# Refusing guide dog ride can result in deactivation?



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

I read somewhere the the settlement includes terms that Uber will permanently deactivate a driver who refuses to pickup a rider with a Guide Dog. I once had a person bring a small dog and she kept the dog on her lap, and no issues whatsoever. But with bigger dogs that can shed, what if a driver doesn't want dog fur to get on the inside of the car? Can that driver charge a cleaning fee for all that dog fur? Since drivers are independent, and the car is a personal car and not company provided, can a drive sue for his independent contractor rights in refusing a ride?

http://dralegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Settlement_Agreement_Executed_w_Addenda.pdf


----------



## NachonCheeze (Sep 8, 2015)

For whatever reason... I can never locate the PAX. Just bad luck I guess . j/k


----------



## GrinsNgiggles (Oct 11, 2016)

NachonCheeze said:


> For whatever reason... I can never locate the PAX. Just bad luck I guess . j/k


Kinda what I was going to say. "Car trouble" "can't find you" "family emergency" then cancel


----------



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

I'm Chicago I heard Uber is being sued by the handicapped association for not providing enough wheelchair accessible cars. Im pretty sure lots of drivers would love to assist load wheel chairs for $3 at short distances.


----------



## GrinsNgiggles (Oct 11, 2016)

Ozzyoz said:


> I'm Chicago I heard Uber is being sued by the handicapped association for not providing enough wheelchair accessible cars. Im pretty sure lots of drivers would love to assist load wheel chairs for $3 at short distances.


Sounds like a completely new class of Uber cars needs to happen. Good luck with that Uber!


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

We have several threads on this. Long story short if it has service dog insignia - its not worth fighting them, even if its fake -# let them ride.

IMO if you dont see the insignia you can assume its just a personal dog and you are free to deny them.


----------



## Older Chauffeur (Oct 16, 2014)

Shangsta said:


> We have several threads on this. Long story short if it has service dog insignia - its not worth fighting them, even if its fake -# let them ride.
> 
> IMO if you dont see the insignia you can assume its just a personal dog and you are free to deny them.


But the ADA doesn't require any insignia/ID/certificate/vest etc., nor does the Justice Dept. issue any. Those are sold online without any proof of legitimate need or training of the dog.

You can only ask two questions, if it isn't obvious (guide dog for a blind person with a harness handle, for example.) You can ask if it is a service dog, and what task has it been trained to do. That's it.


----------



## Peanut hello (Sep 19, 2016)

Those wheelchair accessible van they use alot of gas, I rather wash the van than put fuel in it.


----------



## 7Miles (Dec 17, 2014)

I had one handicapped pax on Lyft Line the other day. Took us 20 minutes and $5 before Lyft fees . Very inconsiderate from his side ordering a low flat fee ride and me dealing with his equipment.


----------



## Older Chauffeur (Oct 16, 2014)

Two of my private, long time clients are now in wheel chairs, one full time and the other depending on how he feels on any given day and the distance he has to go with a walker. It indeed takes extra time and I sympathize with you drivers who barely make a livable wage off Uber. I'm billing them hourly, for as long as it takes. I'm also fortunate in that my clients have caregivers, with rare exceptions. At most I assist one lady into the car and fold the wheel chair, but having driven her for going on 30 years it doesn't seem like much of a burden. She has only been disabled the last couple of years.

It seems that in their rush to take over the world of transportation Uber has gone all out for everyone but the lynchpin of their business- their "partners."

Sorry- a bit off topic.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

GrinsNgiggles said:


> Kinda what I was going to say. "Car trouble" "can't find you" "family emergency" then cancel


All it takes is for one of them to report you and no amount of excuses will be enough.

If you can rely without uber funds in the event that you are permanently deactivated, feel free to risk it.

Although I think it would be sufficient to ask a cleaning fee if there's excessive fur? Don't think that's a violation? Probaly a quick $25?


----------



## the rebel (Jun 12, 2016)

I never thought of asking for a cleaning fee, but I have had service dogs in my car multiple times and I am allergic to them. Like it or not you have to take them.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

If Uber provide us with cars then fine. We can accept Dogs. What Uber fail to understand is that we use our personal cars. It has nothing to do with discrimination against anybody. It has to deal with us transporting our family members who could be alergic to Dogs. It has to do with i have no clue if this Dog is clean or not. They might be playing outside the whole day or have beach sand stuck on them. I would refuse to give a ride to any human who have dirty clothes. It is my Car. Uber discriminate against drivers who are not comfortable with having dogs. If i ever get in situation where i get deactivated because i refused to transport any kind of dog. I will file a lawsuit. Not all cars are handicapt friendly. So technically Uber only wants to transport dogs to make money only as they wont solve the issue with people with wheelchairs.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> If Uber provide us with cars then fine. We can accept Dogs. What Uber fail to understand is that we use our personal cars. It has nothing to do with discrimination against anybody. It has to deal with us transporting our family members who could be alergic to Dogs. It has to do with i have no clue if this Dog is clean or not. They might be playing outside the whole day or have beach sand stuck on them. I would refuse to give a ride to any human who have dirty clothes. It is my Car. Uber discriminate against drivers who are not comfortable with having dogs. If i ever get in situation where i get deactivated because i refused to transport any kind of dog. I will file a lawsuit. Not all cars are handicapt friendly. So technically Uber only wants to transport dogs to make money only as they wont solve the issue with people with wheelchairs.


Save yourself some time and money and get a Pro Se Lawyer. Because you will lose, and very few if any normal lawyers would take your case.

It is no longer "your car" when you agree to transport members of the public for the purpose of monetary gain. You are a cab driver, without the graphics or sign on top.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> If Uber provide us with cars then fine. We can accept Dogs. What Uber fail to understand is that we use our personal cars. It has nothing to do with discrimination against anybody. It has to deal with us transporting our family members who could be alergic to Dogs. It has to do with i have no clue if this Dog is clean or not. They might be playing outside the whole day or have beach sand stuck on them. I would refuse to give a ride to any human who have dirty clothes. It is my Car. Uber discriminate against drivers who are not comfortable with having dogs. If i ever get in situation where i get deactivated because i refused to transport any kind of dog. I will file a lawsuit. Not all cars are handicapt friendly. So technically Uber only wants to transport dogs to make money only as they wont solve the issue with people with wheelchairs.


In fact, you can be arrested for it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/07/deputies-uber-driver-refused-ride-to-blind-man-service-dog.html

*CRIME*

*Uber driver arrested for refusing ride to blind man and service dog, deputies say*

Published July 07, 2016
Associated Press

An Uber driver in Florida was arrested after deputies say he refused to transport a group of blind people and their service dogs.
According to news outlets, citing an arrest report, 60-year-old Simon Pierre Andre Nau was picking up Robert Stigile, who's blind, and other blind people in Stigile's group Monday night in Orlando.

Stigile says that when Nau showed up, he said, "I don't take dogs." Stigile explained the dogs were service animals and Nau allegedly replied "I don't care."

Stigile says he was standing in the open door frame and felt the car move forward, striking him.

Orange County Sheriff's deputies arrested Nau on charges of failure to transport a blind person with a service dog and battery.

Deputies say Nau laughed about the incident as if he "didn't fully understand that he had broken the law." It's unclear if Nau has an attorney.​


----------



## Sueron (Sep 16, 2016)

I carry a blanket for service dogs. I'm more than happy to accommodate a PAX that NEEDS a service dog. I keep it in my trunk, as I have cloth seats. As far as a wheelchair, I have a problem lifting something like that in and out of my trunk. I don't have the strength to lift a folded wheelchair. If need be, they can take a look at my tag. Not actually my tag.... but close!


----------



## FoeLife (Oct 25, 2016)

You understand and agree that you have a legal obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar state laws to transport Users with Service Animals (as defined by applicable state and federal law), including guide dogs for the blind and visually impaired Users, and *there is no exception to this obligation for allergies or religious objections*. Your knowing failure to transport a User with a Service Animal shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. You agree that a "knowing failure" to comply with this legal obligation shall constitute either: (1) a denial of a ride where you state the denial was due to a Service Animal; or (2) there is more than one (1) instance in which a User or the companion of a User alleges that you cancelled or refused a ride on the basis of a Service Animal.


----------



## GrinsNgiggles (Oct 11, 2016)

FoeLife said:


> You understand and agree that you have a legal obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar state laws to transport Users with Service Animals (as defined by applicable state and federal law), including guide dogs for the blind and visually impaired Users, and *there is no exception to this obligation for allergies or religious objections*. Your knowing failure to transport a User with a Service Animal shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. You agree that a "knowing failure" to comply with this legal obligation shall constitute either: (1) a denial of a ride where you state the denial was due to a Service Animal; or (2) there is more than one (1) instance in which a User or the companion of a User alleges that you cancelled or refused a ride on the basis of a Service Animal.


Well as a driver I also "need" a therapy dog. Thus, by law, I can bring mine while driving


----------



## FoeLife (Oct 25, 2016)

GrinsNgiggles said:


> Well as a driver I also "need" a therapy dog. Thus, by law, I can bring mine while driving


I don't believe its against ToS to have your dog with you while you drive unless your vehicle cannot meet the passenger requirements with your dog in the car. Just saying =)


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

WeirdBob said:


> In fact, you can be arrested for it.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/07/deputies-uber-driver-refused-ride-to-blind-man-service-dog.html
> 
> ...


Even if he got arrested that doesnt mean He is guilty when he proves that his Car is a personal Car. Not Uber's car. It is like you tell me if you want to sell your house and your house is not handicapt friendly then you can get arrested for it. Surely we have to be compation with the blind. But it is not only them who are unfortunate. Many other disability that Uber cars wont be able to accomidate. In another note, i would ask any person with a dog to provide me with a legal paper shows that their dog is service dog. No exception. I will take a picture of this document too. Im not there to police who is telling the truth and who is taking advantage of the loophole.


