closed my business and ended a childhood dream".
Maddox lost that fight, even though he later did become governor. The principle was enshrined in the law, specifically Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This all leads me to ask, is Uber a public accommodation?
Uber is piloting a new option for its U.S. app that will allow female passengers to request women drivers, coming after the company has long grappled with preventing sexual assault on its platform.
The feature, called Women Preferences, will launch in a pilot stage in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Detroit in the next few weeks, Uber said in a blog post on Wednesday. It marks the first time the popular rideshare app is bringing this option to its service in the United States after launching it in 40 other countries.
Uber joins Lyft and other taxi hailing apps, like HERide and Just Her Rideshare, that connect female passengers with women drivers.
Women drivers on Uber can also refuse to pick up men, or those who look like men.
I don't really mind the notion because I agree that we should allow women reasonable steps to protect their safety. These don't have to turn on blanket sex discrimination. Uber, for example, already allows drivers to rate their passengers as well as the other way around, giving drivers information about the quality of the ride they might be asked to deliver. I don't often use Uber since there is no such thing way out here, but on the rare occasion that I have used it in cities I have maintained my 5.0 rating as a passenger by being courteous and tipping well. If you look at that rating you will have a reasonable confidence that picking me up will be a pleasant experience even though I am quite completely male.
There is a broader social issue at work. Conservative women (mostly) have been fighting a pitched battle to defend female-only spaces. Although these are not themselves 'public accommodations' they often exist in the context of things that are: locker rooms in gymnasia or restrooms in hotel restaurants, for example. There seems to be some hedge for allowing sex discrimination as long as it is pointed always in the one direction of excluding males.
The Babylon Bee's got jokes (and about Ozzy and Hulk and Gaza too!), but I always wonder with our anti-discrimination laws if there is actually a real principle at work or not. Straight white males seem to be readily subject to discrimination in hiring, education, accommodation and now getting a ride back to the hotel from that meeting. LGBT folk face at least some discrimination, being formally unprotected. Even Black men are now subject to this ride discrimination thing in what seems like a 'public accommodation,' and they were the original class that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 intended to protect.
Does the law mean anything, or are we still just playing favorites? It's hard to discern anything remotely like 'equality' in the way these things keep playing out.
6 comments:
Everyone has an absolute right to discriminate for or against anyone he wants, for any reason he wants, or for no reason at all. My God, if George Washington could see what has become of Americans' liberties, he would go crawling back to King George III on his knees, begging the monarch's forgiveness.
That definitely doesn’t sound like George Washington.
It ain't illegal until someone files a complaint, practically speaking. Not likely that MAGA folk will do that; any 'man' who complains will be laughed out of his neighborhood, and no female--no matter her persuasion-- is likely to complain, either.
Problem solved!
You either have freedom to associate with whom you choose, or you do not.
Mostly, in the USA of today, you are at peril to exercise this freedom, if your belief system is offensive to a group of professional whiners.
Hence the state funded and directed suits against a Christian Baker.
The choice- violate your religious convictions, or go out of business and into jail. See Amendment 1.
I would argue that even if Uber is a public accommodation that must serve all comers, the individual cars don't necessarily to have do so in order to insure Uber does. It's a tricky argument but I'd be willing to try it.
I would also make sure Uber's rules allow male passengers to specify only male drivers and vice versa.
Finally, I think we need to acknowledge the fact that differences between the sexes are not the same as differences between/among races, religions, ethnicities.
“I would also make sure Uber's rules allow male passengers to specify only male drivers and vice versa.”
That doesn’t seem to be on the menu, but if it were I can imagine an Uber locally falling under an immigrant near-monopoly that refuses to serve women. Muslim immigrants who don’t think women should be allowed to travel unaccompanied (and in offensive attire, too!) would be an obvious example in some cities.
Post a Comment