Posted on 02/03/2017 3:55:19 PM PST by American Quilter
Safr, a ride-hailing company for women, is planning to open for business in Boston next month. By hiring only female drivers and picking up only female passengers, the new enterprise aims to serve women who don't feel comfortable getting alone into a car with a male stranger. Here's to Safr's success — may the company encounter only happy customers.
More likely, it will encounter James J. Foster. Or someone just like him.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
First question - I am a man “transitioning to” a woman. But I have a beard and still look pretty butch.
You OK with that?
Great idea, until they pick up a man in a dress with bad intent. And, they will probably HAVE to pick up a man in a dress.
What about the other 50 gender identities? Can’t they get a special cab ride too?
Sexist hiring practice?
Sue.
Have you ever been a dad who takes his 2 year old daughter to the park? Man, the stink eyes you get from moms is deadly. : “he must be a child sex predator!”
So that being said, I want my own park for dads and daughters so I don’t feel threatened by womyn.
This alone will fill Donald’s infrastructure goal.
Fair is fair.
BTTT
>>This is a great idea. Unfortunately it will probably be sued out of existence by liberal activists. <<
No, they will support this since it is for womyn. Hypocrisy is like breathing for them.
No, it will probably be some normal guy who is having a problem making a buck AND can read. He puts “anti-discrimination” + “law” = “lawsuit.”
So how does the company verify that their drivers or passengers are actually female as opposed to wannabees or not people who are cross-dressing with evil intent? This does not even begin to address the discrimination problem. I get why they might want to have female only drivers and customers, but also see a whole host of other problems.
.
Yowzzah!
.
People have the natural right to freedom of association. Whether or not being racist makes someone an a-hole is a different question than whether free individuals have an inherent right to be a-holes if that is their choice.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 needs to be revisited, because it grossly overstepped the boundaries of government power by prohibiting individual action.
Laws against racism and discrimination should be exclusively about limiting government power to discriminate and/and or force segregation with regard to the government policies, law enforcement, government institutions and facilities. The injustices of the Jim Crow era were legally enforced by the government, and the Jim
Crow era laws needed to be eliminated.
But free individuals have a right to choose with whom they will or will not associate. If society wants to impose sanctions on racist a-holes, that's fine, as long as it's done socially (i.e. boycotts and shunning) and not legally.
Much of the government over reach we have seen in the past 50 years is due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being commandeered by the left to limit the rights of the people relating to pretty much all private activity, instead of being limited to curtailing the powers of the government.
If black people want to live exclusively with black people at private colleges, that is their right if the college chooses to adopt that policy. But that same right also must be recognized for all other races and ethnic groups as well.
The passive facade of Passive Aggressive is about to drop ... leaving only one half ... we've begun to see it expressed against mere freedom loving men and women, now they will turn it on each other.
May each side in each battle between them do great damage.
Try reversing it and see what happens. “No women allowed.” Try that.
But this is okay. It excludes men. That’s cool.
Women only means no men allowed.
So then how about one for Christians only - no muslims allowed?
Would it be okay to have a ride-hailing company for men only?
Or for lesbians and homos only?
How about one for straight white women only?
Or blacks only?
Or black women only?
Or whites only?
Or hetero-sexual couples only - no homos or lesbians allowed?
How about a bakery for hetero-sexuals only?
The law doesn’t allow it although some make sense in this world as it is today.
Just say you “identify” as a woman, and thus are legally one in the eyes of the law in crazy liberal places like Boston. If they don’t like it, sue.
There are an awful lot of Leftist women out there who will be thrilled with this.
They are the same ones who want access to anything on the planet men have access to.
They can’t be refused service if someone objects to their lifestyle.
Men are evil if they want a men only club or some sort of male only work.
While I don’t necessarily have a problem with this idea, there is one part of it I don’t like. If women can see why a female only thing is great, they should sign off on any all male endeavors.
Until then, screw it. NO WAY!
What about a white guy who self identifies as a black women who is a lesbian that likes to crossdress and act like a white guy?
I think women should have this option if they want it.
What would happen to a car service called, say, “Macho”, that hired only male drivers and would pick up only male riders?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.