----------



## the rebel (Jun 12, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Even if he got arrested that doesnt mean He is guilty when he proves that his Car is a personal Car. Not Uber's car. It is like you tell me if you want to sell your house and your house is not handicapt friendly then you can get arrested for it. Surely we have to be compation with the blind. But it is not only them who are unfortunate. Many other disability that Uber cars wont be able to accomidate. In another note, i would ask any person with a dog to provide me with a legal paper shows that their dog is service dog. No exception. I will take a picture of this document too. Im not there to police who is telling the truth and who is taking advantage of the loophole.


You can rant and rave on here all you want, but legally you are a commercial operation once you start driving for rideshare and under the ADA laws you have to accommodate those with a disability, including having a service animal. You can be arrested and convicted pretty easily under those laws, and saying you own the car makes no difference.


----------



## UberLou (May 5, 2015)

It's the law, you cannot refuse service to Service Dogs period.


----------



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

FoeLife said:


> You understand and agree that you have a legal obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar state laws to transport Users with Service Animals (as defined by applicable state and federal law), including guide dogs for the blind and visually impaired Users, and *there is no exception to this obligation for allergies or religious objections*. Your knowing failure to transport a User with a Service Animal shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. You agree that a "knowing failure" to comply with this legal obligation shall constitute either: (1) a denial of a ride where you state the denial was due to a Service Animal; or (2) there is more than one (1) instance in which a User or the companion of a User alleges that you cancelled or refused a ride on the basis of a Service Animal.


Federal law is above state law so I guess I will let them ride and not refuse. I have leather seats and hopefully dogs can just sit on floor. Luckily all Mt blind riders so far only had a cane. I don't want to be charged on a federal crime. Let that dog in if its for a seeing blind person, better than me getting a criminal record. Uber already screws us on lots of stuff, imagine if a person gets a criminal record through Uber?


----------



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

WeirdBob said:


> In fact, you can be arrested for it.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/07/deputies-uber-driver-refused-ride-to-blind-man-service-dog.html
> 
> ...


Just be sure that if your refusing any kind of ride, be prepared for a passenger to accuse you of moving your car while your door is open or you hit them and stuff of that sort, they do get pissed off for the littlest of things and they can easily carelessly accuse you of something you never did. Happened to me, but store had footage of me and it never showed me speeding away from the guy with my door open as he tried to get in, but he actually accused me of that.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Even if he got arrested that doesnt mean He is guilty when he proves that his Car is a personal Car. Not Uber's car. It is like you tell me if you want to sell your house and your house is not handicapt friendly then you can get arrested for it. Surely we have to be compation with the blind. But it is not only them who are unfortunate. Many other disability that Uber cars wont be able to accomidate. In another note, i would ask any person with a dog to provide me with a legal paper shows that their dog is service dog. No exception. I will take a picture of this document too. Im not there to police who is telling the truth and who is taking advantage of the loophole.


First off, I hope you never get paired up with someone who has a service animal. These poor people don't deserve to be stuck with a driver like you.

If you do, however, give them a break, do your job! If you refuse to do your job, I hope you are deactivated, arrested and you learn an important lesson on the law. Drivers who refuse to take care of people with service animals p*** me off, and I have no problem seeing them burned.

Good luck with those windmills, Don Quixote.


----------



## Uberchampion (Oct 17, 2015)

Ozzyoz said:


> I read somewhere the the settlement includes terms that Uber will permanently deactivate a driver who refuses to pickup a rider with a Guide Dog. I once had a person bring a small dog and she kept the dog on her lap, and no issues whatsoever. But with bigger dogs that can shed, what if a driver doesn't want dog fur to get on the inside of the car? Can that driver charge a cleaning fee for all that dog fur? Since drivers are independent, and the car is a personal car and not company provided, can a drive sue for his independent contractor rights in refusing a ride?
> 
> http://dralegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Settlement_Agreement_Executed_w_Addenda.pdf


I'm confused....do you have to take the dog and the passenger or just the dog?....(joke)


----------



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

Uberchampion said:


> I'm confused....do you have to take the dog and the passenger or just the dog?


Both of them, if you do either you are still in deep shit.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Even if he got arrested that doesnt mean He is guilty when he proves that his Car is a personal Car. Not Uber's car. It is like you tell me if you want to sell your house and your house is not handicapt friendly then you can get arrested for it. Surely we have to be compation with the blind. But it is not only them who are unfortunate. Many other disability that Uber cars wont be able to accomidate. In another note, i would ask any person with a dog to provide me with a legal paper shows that their dog is service dog. No exception. I will take a picture of this document too. Im not there to police who is telling the truth and who is taking advantage of the loophole.


If you dont want to drive service dogs you have a choice. dont drive for Uber!


----------



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> If you dont want to drive service dogs you have a choice. dont drive for Uber!


I guess the nature of this job is to just let people do what they want and accept the fact that it is what it is. I used to be against working late hours fridays and saturdays for fear of people puking, but now I welcome it. Let them puke, I let them clean it or charge fee. The only thing that now worries me is a false accusation. Drivers have been falsely accused in the past.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

the rebel said:


> You can rant and rave on here all you want, but legally you are a commercial operation once you start driving for rideshare and under the ADA laws you have to accommodate those with a disability, including having a service animal. You can be arrested and convicted pretty easily under those laws, and saying you own the car makes no difference.


Then explain this to me. How can i accomidate people with manual wheel chairs? First am i required to carry them from their seat to my car? Second. What if their seat doesnt fit in the trunk? Am i supposed to tie it to the top of my car and be responsible for it? At least with taxis they have special cars for that. We are not talking about breaking the law. But being realistic regarding to a new business that has many flows. What if i had 4 blinde people with four dogs? Am i supposed to squeeze everybody in the car? Where do you draw the line without someone cry foul.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> If you dont want to drive service dogs you have a choice. dont drive for Uber!


How about i want to drive Uber. But i want the issue of service dogs to be fixed. Its simple to fix it. Have everyone open a rider account provide to uber that they have a service dog and they should also provide a picture of the dog. So when the driver get the ping they will know it is truely a service dog and not someone make up anything and if you question them they you are alone in your legal battle. Also it would be nice to ping drivers that opt in accepting service dog. If a guy in a wheel chair needs to order taxi. Then dont just hail any taxi. They call for special taxi that will let them get in and out easily.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

WeirdBob said:


> First off, I hope you never get paired up with someone who has a service animal. These poor people don't deserve to be stuck with a driver like you.
> 
> If you do, however, give them a break, do your job! If you refuse to do your job, I hope you are deactivated, arrested and you learn an important lesson on the law. Drivers who refuse to take care of people with service animals p*** me off, and I have no problem seeing them burned.
> 
> Good luck with those windmills, Don Quixote.


You are very judgmental. You assume that im a guy that doesnt like to help people because you read few words from my post and jump to conclusion. Just to let you know. I did accept a dog in my car before and i did get 5 stars for it. Im talking in general about how the law cant be fair to people who have their house hold members allergy and right now i do have someone who ride with me who is alergic to dogs. It is not about the law accomidating people in need. But in private cars the priority should be to the owner and his family. After all Uber let you use your own car. What if a company let you work from your house and you should meet people in your house to give them a product and then your house doesnt have easy access to wheelchair. Does that mean you are a bad person?. If some drivers have no issue with dogs Uber should allow a system to have those drivers to opt in to accept dogs. This way it is a win win situation to both drivers and riders. If there are not many drivers who opts in then that tells you something. Many drivers are not in favor and it was forced onto them. Shame on you wish me bad things because i have a family member who is alergic.


----------



## simpsonsverytall (Nov 6, 2015)

You have to be ignorant of the rules and self-incriminating to be legally fired or criminally prosecuted.

If you have some personal insanity/phobia regarding service dogs, simply scan the area upon approach, and take a screenshot of an excuse that you send to your passenger ("sorry having an emergency, please order another uber") before cancelling and driving away. 
If fired, you will then earn more from a settlement than you did driving.

Otherwise do like the rest of us, who simply drive the service dog that we get every 5oo trips.

In a perfect world, special needs Pax would have such an account, and drivers would stop by the Greenlight office for a 15minute 'class' to 'certify'. Special needs Pax would be paired w/ certified drivers who would get a 10cent/mile bonus as an incentive.

However, this is Uber, not your fantasy. Either cheat or play along.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

simpsonsverytall said:


> You have to be ignorant of the rules and self-incriminating to be legally fired or criminally prosecuted.
> 
> If you have some personal insanity/phobia regarding service dogs, simply scan the area upon approach, and take a screenshot of an excuse that you send to your passenger ("sorry having an emergency, please order another uber") before cancelling and driving away.
> If fired, you will then earn more from a settlement than you did driving.
> ...


Im confused. Can you or cant you opt in to accept service dog? If you dont opt in how can you know that the dog is a service dog? What if the blinde person had his own dog that is not service. Again WHERE FO YOU DRAW THE LINE?


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Im confused. Can you or cant you opt in to accept service dog? If you dont opt in how can you know that the dog is a service dog? What if the blinde person had his own dog that is not service. Again WHERE FO YOU DRAW THE LINE?


No you cant opt in or out to break the law. LOL are you serious? He is saying either follow the law or try to cheat by cancelling.

But if you get deactivated dont come crying here. You keep coming up with scenarios that will never happen (four service dogs at once) because clearly you dont care to help anyone.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> No you cant opt in or out to break the law. LOL are you serious? He is saying either follow the law or try to cheat by cancelling.
> 
> But if you get deactivated dont come crying here. You keep coming up with scenarios that will never happen (four service dogs at once) because clearly you dont care to help anyone.


My family comes first. Then helping people. Stop being judemental. If my kid get sick because of a service dog and gets proven he is alergic to dogs. I will sue Uber big time.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> My family comes first. Then helping people. Stop being judemental. If my kid get sick because of a service dog and gets proven he is alergic to dogs. I will sue Uber big time.


You do that, remind me how many service dogs have you gotten to this point?


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

I had 2 in the past 1000 rides. Did not cancel in any. Just started to realize that my son sneeze big time around dogs. If Uber provide me with a car. Then yes i wont let my son in it.

Also im not giving senarios that never going to happen. What if a group of blinde people with four or even two dogs decided to go some where.

I respect the law. But with Uber there are many things in the grey area.


----------



## UberHilly (Sep 22, 2016)

First, just because someone is blind they are not stupid, if four blind people wanted a ride they would order two cars, they want a second spot for their dog, not cram in and make their dog uncomfortable. 

