An Uber Eats Driver Reportedly Refused To Deliver Plan B

Jalopnik ^ | Lawrence Hodge

[nickcarraway]

The customer’s Reddit post asks for advice on how to handle a delivery driver that allegedly let their beliefs prevent them from doing their job

One Uber Eats delivery driver seems to have their personal beliefs interfere with the successful delivery of an order — and now the customer is asking for help in an effort to figure out what went wrong. The problem? The customer ordered Plan B, and their driver refused to deliver it.

The customer posted their ordeal on the r/UberEats subreddit. They say they needed a Plan B bill “on the fly.” It isn’t clear exactly what that means, but it’s also not anyone’s business. Because the buyer was busy, they didn’t have a chance to grab the pill themselves, so they put in an order on Uber Eats for it to be delivered from a local CVS.

The problems started almost as soon as a local delivery person accepted the order, as the customer described in the post:

This guy accepts the order, and he’s on a bike, so it took him about 40 mins just to get to the CVS. Then he sits outside the CVS for an additional 30 minutes, before sending me this message.

They provided a screenshot of the message that the delivery person sent them, and it’s wild. Instead of doing what they had been paid and tipped to do, the person explained why they can’t deliver them Plan B: “...I can not deliver this knowing what it will do.”

What? This person seems to be saying that they think that Plan B is some kind of abortion bill instead of the emergency preventive contraception it really is. Worse yet, the delivery person never even canceled the order —presumably on purpose — so the customer couldn’t connect to another driver to get the order delivered. Sadly, the customer says they’re embarrassed and “a little upset,” and they’re now asking for advice about what they should do.

Some people in the comments told them there’s nothing they should be embarrassed about because, as one person commented, this whole exchange was creepy and uninformed. Another person said that they should file a safety incident with Uber, saying that they were “little creeped out & embarrassed by his unsolicited medical advice and religious chastisement.” This is one I agree with.

In addition to possibly getting this driver booted, no one should be letting their religious beliefs get in the way in a situation like this, especially considering it’s stranger that you’ll likely never see or encounter in life again — one whose life situation you don’t even know.

It should be noted here that Uber Eats policies allow delivery persons “the right to decline any delivery opportunity offered to them.” However, this situation is a bit different; not only did the delivery person refuse the delivery, but they also seemed to block the customer from getting another delivery person by not canceling the order. We reached out to Uber for a comment on the situation and will update when they get back to us.

[daniel1212]

There is a difference between contract work and service and you keep putting them together when they are not the same thing at all.

It may be, but I am waiting for you to asked you explain how entering into an agreement to provide a custom artistic work, for which a deposit is required, is different from contract work.

What You Need in Your Cake Contract Remember when you spent countless hours on that birthday cake, and the client canceled at the last minute? Or when you ordered special supplies and decorations (and paid extra shipping, too!) for a wedding cake, only to have that client change their mind a week before the event and want something else? Well, you can help protect yourself and home bakery from these types of unfortunate situations by including important details in your cake contracts.

We established that your home bakery does, indeed, need a cake contract. There is obvious information: name, phone number, e-mail, etc. You must also remember the essential details that do more than just give you contact info and the agreement’s signature. Even the most basic cake contract establishes the terms and conditions upfront and gives both the client and company a list of expectations. It allows the bakery and client to create a payment schedule and gives them a chance to review company liabilities. - https://whiskwarrior.com/what-you-need-in-your-cake-contract/

Not legally. Not in reality. And that is why SCOTUS said they had overstepped.

No, that is not why SCOTUS said they had overstepped, which we wish they had. Instead, as said, ": Is a business’s freedom to choose its customers more important than the government interest in stopping sexual orientation discrimination? The Supreme Court did not answer this question, but instead decided the case on narrower grounds by concluding that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission expressed impermissible hostility to religion." - https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/ (source itself shows bias)

Meaning that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission could not restrain manifesting its vindictiveness against a Christian who dared to defy their requirement to salute the flag of Sodom.

The Court’s decision erased the penalties Colorado imposed on Phillips for declining to make a cake—“comprehensive staff training,” changes to his business practices, and “quarterly compliance reports” for two years. Colorado’s adjudicatory process was so tainted with “religious hostility,” the Court said, that it deprived Phillips of a fair shake. One Colorado commissioner labeled Phillips’s view of marriage—a view still widely held by Americans—as “despicable and merely rhetorical,” no different than justifying the Holocaust or slavery. That statement went unrebutted by other commissioners. - https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/why-jack-phillips-still-cannot-make-wedding-cakes-deciding-competing-claims-under-old-laws

However,

The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple because he believed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. This was one of the most anticipated decisions of the term, and it was relatively narrow:..

The opinion seemed to leave open the possibility that, in a future case, a service provider’s sincere religious beliefs might have to yield to the state’s interest in protecting the rights of same-sex couples, and the majority did not rule at all on one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.

If an Asian-African transsexual polyamerous dwarf with AIDS, acne and a limp asks me to take a contract, I am not obliged to do so. .. Now if I am so stupid as to tell he or she that the limp really grosses me out he or she can try to sue me. And eventually lose.

But as said, while as with your friend, you can normally deny such service based upon the message, and Jack Phillips can and has refused to make Halloween cakes etc, but when the wannabe customer is a member of a protected class, then the charge will be that your reason for denial was due to them being so.

You can of course, deny that, but I am just telling you that Leftist so-called "Civil Rights Commissions" (non-elected as they are) will demand a reason, or charge you anyway in such a case as you describe, and off you go to courts. Protest all you want, that is the reality today, not that I agree with it.

Meaning, even if Jack Phillips simply said "no" to the request, then I am sure that the CRC would require a reason and the man would not lie.