Second, as others have tried to tell you, this is not Uber taking your choice away, IT IS THE LAW! It is the federal government that is telling you that if you work as a transporter of people (taxi, train, plain, bus etc.) you MUST accept a service animal or face persecution. It may suck that you feel that they should not be able to "trump" your issues (allergic person, cleanliness of your car) but that is what the government has done, like it or not. 

The only scenario that I have heard of that allowed someone to get away with denying a service dog was when that service dog became vicious and bit the taxi driver. This particular time the person claiming the dog was a service animal was betrayed by the dog.

As for people with assist devices (walkers, wheel chairs etc.), Uber has added UberAssist to the options (along with uberX, uberpoo, uberSelect, uberXL, uberBlack, uberTaxi) with drivers having to opt in to being able to receive pings for assist. Those that do not have the cars or ability to help people with these devices never have to opt in. Just hope that Uber educates the public well on this one.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> But in private cars the priority should be to the owner and his family. After all Uber let you use your own car.


If you want your private car to be private, don't open it up to the public. When you allow strangers in your car in exchange for pay, it is no longer a private car, it is a commercial vehicle. License plate or insurance are irrelevant, your car is a commercial vehicle and subject to the same laws as every other vehicle for hire.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

UberHilly said:


> First, just because someone is blind they are not stupid, if four blind people wanted a ride they would order two cars, they want a second spot for their dog, not cram in and make their dog uncomfortable.
> 
> Second, as others have tried to tell you, this is not Uber taking your choice away, IT IS THE LAW! It is the federal government that is telling you that if you work as a transporter of people (taxi, train, plain, bus etc.) you MUST accept a service animal or face persecution. It may suck that you feel that they should not be able to "trump" your issues (allergic person, cleanliness of your car) but that is what the government has done, like it or not.
> 
> ...


What if a driver have a fear of dogs or animals. Should they wait until they get bitten to opt out? And dont tell me just quit this Job. What if it is their only source of income. Im not against the law. However it should be looked at from both parties. Buses, trains and so on have conductors that dont interact directly with passengers. Taxi's and rideshare drivers have more challengs. At least most of taxi drivers have two cars. But rideshare drivers transport their family members too.

Im not trying to break the law as what i stated and i never refused any service dog whether the rider truthfull or not. But we need to advocate to change the law without labeling drivers who are not comfortable with having dogs as haters or they dont want to help.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

WeirdBob said:


> If you want your private car to be private, don't open it up to the public. When you allow strangers in your car in exchange for pay, it is no longer a private car, it is a commercial vehicle. License plate or insurance are irrelevant, your car is a commercial vehicle and subject to the same laws as every other vehicle for hire.


Our country is becoming very sensitive. People cry on everything. They make it sound like our way and only our way. I suggest solutions that will make everybody happy but you are sticking to one idea because you see it from your window only. You ignored the fact that those drivers who have their own fears of animals should not be discriminated against. Some people have weak heart when they see any type of a dog. Yet you insist wish them they burn and impose emotional abuse on them while they try to provide food on the table for their family. True we have to respect rules and we should not break them. But we live in a free country where we can advocate to change the rules. Im surprised that the law makes exceptions on case by case basis and hurt those that did not get hurt yet. We are slowly losing our freedom of speech because people like you impose abuse to those who express their opinion.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> What if a driver have a fear of dogs or animals. Should they wait until they get bitten to opt out? And dont tell me just quit this Job. What if it is their only source of income. Im not against the law. However it should be looked at from both parties. Buses, trains and so on have conductors that dont interact directly with passengers. Taxi's and rideshare drivers have more challengs. At least most of taxi drivers have two cars. But rideshare drivers transport their family members too.
> 
> Im not trying to break the law as what i stated and i never refused any service dog whether the rider truthfull or not. But we need to advocate to change the law without labeling drivers who are not comfortable with having dogs as haters or they dont want to help.


A fear of dogs does not trump the law. Try cancelling a ride on an African American person and telling Uber it is because you are afraid of black people.

This isnt complicated. If you are going to do rideshare you follow the law. if you cant follow the law dont do rideshare.

Uber doesnt owe you a job, the "this is my only source of income" excuse doesnt fly


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> A fear of dogs does not trump the law. Try cancelling a ride on an African American person and telling Uber it is because you are afraid of black people.
> 
> This isnt complicated. If you are going to do rideshare you follow the law. if you cant follow the law dont do rideshare.
> 
> Uber doesnt owe you a job, the "this is my only source of income" excuse doesnt fly


An african american person is a human being. He as any other human being can make a choice to do harm or not. However animals are not as smart as humans. Their moves are unpredictable specially with strangers. Your argument doesnt stand. There are even many cases where animals attacked their owners. You cant reason with a dog but you can with a human being.

Also in my opinion ride sharing is misundersood. You are not providing public service on a public property. You are providing a public service on a private property and the law should be changed. This has nothing to do with discrimination. Im sure 90% of drivers wont mind dogs whatsoever. But why do you want to punish those who dont want dogs for a reason or other. It boils always to the idea of my way or you are evil. No one asking to break any law here. But i hope the law changes.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Older Chauffeur said:


> But the ADA doesn't require any insignia/ID/certificate/vest etc., nor does the Justice Dept. issue any. Those are sold online without any proof of legitimate need or training of the dog.
> 
> You can only ask two questions, if it isn't obvious (guide dog for a blind person with a harness handle, for example.) You can ask if it is a service dog, and what task has it been trained to do. That's it.


If you question any rider for anything even nicely. Say goodbye to the 5 stars and just hope and pray you will get 2 stars if the rider think you are nice.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

Wrong, you are not discriminating against the dog. You are discriminating against the person who needs the service dog.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> Wrong, you are not discriminating against the dog. You are discriminating against the person who needs the service dog.


And the person who needs the service dog discriminating against drivers who fear dogs. They even can ruin their lives. Why not solve the issue logically and send a driver to that person who opt in to agree to transport dogs?


----------



## the rebel (Jun 12, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Then explain this to me. How can i accomidate people with manual wheel chairs? First am i required to carry them from their seat to my car? Second. What if their seat doesnt fit in the trunk? Am i supposed to tie it to the top of my car and be responsible for it? At least with taxis they have special cars for that. We are not talking about breaking the law. But being realistic regarding to a new business that has many flows. What if i had 4 blinde people with four dogs? Am i supposed to squeeze everybody in the car? Where do you draw the line without someone cry foul.


1st you are talking about breaking the law, as I and others have told you many times it is not Uber policy, it is the law. 2nd yes if someone orders and Uber and they are in a wheelchair than you will have to assist them with putting the chair in your car. You have to make reasonable accommodations. Yes it can suck, yes I have had to put many wheelchairs in my trunk, yes I have even been 1starred for not dropping someone off close enough to a wheelchair ramp after helping them with their chair. I and many others drivers as well as those passengers would prefer that Uber and Lyft had a better option for them, but since they don't we do it with a smile on our face.


----------



## the rebel (Jun 12, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> And the person who needs the service dog discriminating against drivers who fear dogs. They even can ruin their lives. Why not solve the issue logically and send a driver to that person who opt in to agree to transport dogs?


what part of it being a federal law do you not understand? Uber cannot make people with service dogs wait longer because a driver is scared of dogs it is illegal, if you are that scared of dogs than you need to quit driving, as the law and therefor Uber do not care. Also you want to complain about everybody being very sensitive, yet you are the one breaking the law by refusing to do the job you signed up to do because you are a *****.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

the rebel said:


> what part of it being a federal law do you not understand? Uber cannot make people with service dogs wait longer because a driver is scared of dogs it is illegal, if you are that scared of dogs than you need to quit driving, as the law and therefor Uber do not care. Also you want to complain about everybody being very sensitive, yet you are the one breaking the law by refusing to do the job you signed up to do because you are a *****.


Let him get deactivated or sued. His loss. There are many things to blame Uber for, this is not one of them.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Ozzyoz said:


> I'm Chicago I heard Uber is being sued by the handicapped association for not providing enough wheelchair accessible cars. Im pretty sure lots of drivers would love to assist load wheel chairs for $3 at short distances.


Uber doesn't provide any cars at all, not just wheelchair accessible ones.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

GrinsNgiggles said:


> Well as a driver I also "need" a therapy dog. Thus, by law, I can bring mine while driving


Service dogs and therapy dogs are not the same thing.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

DriveMeNot said:


> Even if he got arrested that doesnt mean He is guilty when he proves that his Car is a personal Car. Not Uber's car. It is like you tell me if you want to sell your house and your house is not handicapt friendly then you can get arrested for it. Surely we have to be compation with the blind. But it is not only them who are unfortunate. Many other disability that Uber cars wont be able to accomidate. In another note, i would ask any person with a dog to provide me with a legal paper shows that their dog is service dog. No exception. I will take a picture of this document too. Im not there to police who is telling the truth and who is taking advantage of the loophole.


There is no legal paper. Like I told the other poster, do some research.


----------



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

I_Like_Spam said:


> Uber doesn't provide any cars at all, not just wheelchair accessible ones.


But to the public eye it is Uber that is providing xl, select X cars and the public doesn't realize a driver is responsible for his car and all. This is some amazing stuff. A documentary should be made of this mess.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

the rebel said:


> what part of it being a federal law do you not understand? Uber cannot make people with service dogs wait longer because a driver is scared of dogs it is illegal, if you are that scared of dogs than you need to quit driving, as the law and therefor Uber do not care. Also you want to complain about everybody being very sensitive, yet you are the one breaking the law by refusing to do the job you signed up to do because you are a *****.


You are judgemental. If you looked carefully about what i wrote. I never said break the law. You just take what you want from my wordings. Im advocating to change the law so it could be a win win situation to everybody. Just since in your opinion that a driver should not fear dogs. That doesnt mean you can force your opinion on people and talking about a person in need cant wait long. This arguement is stupid. There are tons of cars and uber can match the person with any driver who opt in taking dogs. If the law changes to make it optional and very few drivers sign up to take dogs then you know there is a problem with our current law and it was forced on people. The solution is. 1. Change the law not break it (stop using forced abusive words with your narrow mind) 2. Let drivers that want to opt in to get 100% of the ride when there is a service dog. Stop acting like self rightoues. You are breaking the law by lying that i break laws. Shame on you.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> Let him get deactivated or sued. His loss. There are many things to blame Uber for, this is not one of them.


Thanks. I wont get deactivated. Actually Uber value me big time. And many disabled people wrote great comments about me. It is just you insist to use abusive wordings to force your opinion on me.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> There is no legal paper. Like I told the other poster, do some research.


Then every dog potentially could be a service dog


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Ozzyoz said:


> But to the public eye it is Uber that is providing xl, select X cars and the public doesn't realize a driver is responsible for his car and all. This is some amazing stuff. A documentary should be made of this mess.


Thanks. I like the way you think instead of just being narrow minded or a sheep just stuck on "you are breaking the law". No one asks anybody to break the law. But this issue is serious and needs investigation and potentially amending the law.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

The law would never change because people like you would use it to discriminate


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

DriveMeNot said:


> You are judgemental. If you looked carefully about what i wrote. I never said break the law. You just take what you want from my wordings. Im advocating to change the law so it could be a win win situation to everybody. Just since in your opinion that a driver should not fear dogs. That doesnt mean you can force your opinion on people and talking about a person in need cant wait long. This arguement is stupid. There are tons of cars and uber can match the person with any driver who opt in taking dogs. If the law changes to make it optional and very few drivers sign up to take dogs then you know there is a problem with our current law and it was forced on people. The solution is. 1. Change the law not break it (stop using forced abusive words with your narrow mind) 2. Let drivers that want to opt in to get 100% of the ride when there is a service dog. Stop acting like self rightoues. You are breaking the law by lying that i break laws. Shame on you.


The law is the way it is because unless businesses are forced to serve people with service dogs those people can't GET service, or at the very least, they have a lot of trouble getting it.

If drivers could opt out of taking service dogs, and many did, the people who need the dog would often find "no cars available" or the driver would be too far away to want the trip anyway.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> The law would never change because people like you would use it to discriminate


Trump will change alot. Hope he can win to give more power to the people. The current government control everything people do. Look how it is a mess obamacare. You are just a sheep follows instead of fighting for your rights. You want to force the idea that i want to discriminate because you choose to close your eyes regarding to my solutions.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The law is the way it is because unless businesses are forced to serve people with service dogs those people can't GET service, or at the very least, they have a lot of trouble getting it.
> 
> If drivers could opt out of taking service dogs, and many did, the people who need the dog would often find "no cars available" or the driver would be too far away to want the trip anyway.


Thanks for the opinion. I totally agree with you. But think about it this way. What did these people do before Uber? Took a cab? Thats because the cab is publically owned by a company. Uber cars are privetly owned. If many uber drivers dont sign up or opt in. Send a cab to the rider through the app with discounted price. Uber app supports taxi calling. This will be better than drivers will just cancel and pretend it was for another reason. This way the serviced person will wait longer. You have to remember something. Uber function in the grey area when it comes to laws. Uber will not help you if the dog bite you and cause damage to you and your car. People need to stop thinking everything is fine. The moment something wrong happen they will only suffer the conciquences and Uber wont be a partner to them.


----------



## the rebel (Jun 12, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> You are judgemental. If you looked carefully about what i wrote. I never said break the law. You just take what you want from my wordings. Im advocating to change the law so it could be a win win situation to everybody. Just since in your opinion that a driver should not fear dogs. That doesnt mean you can force your opinion on people and talking about a person in need cant wait long. This arguement is stupid. There are tons of cars and uber can match the person with any driver who opt in taking dogs. If the law changes to make it optional and very few drivers sign up to take dogs then you know there is a problem with our current law and it was forced on people. The solution is. 1. Change the law not break it (stop using forced abusive words with your narrow mind) 2. Let drivers that want to opt in to get 100% of the ride when there is a service dog. Stop acting like self rightoues. You are breaking the law by lying that i break laws. Shame on you.


Wow weren't you complaining about people becoming sensitive in a post just yesterday? Shame on me? How about shame on you for refusing to do your job and complaining that part of the job requires you to do something you are scared of? Sorry but irrational fear is not an excuse to break or change the law.

I am allergic to dogs, 2 weeks ago I had to quit driving go home take a shower and allergy medicine and lay down for a couple of hours after having a service dog that had not been bathed in a long time and was shedding all over in my car in my car. I have to pay to have someone clean my car or take my medicine before I do it and shower immediately afterwords when I vacuum my car after I have service dogs or people covered in dog hair in my car. it makes me physically sick.

I am not acting self righteous, in fact it is you that is acting self righteous, you do not like the law and want it changed because you do not like it. The laws are there to protect people with disabilities from people like you. Even with it causing real suffering in my case, I understand the law and the reason for it, while you seem to only worry about what you like.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

They were able to get the law passed through lobbying congress. You are free to do the same, go lobby in Washington to have allegies exempt from this ada law. That is your only option. No amount of wishing or arguing will change that fact. 

I have not gotten a service animal yet but if I do, and they are obvious, I will accept. Those that bring dogs and claim it as service, by law I can ask what it's trained to do. Then I will inform the pax that impersonating a service dog is against the law and I will report the ride as one with a service dog. Would you still like to continue? Hopefully the bluff will get those without a real service dog to say forget it...


----------



## CrazyT (Jul 2, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Then explain this to me. How can i accomidate people with manual wheel chairs? First am i required to carry them from their seat to my car? Second. What if their seat doesnt fit in the trunk? Am i supposed to tie it to the top of my car and be responsible for it? At least with taxis they have special cars for that. We are not talking about breaking the law. But being realistic regarding to a new business that has many flows. What if i had 4 blinde people with four dogs? Am i supposed to squeeze everybody in the car? Where do you draw the line without someone cry foul.


In a case like that, if the chair wont fit in your car, then they have to request another car. It's not your fault it won't fit. People who are out in wheelchairs alone and not using a service that has a wheelchair accessible vehicle are able to self-transfer in and out of vehicles. Even services that have special vehicles do not touch the passengers. assist with chair alignment for lifts and securing belts, but not touching the passengers. Under no circumstances put their equipment on top of your vehicle. Wouldn't want something flying.

In a case of 4 people all with service dogs, well that's too many pax for your vehicle as a dog would have to be counted as a pax to fit into the vehicle.

Any people in those situations can understand they have to call someone else, or a second vehicle as long as you're not a jerk about explaining it.

Just the other night I got a request and when I arrived, this gentlemen comes out with his chair. Now the Jiggly mobile is a Prius. The gentleman was also close to 6ft tall and well over 200 lbs, coming out of the dialysis center. He can transfer himself, stand and even walk very short distances. We actually got him into the front seat, I folded the back seats down, folded his chair and popped it right in the back. No problem. Right over to his place, got the chair out and he was on his way. When he saw the car he thought he was going to have to cancel and request someone else, but was surprised it fit. I've also had pax with those scooters that one leg kneels on, and those don't fold up.

As long as you can point to a justifiable and legal reason why you cannot take them, and by legal would you use this reason with a passenger without the equipment/service animal, then you can say no and they can't cry foul. If they suspect it's just because of the equipment/service animal, then you better be able to prove it. In the case of a wheelchair won't fit, easy to point to a too much luggage reason that would hold up as long as it's true.


----------



## REDcarpete (Aug 2, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> An african american person is a human being. He as any other human being can make a choice to do harm or not. However animals are not as smart as humans. Their moves are unpredictable specially with strangers. Your argument doesnt stand. There are even many cases where animals attacked their owners. You cant reason with a dog but you can with a human being.
> 
> Also in my opinion ride sharing is misundersood. You are not providing public service on a public property. You are providing a public service on a private property and the law should be changed. This has nothing to do with discrimination. Im sure 90% of drivers wont mind dogs whatsoever. But why do you want to punish those who dont want dogs for a reason or other. It boils always to the idea of my way or you are evil. No one asking to break any law here. But i hope the law changes.


You are offering your services to the public, therefore your vehicle is a public conveyance. If you are offering your services to the public, you have to comply with the rules. It is a violation of the ADA to not offer your services to a select group of the public. Age, sex, race, religion, national origin, physical disability etc. Pretty simple. It's a federal law, available for you to read and it's clear.

They are ordering a vehicle through Uber but you are the contractor accepting the ride. You are responsible for knowing and following the rules and regulations of the business you choose to be in.

When I just read these paragraphs to my dog, he nodded in agreement.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

REDcarpete said:


> You are offering your services to the public, therefore your vehicle is a public conveyance. If you are offering your services to the public, you have to comply with the rules. It is a violation of the ADA to not offer your services to a select group of the public. Age, sex, race, religion, national origin, physical disability etc. Pretty simple. It's a federal law, available for you to read and it's clear.
> 
> They are ordering a vehicle through Uber but you are the contractor accepting the ride. You are responsible for knowing and following the rules and regulations of the business you choose to be in.
> 
> When I just read these paragraphs to my dog, he nodded in agreement.


I have a question. What type of independent contractors are we? We never know the person that will get in the car with us and we never will know where we are taking them. Anybody could claim anything they want. If a service dog bite you then you are in your own with your legal battle. When it comes to Uber they bend laws to protect themselves only while if anything happen to you to them you are independent contractor. And since everybody is abusive towards me and thinking im trying to break the law i have decided to do the following and please tell me if there is anything illegal about it. If i would be in a situation where i have to transport a dog or a service dog. I will put them in a cage with small holes for them to breath in my SUV trunk. I need to feel protected while i dont break the law. If i get bad rating for doing that then i will file a lawsuit against Uber and the rider.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

CrazyT said:


> In a case like that, if the chair wont fit in your car, then they have to request another car. It's not your fault it won't fit. People who are out in wheelchairs alone and not using a service that has a wheelchair accessible vehicle are able to self-transfer in and out of vehicles. Even services that have special vehicles do not touch the passengers. assist with chair alignment for lifts and securing belts, but not touching the passengers. Under no circumstances put their equipment on top of your vehicle. Wouldn't want something flying.
> 
> In a case of 4 people all with service dogs, well that's too many pax for your vehicle as a dog would have to be counted as a pax to fit into the vehicle.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your point. This leads me to a question. According to what i understood from you If your car cant take the wheel chair then you can cancel and have them try again to request another car hoping that it will take the wheel chair. According to you this would be justifiable and legal reason. Then cant i just tell the rider my son is allergic to dogs. I would love to take you but i use this car to take my son to school everyday. Why wouldnt that be a justifiable reason? They dont even present a proof that the dog is a service dog. Why would i show them a proof that my son is allergic. This is my point, they need to change the rules to make the ride comfortable for both riders and drivers. It would be nice for the rider that they know Uber will send them a driver that opted in in transporting dogs than them feeling uncomfortable with a driver that this law was forced into them. And it would be nicer for the driver to know that he can still keep his job knowing that his family's interests comes first.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

the rebel said:


> Wow weren't you complaining about people becoming sensitive in a post just yesterday? Shame on me? How about shame on you for refusing to do your job and complaining that part of the job requires you to do something you are scared of? Sorry but irrational fear is not an excuse to break or change the law.
> 
> I am allergic to dogs, 2 weeks ago I had to quit driving go home take a shower and allergy medicine and lay down for a couple of hours after having a service dog that had not been bathed in a long time and was shedding all over in my car in my car. I have to pay to have someone clean my car or take my medicine before I do it and shower immediately afterwords when I vacuum my car after I have service dogs or people covered in dog hair in my car. it makes me physically sick.
> 
> I am not acting self righteous, in fact it is you that is acting self righteous, you do not like the law and want it changed because you do not like it. The laws are there to protect people with disabilities from people like you. Even with it causing real suffering in my case, I understand the law and the reason for it, while you seem to only worry about what you like.


Shame on you assuming that im not doing my Job. I never refused a service dog in my life. I just came to realization that my son is allergic and im advocating to change the law to make it better to drivers and riders. Uber does not care about disabled people. To them any ride is just a ride that makes money. If Uber cared about disabled people the best they could do is not make any commission from drivers who opt in to accept service dogs. This way if many drivers who dont have special case can opt in and be rewarded for it. Shame on you accusing me that the law was put to protect disable people from me. I was trying to give a win win solutions to everybody. Also another thought. You are selfish. At least you are allergic and you are fine with it. What would you do if your son was allergic. Are you going to watch his suffering to please the laws.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Thank you for your point. This leads me to a question. According to what i understood from you If your car cant take the wheel chair then you can cancel and have them try again to request another car hoping that it will take the wheel chair. According to you this would be justifiable and legal reason. Then cant i just tell the rider my son is allergic to dogs. I would love to take you but i use this car to take my son to school everyday. Why wouldnt that be a justifiable reason? They dont even present a proof that the dog is a service dog. Why would i show them a proof that my son is allergic. This is my point, they need to change the rules to make the ride comfortable for both riders and drivers. It would be nice for the rider that they know Uber will send them a driver that opted in in transporting dogs than them feeling uncomfortable with a driver that this law was forced into them. And it would be nicer for the driver to know that he can still keep his job knowing that his family's interests comes first.


The law is clear. The settlement with uber is clear. Allergies or religious objections does NOT exempt you from this federal law. There is no if ands or buts about it. Its black and white. No one is trying to abuse you but you arereally being hardheaded here. There is zero exemptions and if you believe that is a miscarriage of justice, you cannot fight it in your car at pickup. You fight that by lobbying law makers.

Service dogs perform life saving services in many cases, outside of seeing eye dogs. That is a life saving service that they cannot perform in a box with small holes in the cargo area. I doubt that would fly.

If the dog growls or attacks you, you can reject them but real service dogs are exceptionally trained and you'll be hard pressed to find a legitimate one misbehave.

The issue here is you do not understand why this law is so ridged. Its is specifically ridged to prevent denial of service. By allowing an opt in, you defacto allow an opt out. If you allow opt out, what happens when 90% of drivers opt out? Now the service dog owner is denied service at a regular and timely manner as those without the service dog. That is EXACTLY why the law exist, to prevent what you wish to make as a "compromise."

Face it man, unless you want to fight this and raise millions of dollars to lobby Washington, either accept the law at face value or stop driving. These are your only options.

If you truly care for your sons health about service animals, then your only option is it stop Ubering. Its that simple.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Shame on you assuming that im not doing my Job. I never refused a service dog in my life. I just came to realization that my son is allergic and im advocating to change the law to make it better to drivers and riders. Uber does not care about disabled people. To them any ride is just a ride that makes money. If Uber cared about disabled people the best they could do is not make any commission from drivers who opt in to accept service dogs. This way if many drivers who dont have special case can opt in and be rewarded for it. Shame on you accusing me that the law was put to protect disable people from me. I was trying to give a win win solutions to everybody. Also another thought. You are selfish. At least you are allergic and you are fine with it. What would you do if your son was allergic. Are you going to watch his suffering to please the laws.


No one is out to get you, do you see you are alone on this? The law is the law.

If my son is allergic to dogs and I knew I may drive a service dog I wouldnt drive Uber. Plenty of jobs that dont require interaction with dogs.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> No one is out to get you, do you see you are alone on this? The law is the law.
> 
> If my son is allergic to dogs and I knew I may drive a service dog I wouldnt drive Uber. Plenty of jobs that dont require interaction with dogs.


Im not alone with that. Just not many people here have issues with their kids allergic otherwise they will express their fraustration.

As a note about you quitting if your son is allergic. I wouldnt quit, i dont let any body mandate what i should do or not. Just if it is going to affect my son. I will work hard to change the law. We should respect laws but we shouldnt fear disagreeing with these laws and fight for our individual rights.

Have you noticed that you and many try to force the idea that im discriminating while i only ask for an individual right?


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

GrinsNgiggles said:


> Sounds like a completely new class of Uber cars needs to happen. Good luck with that Uber!


It's not as if HandiRide isn't available everywhere.


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Im not alone with that. Just not many people here have issues with their kids allergic otherwise they will express their fraustration.
> 
> As a note about you quitting if your son is allergic. I wouldnt quit, i dont let any body mandate what i should do or not. Just if it is going to affect my son. I will work hard to change the law. We should respect laws but we shouldnt fear disagreeing with these laws and fight for our individual rights.
> 
> Have you noticed that you and many try to force the idea that im discriminating while i only ask for an individual right?


You have to wonder if a rideSHARE situation is in the same category as a taxi. We can't drive unaccompanied minors around, there are differences, so perhaps this is one?


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

melusine3 said:


> You have to wonder if a rideSHARE situation is in the same category as a taxi. We can't drive unaccompanied minors around, there are differences, so perhaps this is one?


Unaccompanied minors is an Uber policy not a law. Providing equal service under the ADA is a law. You cant compare the two


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Always bring along two big towels and have them placed spread out in the trunk for the luggage to sit on. When you get a guide dog, just take the towels and spread them out over the backseat.


----------



## NedLumby (Aug 17, 2016)

I think we're glossing over the most important part here - even if it was legal to require people with service animals to register them with Uber, there's no way Uber would ever elect to use their time and resources to conduct such a program. They don't care that your son is allergic to dogs. They don't care about you or your family. They would undoubtedly argue that it's your choice to endanger your son because they have so kindly offered you a predatory xchange lease, which is so clearly a great solution for everyone!


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

melusine3 said:


> You have to wonder if a rideSHARE situation is in the same category as a taxi. We can't drive unaccompanied minors around, there are differences, so perhaps this is one?


It is not. That what i have been trying to show here. Everything with Uber falls in the grey area when there are laws.


----------



## the rebel (Jun 12, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Im not alone with that. Just not many people here have issues with their kids allergic otherwise they will express their fraustration.
> 
> As a note about you quitting if your son is allergic. I wouldnt quit, i dont let any body mandate what i should do or not. Just if it is going to affect my son. I will work hard to change the law. We should respect laws but we shouldnt fear disagreeing with these laws and fight for our individual rights.
> 
> Have you noticed that you and many try to force the idea that im discriminating while i only ask for an individual right?


I myself am highly allergic to dogs, my kids are allergic to a lessor degree than I am, and I choose to driver for Uber/Lyft knowing what the laws are, and not having an issue with them. You lose your right to individual rights when you own a service based company. There is no way around that fact, and as much as you want to claim individual rights, you choose to offer your services to the public so you must also choose to serve all the public, not just those you want to deal with. In the end you want to discriminate against people with disabilities because you do not like dogs, which is not much different than someone deciding the do not like mexicans or are scared of black people. Like it or not you will find little public support for your position, but are welcome to try lobbying congress, and why don't you notify the media while you are at it, people climbing into your car and paying your wages should know how you feel.


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Always bring along two big towels and have them placed spread out in the trunk for the luggage to sit on. When you get a guide dog, just take the towels and spread them out over the backseat.


This is an EXCELLENT idea for the upcoming rainy season! Nothing like the scent of wet dog in the car! That will definitely get you FIVE STARS! Yay! Oh, right, spray toxins in your enclosed car to eradicate the smell. Good one!


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Trump will change alot. Hope he can win to give more power to the people. The current government control everything people do. Look how it is a mess obamacare. You are just a sheep follows instead of fighting for your rights. You want to force the idea that i want to discriminate because you choose to close your eyes regarding to my solutions.


It's not as if city-run handicap buses aren't in existence. To force this issue on private car owners is just wrong. I'm not against actual guide dogs, but the proliferation of other assistance animals and the loose regulation of assigning assistance designation is my problem. You do know this could force you to accept a small assistance horse?


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> I have a question. What type of independent contractors are we? We never know the person that will get in the car with us and we never will know where we are taking them. Anybody could claim anything they want. If a service dog bite you then you are in your own with your legal battle. When it comes to Uber they bend laws to protect themselves only while if anything happen to you to them you are independent contractor. And since everybody is abusive towards me and thinking im trying to break the law i have decided to do the following and please tell me if there is anything illegal about it. If i would be in a situation where i have to transport a dog or a service dog. I will put them in a cage with small holes for them to breath in my SUV trunk. I need to feel protected while i dont break the law. If i get bad rating for doing that then i will file a lawsuit against Uber and the rider.


I would say a legitimate service animal would never turn on it's owner, nor on anyone else for that matter. It begs the question that if the government is requiring that we place ourselves in close contact with these animals, why don't they require these animals be thoroughly vetted and registered with an official document/card to prove they are indeed service animals? No more accepting these online documents!


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Shame on you assuming that im not doing my Job. I never refused a service dog in my life. I just came to realization that my son is allergic and im advocating to change the law to make it better to drivers and riders. Uber does not care about disabled people. To them any ride is just a ride that makes money. If Uber cared about disabled people the best they could do is not make any commission from drivers who opt in to accept service dogs. This way if many drivers who dont have special case can opt in and be rewarded for it. Shame on you accusing me that the law was put to protect disable people from me. I was trying to give a win win solutions to everybody. Also another thought. You are selfish. At least you are allergic and you are fine with it. What would you do if your son was allergic. Are you going to watch his suffering to please the laws.


Wait... wouldn't these calls fall under the "assistance" Uber? As such, opt-in or -out?


----------



## brendon292 (Aug 2, 2016)

Ozzyoz said:


> I'm Chicago I heard Uber is being sued by the handicapped association for not providing enough wheelchair accessible cars. Im pretty sure lots of drivers would love to assist load wheel chairs for $3 at short distances.


You forgot to mention, shell out the money to buy a wheelchair accessible van. I don't know exact prices but I know they're damn expensive.


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

brendon292 said:


> You forgot to mention, shell out the money to buy a wheelchair accessible van. I don't know exact prices but I know they're damn expensive.


You would think this is one of the first things Uber would do with driverless vehicles.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

melusine3 said:


> Wait... wouldn't these calls fall under the "assistance" Uber? As such, opt-in or -out?


I believe the only type of assistant that you are required to accept with all type of cars is the Service Dog. This is by itself is discrimination in my opinion where you force drivers to accept only one type of assistant and the other you can make any excuse to avoid (example: wheelchair wont fit in the car)


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Ozzyoz said:


> I read somewhere the the settlement includes terms that Uber will permanently deactivate a driver who refuses to pickup a rider with a Guide Dog. I once had a person bring a small dog and she kept the dog on her lap, and no issues whatsoever. But with bigger dogs that can shed, what if a driver doesn't want dog fur to get on the inside of the car? Can that driver charge a cleaning fee for all that dog fur? Since drivers are independent, and the car is a personal car and not company provided, can a drive sue for his independent contractor rights in refusing a ride?
> 
> http://dralegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Settlement_Agreement_Executed_w_Addenda.pdf


Cleaning fee? Of $1.50 for vaccum ?
I do not intend to Punish the blind for being blind.
Their dogs are welcome in my car.
Life is hard enough for them without an Uber driver adding to it.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Cleaning fee? Of $1.50 for vaccum ?
> I do not intend to Punish the blind for being blind.
> Their dogs are welcome in my car.
> Life is hard enough for them without an Uber driver adding to it.


This has nothing to do with discrimination. If i get a rider who is blind or not blind but their clothes are dirty or they have sand from the beach i have the right to refuse their service. Just it will be simply a matter of discrimination if the service dog is dirty and you refuse the service. People can cry to the government for any reason.


----------



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Cleaning fee? Of $1.50 for vaccum ?
> I do not intend to Punish the blind for being blind.
> Their dogs are welcome in my car.
> Life is hard enough for them without an Uber driver adding to it.


Same here, if its a guide let it shed. The blind need transportation more than regular people and never have i refused a blind rider. I haven't had one with a dog yet, but the dog will be welcome. I have leather seats so I caniterally just blow the fur away.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> This has nothing to do with discrimination. If i get a rider who is blind or not blind but their clothes are dirty or they have sand from the beach i have the right to refuse their service. Just it will be simply a matter of discrimination if the service dog is dirty and you refuse the service. People can cry to the government for any reason.


The blind are protected by laws.
Laws that I happen to agree with and support. I do not need force of law to want to do the right thing for them. Apparently, some people do need the force of law as motivation.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> The blind are protected by laws.
> Laws that I happen to agree with and support. I do not need force of law to want to do the right thing for them. Apparently, some people do need the force of law as motivation.


Like what? Think about the following scenario:

Christians always believe in Marriage between a man and a woman only. It has been like that throughout the whole history.
What did forcing the law did? The law discriminated against their freedom of religion. If a Christian wedding cake store owners refuse to bake a cake for gay couple then they will have their business destroyed. If churches refuse to commence gay couple wedding ceremony then they will lose their tax deductions.

Aren't you noticing that the government is interfering too much in people's person lives? Soon they will turn all humans to machines.

I'm not saying don't respect laws. We need to respect laws because without laws, we will have a country with no order. However, I talk about selective laws that are meant to serve people on the expense of other people.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> Like what? Think about the following scenario:
> 
> Christians always believe in Marriage between a man and a woman only. It has been like that throughout the whole history.
> What did forcing the law did? The law discriminated against their freedom of religion. If a Christian wedding cake store owners refuse to bake a cake for gay couple then they will have their business destroyed. If churches refuse to commence gay couple wedding ceremony then they will lose their tax deductions.
> ...


The taxis follow the rules.
If we want to be in this business,we need to do the same.
ADA has a purpose.
It would not be needed if people acted correctly.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> The taxis follow the rules.
> If we want to be in this business,we need to do the same.
> ADA has a purpose.
> It would not be needed if people acted correctly.


This is where the grey area at. Most taxi drivers dont owe their cars and also taxi companies have special handicapped cars. UberX basically utilizes your own car. Mind you that Uber can get away with many laws that cab drivers have to go through.


----------



## Red Leader (Sep 4, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Like what? Think about the following scenario:
> 
> Christians always believe in Marriage between a man and a woman only. It has been like that throughout the whole history.
> What did forcing the law did? The law discriminated against their freedom of religion. If a Christian wedding cake store owners refuse to bake a cake for gay couple then they will have their business destroyed. If churches refuse to commence gay couple wedding ceremony then they will lose their tax deductions.
> ...


This is what you're going with? Seriously?


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Red Leader said:


> This is what you're going with? Seriously?


I was replying to someone who said that some people need the force of the law to get motivation. So I gave a senario where it is being abused. You have a problem with that?


----------



## Red Leader (Sep 4, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> I was replying to someone who said that some people need the force of the law to get motivation. So I gave a senario where it is being abused. You have a problem with that?


Your example is so far off the mark I'm not sure you could be more wrong if you tried.

You get 5 stars for drama though.


----------



## Samuel ad (Oct 30, 2016)

Big deal! Simply help out as Much as possible, guide dogs, wheel chairs, walkers, I have had them all...its simply not an issue. Do the right thing and help the ones who need help-it's part of your/our job.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

Red Leader said:


> Your example is so far off the mark I'm not sure you could be more wrong if you tried.
> 
> You get 5 stars for drama though.


cant you tell his rights are being infringed? How dare he be expected to help someone with a service dog, hes an Uber driver! he can do what he wants!


----------



## Red Leader (Sep 4, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> cant you tell his rights are being infringed? How dare he be expected to help someone with a service dog, hes an Uber driver! he can do what he wants!


There ya go. What everyone misses in all this is.....you can refuse seeing guide dogs and service dogs. There's an exception to every rule. Thing is....real service dogs are virtually never a problem. I've seen one. And even that was debatable.

Everyone's a victim now a days.


----------



## CrazyT (Jul 2, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Thank you for your point. This leads me to a question. According to what i understood from you If your car cant take the wheel chair then you can cancel and have them try again to request another car hoping that it will take the wheel chair. According to you this would be justifiable and legal reason. Then cant i just tell the rider my son is allergic to dogs. I would love to take you but i use this car to take my son to school everyday. Why wouldnt that be a justifiable reason? They dont even present a proof that the dog is a service dog. Why would i show them a proof that my son is allergic. This is my point, they need to change the rules to make the ride comfortable for both riders and drivers. It would be nice for the rider that they know Uber will send them a driver that opted in in transporting dogs than them feeling uncomfortable with a driver that this law was forced into them. And it would be nicer for the driver to know that he can still keep his job knowing that his family's interests comes first.


Too much luggage is justifiable. Allergies are not covered under any law to protect you so they are not valid reasons to deny service.

If you want full control over who you permit in your vehicle, stop doing rideshare.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

CrazyT said:


> Too much luggage is justifiable. Allergies are not covered under any law to protect you so they are not valid reasons to deny service.
> 
> If you want full control over who you permit in your vehicle, stop doing rideshare.


This is the only answer. No amount of arguing this will change the law. The law says allergies is not exempt. If you do not like the law, you can work to change it but while it is active law you follow it.

You owning the car does not exempt you. Someone owns that taxi. Someone owns every business that exist. They all must comply as you do. If you don't want your son exposed to dog hair, you have freedom - the freedom to stop doing ride share.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

DriveMeNot said:


> Like what? Think about the following scenario:
> 
> Christians always believe in Marriage between a man and a woman only. It has been like that throughout the whole history.
> What did forcing the law did? The law discriminated against their freedom of religion. If a Christian wedding cake store owners refuse to bake a cake for gay couple then they will have their business destroyed. If churches refuse to commence gay couple wedding ceremony then they will lose their tax deductions.
> ...


Slavery has been around for most of history. Much longer than Christians, for that matter. Still is around, in many places. So using that as an argument is pretty weak.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Slavery has been around for most of history. Much longer than Christians, for that matter. Still is around, in many places. So using that as an argument is pretty weak.


Nations stood against slavery throughout the history. But homosexual marriage is not normal. You cant have kids and babies and build a family. Anyways gay people can do whatever they want but they cant force it on Christians and just run to the government to punish those who dont support it. They destroyed bussinesses because they want everybody to accept what they do is normal and the current government support them with that.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

CrazyT said:


> Too much luggage is justifiable. Allergies are not covered under any law to protect you so they are not valid reasons to deny service.
> 
> If you want full control over who you permit in your vehicle, stop doing rideshare.


Then it is time to advocate to change the law. My family takes priority. The government did alot to muslims before to accomidate their religious need with so many things. Such as headscarfs. They need to accomedate my Son's condition too.


----------



## NedLumby (Aug 17, 2016)

You're saying that you want the government to step in to interfere with Uber's business practices to protect your right not to have to vacuum your car the one out of every 500 rides you have to take a dog in your car, but you don't want the government to step in when businesses illegally discriminate against gays.

You can't have it both ways. Uber does not want you to deny service to people with dogs, service or not. Uber wants you to take everybody everywhere. The hands-off government you claim you want will certainly not step in to help you in this circumstance.

Religious freedom does not allow you to commit crimes. Discrimination is a crime and homosexuality is a protected class. Plenty of people still think their religion tells them interracial marriage is a sin, and they're allowed to think that all they want, but if you open a business in this country you're not allowed to deny service to people based on the color of their skin or who someone wants to screw. If you don't like it, write a letter to all your local government officials and see if they take someone who writes at a fifth grade level seriously.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

DriveMeNot said:


> Nations stood against slavery throughout the history. But homosexual marriage is not normal. You cant have kids and babies and build a family. Anyways gay people can do whatever they want but they cant force it on Christians and just run to the government to punish those who dont support it. They destroyed bussinesses because they want everybody to accept what they do is normal and the current government support them with that.


So you don't believe in adoption, sperm donation, in vitro fertilization etc. for straight infertile couples either? Everything has to be "normal" by YOUR definition?

Of course gay couples can "have" children if they want. Besides, what if they don't want children? What if a straight couple doesn't want children?

"Nations stood against slavery"? What does THAT mean? That bit by bit civilized nations decided it was not ok? The way they're now deciding gay marriage IS ok?

How is anything being forced on anyone? No one is forcing a straight person to marry someone of the same sex. And how is a gay couple "destroying businesses"?


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Then it is time to advocate to change the law. My family takes priority. The government did alot to muslims before to accomidate their religious need with so many things. Such as headscarfs. They need to accomedate my Son's condition too.


If your family is your priority and animal hair is that big of an issue. Stop. Driving. Immediately.

Then lobby your politicians to change the law. When the laws change, you can resume driving for Uber.

Case closed.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

NedLumby said:


> You're saying that you want the government to step in to interfere with Uber's business practices to protect your right not to have to vacuum your car the one out of every 500 rides you have to take a dog in your car, but you don't want the government to step in when businesses illegally discriminate against gays.
> 
> You can't have it both ways. Uber does not want you to deny service to people with dogs, service or not. Uber wants you to take everybody everywhere. The hands-off government you claim you want will certainly not step in to help you in this circumstance.
> 
> Religious freedom does not allow you to commit crimes. Discrimination is a crime and homosexuality is a protected class. Plenty of people still think their religion tells them interracial marriage is a sin, and they're allowed to think that all they want, but if you open a business in this country you're not allowed to deny service to people based on the color of their skin or who someone wants to screw. If you don't like it, write a letter to all your local government officials and see if they take someone who writes at a fifth grade level seriously.


Thanks for your opinion, but think about the following:

1. I was talking to someone about how it doesnt make sense for the government to force itself to push people to do things that might be considered in the grey area. I never said stop helping the blind, i came with solutions that are win win to everybody. Also you make it sound simple that i vacuum the car. When you work all night long and get back home in the dark and then you will have to take your kid to school in the morning. It is not that simple and it happens once every 100 ride. You cant make light of this situation. It is like you are telling me if someone has a peanut butter allergy it is ok to try it once every 500 meals. You are illogical.

About gay rights. No one advocating hate. Christianity teaches love towards all people. However, homosexuality is considered a sin. The same way a man and a woman have sex outside of marrige. Also believe it or not. 90% of the population on this earth dont think it is normal. However, they got their rights to get married. But not that only, they started to cry like babies. They purposly want Chrisitan groups to be forced to recognize what they do is normal. They are willing to go as far as closing all Christian Bussinesses and Churches. Dont you see that they discriminate with the purpose to hurt? They could go to any none christian wedding cake bakery to get their cake however they want to impose their lifestyle on Christians by going to their stores and then cry to the government. This is a religious persecution.

Also how do you draw the line between what is normal and what is not normal. Some religions teach it is ok to marry more than one wife. Are you going to accomidate them in the future here by saying "love wins". Some people love their family members. Sisters and brothers. Are you going to give them rights? Some sick people love kids, are you going to consider that normal after 100 years from now when you say its the way their brain thinks and we should allow it. It is not that complicated. Marriage is between a man and woman because it is natural behaviour and the normal intention of the creator. If you want to sin thats fone with me but dont force your sinfull lifestyle on me. Thats not your bussiness or the government bussiness. I live in USA and i have the freedom of practice my faith. If you want to change my faith for your own agenda then you are no different than saudi arabia or iran or north korea.

Wow now anybody doesnt agree with the gay lifestyle is a crime. This is scary. Almost more than the half of population consider it as a sin. They wont open their mouths because the government will take actions against their job and against their bussiness. Obama destroyed this county's principles.


----------



## CrazyT (Jul 2, 2016)

You want to compare saying it's that it's ok to wear religious head coverings which 1) don't effect anyone else and 2) are not just Muslim to making accommodations for an allergy that would effect service to others? Seriously I haven't heard such close minded, self righteous fecal waste in a long time, and I have family members who are literally card carrying klan. 

Just call it a day and stop driving until such time as laws change. However change is a very long, slow process. 

Btw change to accommodate every little thing because some special snowflake felt slighted is what's wrong with the world. People need to grow up, put on their big girl panties and suck it up.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> So you don't believe in adoption, sperm donation, in vitro fertilization etc. for straight infertile couples either? Everything has to be "normal" by YOUR definition?
> 
> Of course gay couples can "have" children if they want. Besides, what if they don't want children? What if a straight couple doesn't want children?
> 
> ...


Please tell me the this is ok to force Christians to agree with gay marriage even if this will go against their faith. Big example how the gay agenda trying to destroy religions:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...es-appeal-gay-cake-discrimination-conviction/


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> If your family is your priority and animal hair is that big of an issue. Stop. Driving. Immediately.
> 
> Then lobby your politicians to change the law. When the laws change, you can resume driving for Uber.
> 
> Case closed.


No i wont stop but i wont break the law. But the moment this causes a negative impact on me and my family my case in court will be stronger. We became a nation where we take light of situations and only we take action when something wrong happens. Like the taxi driver who got bitten by a service dog, now he doesnt have to quit what he does for living but he got permission slip to reject taking service dogs.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

CrazyT said:


> You want to compare saying it's that it's ok to wear religious head coverings which 1) don't effect anyone else and 2) are not just Muslim to making accommodations for an allergy that would effect service to others? Seriously I haven't heard such close minded, self righteous fecal waste in a long time, and I have family members who are literally card carrying klan.
> 
> Just call it a day and stop driving until such time as laws change. However change is a very long, slow process.
> 
> Btw change to accommodate every little thing because some special snowflake felt slighted is what's wrong with the world. People need to grow up, put on their big girl panties and suck it up.


No my point is the Obamas goverment is always afriad from muslims. They try to do everything to accomedate their complicated religious needs. Soon if a muslim driver reject a service dog because of his faith ... not because his son is allergic ... he will he hailed as hero and win million of dollars.

Your problem is you want to make changes without thinking if this change is good or not. Many changes enhanced life..but other changes robbed people their freedom.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> No i wont stop but i wont break the law. But the moment this causes a negative impact on me and my family my case in court will be stronger. We became a nation where we take light of situations and only we take action when something wrong happens. Like the taxi driver who got bitten by a service dog, now he doesnt have to quit what he does for living but he got permission slip to reject taking service dogs.


Permission slip? What is this, kindergarten? Please link to the actual source that says that this Taxi driver is permanently exempt from the ADA law because of a previous incident of being bitten. After much google searching, this is the closest I could come to a Taxi driver previously being bitten and refusing to pickup service dogs: https://adata.org/news/cabbie-loses-ada-suit-after-refusing-ride-service-dog

Note: he was fired and both his lawsuits in state and federal court were denied.

I'm not in full disagreement with you, but I also understand why the law exists. I agree that service animals should be certified and verifiable. Outside of that, I know and understand why Service Animals have such a law in place because they were being denied service regularly. If you have an allergic condition that prevents you from performing your job as an independent contractor, then it's time to look for another form of income.

I highly doubt, regardless of how much you lobby Washington, that this law will be softened because if it is softened to the point that you want it to then it becomes null and void, defeating the purpose of the law to begin with. If you do not want your son to be affected by dog hairs in your car, then your only option is to stop taking people in your vehicle with ride share.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> This is the only answer. No amount of arguing this will change the law. The law says allergies is not exempt. If you do not like the law, you can work to change it but while it is active law you follow it.
> 
> You owning the car does not exempt you. Someone owns that taxi. Someone owns every business that exist. They all must comply as you do. If you don't want your son exposed to dog hair, you have freedom - the freedom to stop doing ride share.


We respect the law even if we dont agree with it. However the government has many laws that are not clear and open to interpertations.

The constitution grant me the freedom of religion. My faith teaches me that i should not agree with gay marriage but i should love all people.

The government says you cant discriminate against homosexuals.

If i open a store that bake wedding cake. And i get a homosexual couple want me to back a cake with two men or two women on top of the cake. Then you are asking me to do something against my faith.

Remember the constitution grants me freedom of religion. But the law wants to destroy my business.

My point is not all laws are clear enough. Some are made with an agenda behind them to have people worship the government instead of their God.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> Permission slip? What is this, kindergarten? Please link to the actual source that says that this Taxi driver is permanently exempt from the ADA law because of a previous incident of being bitten. After much google searching, this is the closest I could come to a Taxi driver previously being bitten and refusing to pickup service dogs: https://adata.org/news/cabbie-loses-ada-suit-after-refusing-ride-service-dog
> 
> Note: he was fired and both his lawsuits in state and federal court were denied.
> 
> ...


I dont have the link but someone mentioned it here.

Let me ask you this question. Lets say you have a friend who needed pickup from a party and then you go there to pick him up and then he tells you he has a blind friend that needs a ride with a service dog. And you denied to take him because your son is allergic and you need to take him to school next morning. Can the law lock you up for that?


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> I dont have the link but someone mentioned it here.
> 
> Let me ask you this question. Lets say you have a friend who needed pickup from a party and then you go there to pick him up and then he tells you he has a blind friend that needs a ride with a service dog. And you denied to take him because your son is allergic and you need to take him to school next morning. Can the law lock you up for that?


If I'm off the clock and only transporting a friend, then I am within my rights to say no to the service animal. You are just terrible at analogies. When you are driving Uber, you become a commercial for hire service. People are paying you for service. Once you are receiving payment for transportation services, you have to adhere to ADA law.

I'm really not sure how this is so difficut for you to understand?

...and your going to rely your entire argument, putting your source of income at stake, for heresay? I linked you to an article that shows the federal judge will not exempt you even after claiming your fear and previous bite incident. So what's your next ludicrous rebuttal?


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> If I'm off the clock and only transporting a friend, then I am within my rights to say no to the service animal. You are just terrible at analogies. When you are driving Uber, you become a commercial for hire service. People are paying you for service. Once you are receiving payment for transportation services, you have to adhere to ADA law.
> 
> I'm really not sure how this is so difficut for you to understand?
> 
> ...and your going to rely your entire argument, putting your source of income at stake, for heresay? I linked you to an article that shows the federal judge will not exempt you even after claiming your fear and previous bite incident. So what's your next ludicrous rebuttal?


I also said many times im not here to break the law. I still pick up service dogs when i get the request. I just argue about changing the law for certain situation. Stop making this argument as personal attack.


----------



## NedLumby (Aug 17, 2016)

If you want me to respond to statistics, please cite them. Much of your argument is based on "believe it or not."

If your religion tells you that treating gay people with dignity and respect is the same thing as "supporting" them, then it's your religion that prevents you from running a successful business, not the government. In this country, if you run a business, you have to treat everybody equally. If I ran a business, and I decided not to serve people whose religions focus on teaching them that discrimination and hate are different concepts, instead of focusing on making sure their adult paritioners learn how to spell, the government would jump in to protect you.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> I also said many times im not here to break the law. I still pick up service dogs when i get the request. I just argue about changing the law for certain situation. Stop making this argument as personal attack.


You are a very misguided individual who is too stubborn to listen to points counter of your own but I will say. If you want to rideshare, vacuum your car out after you drive the service animal. Your son will live. My wife is allergic to dogs, she has been fine riding in our car.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

NedLumby said:


> If you want me to respond to statistics, please cite them. Much of your argument is based on "believe it or not."
> 
> If your religion tells you that treating gay people with dignity and respect is the same thing as "supporting" them, then it's your religion that prevents you from running a successful business, not the government. In this country, if you run a business, you have to treat everybody equally. If I ran a business, and I decided not to serve people whose religions focus on teaching them that discrimination and hate are different concepts, instead of focusing on making sure their adult paritioners learn how to spell, the government would jump in to protect you.


Thats just a pure execuse to make sin beautiful. The fact is my faith teaches me so much about loving everybody in this life. Only those who want to live in sin oppose it.

So if the government decided that at one point it is ok to have a man marry four wives. Should i just bow down to that because i will be called discriminatory if i dont support it.

Another fact check: if i run a business i would never deny any service to anybody. I had many gay people ride with me and i got 5 stars from them. However, i would not want to participate in their wedding ceremony. If uber makes a new service called UberWedding and ask me to go pick up two gay couples in their wedding day, that i will refuse because it is against my faith and principles. Im sure the christian bakrey wouldnt mind to bake cake for gay people but they have the complete right not to serve a cake that honor their marriage.

It is funny how many stores here in USA can post signs that says we have the right to refuse service to customers for any reason. Only when it deals with muslims and gays you see big lawsuits.

Why cant gay people go to the many bakeries that would honor their weddings and leave Christians alone. They advocate to use the government for their agenda of destroying faith.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> My family comes first. Then helping people. Stop being judemental. If my kid get sick because of a service dog and gets proven he is alergic to dogs. I will sue Uber big time.


Good luck with that. If you have the funds to sue Uber what the heck are you doing driving Uber X?


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> Good luck with that. If you have the funds to sue Uber what the heck are you doing driving Uber X?


I only would sue when i know i have a solid case. I wont do it randomely. Im sure if it is going to be a winning case many will fund me.

Laws and rules are not for the rich only.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> Why cant gay people go to the many bakeries that would honor their weddings and leave Christians alone. They advocate to use the government for their agenda of destroying faith.


Really? You have to ask? It's called discrimination.


----------



## Fenwitch (Sep 4, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The law is the way it is because unless businesses are forced to serve people with service dogs those people can't GET service, or at the very least, they have a lot of trouble getting it.
> 
> If drivers could opt out of taking service dogs, and many did, the people who need the dog would often find "no cars available" or the driver would be too far away to want the trip anyway.





Fuzzyelvis said:


> The law is the way it is because unless businesses are forced to serve people with service dogs those people can't GET service, or at the very least, they have a lot of trouble getting it.
> 
> If drivers could opt out of taking service dogs, and many did, the people who need the dog would often find "no cars available" or the driver would be too far away to want the trip anyway.


 Ok, let's play devil's advocate.

AnUber driver with a severe allergy to dogs has a service dog in their car. During a sneezing attack they lose control of the vehicle and crash. Who is at fault?


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> I only would sue when i know i have a solid case. I wont do it randomely. Im sure if it is going to be a winning case many will fund me.
> 
> Laws and rules are not for the rich only.


It will never be a winning case so long as the ADA law exist in its current form. A lawyer will gladly take your retainer paid in full to file your suit, but the outcome will not be in your favor much like the taxi driver whose state and federal law suits were dismissed that I linked above.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Fenwitch said:


> Ok, let's play devil's advocate.
> 
> AnUber driver with a severe allergy to dogs has a service dog in their car. During a sneezing attack they lose control of the vehicle and crash. Who is at fault?


The driver for knowingly accepting Ubers terms of service which reitterates requirement to comply with federal regulation regarding service animals.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> I only would sue when i know i have a solid case. I wont do it randomely. Im sure if it is going to be a winning case many will fund me.
> 
> Laws and rules are not for the rich only.


Dream on.  You'll walk in with one lawyer. Uber will show up with 20 plus a few million to grease the gears of justice. How do you think they bypassed livery laws; with a "Go fund me" project?

The taxi industry (at least our company does) has cars assigned to pets/service animals. Blaim Uber for not providing an "opt out" for their driver with allergies. Of course, they'd still have to provide enough drivers to handle the service animal orders they get.

They (Uber) usually farm out wheel chair orders to a local cab company to comply with wheelchair law requirements.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> Really? You have to ask? It's called discrimination.


Yes i have the right to ask. Lets say there is a club that serve women only. If you enter this club you can get kicked out if you are a man. Isnt that a discrimination based on gender? Or only when the issue is concering gay people everybody freak out.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> You are a very misguided individual who is too stubborn to listen to points counter of your own but I will say. If you want to rideshare, vacuum your car out after you drive the service animal. Your son will live. My wife is allergic to dogs, she has been fine riding in our car.


You look at issues from your own lense only. Does your wife ride with you everyday? Does she has school in the morning? Are you willing to vacuum your car at 2:00 am?


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> Dream on.  You'll walk in with one lawyer. Uber will show up with 20 plus a few million to grease the gears of justice. How do you think they bypassed livery laws; with a "Go fund me" project?


If someone allergic to peanuts and uber force them to eat peanuts and die. Do you think their 20 lawyers will help them? Stop being scared from big companies. There is something called human rights.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> It will never be a winning case so long as the ADA law exist in its current form. A lawyer will gladly take your retainer paid in full to file your suit, but the outcome will not be in your favor much like the taxi driver whose state and federal law suits were dismissed that I linked above.


My lawsuit wont be there to change the ADA law (even though i believe they should make exceptions). I will sue Uber for not providing a safe environment for the driver. We as drivers are forced to follow the ADA rule without Uber providing the right tool for our safey and family safety. In otherwords, if i get bitten by a dog or if my son gets sick. We all know anyways that Uber function in the grey area when it comes to safety anyways and their lawyers just trying to burry the idea as long as they could.


----------



## NedLumby (Aug 17, 2016)

You're using the cake example because it suits you. You simply can't deny goods and services to one group of people that you provide to another group.

Plenty of people think sex outside of marriage is a sin and that divorce is a sin. You're either 
a) advocating for laws that would allow the only grocery store in town to refuse to sell groceries to single moms because they're "sinful" and they "can't support sin" or 
b) advocating that the government step in and decide that denying someone a cake is okay, but denying them other groceries is not, and dedicate a ton of resources and time dealing with sorting all that out. What if it's a gay couple buying a wedding cake for their straight friends? Can a store deny them the cake then? I don't know, let's tie up the court system for months and spend tons of taxpayer money. 

Given that you want the government to step in and protect you against Uber's policy, which is that you are required to take all service dogs, is it the latter? I thought you were against big government intervening in people's businesses.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Fenwitch said:


> Ok, let's play devil's advocate.
> 
> AnUber driver with a severe allergy to dogs has a service dog in their car. During a sneezing attack they lose control of the vehicle and crash. Who is at fault?


People dont like to look at situations here. I have been giving them many situations and all what they answer is. IT IS THE ALMIGHTY ADA RULE.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> Yes i have the right to ask. Lets say there is a club that serve women only. If you enter this club you can get kicked out if you are a man. Isnt that a discrimination based on gender? Or only when the issue is concering gay people everybody freak out.


Nobody gives a hoot about male or female clubs. Things get real sticky when people refuse service based on religion or sexual preference.

It's not that difficult to understand.


----------



## NedLumby (Aug 17, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> If someone allergic to peanuts and uber force them to eat peanuts and die. Do you think their 20 lawyers will help them? Stop being scared from big companies. There is something called human rights.


If Uber goes into the candy bar business and you accept a job as a candy bar taste tester even though you're allergic to peanuts, you would have no case. Correct.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> If someone allergic to peanuts and uber force them to eat peanuts and die. Do you think their 20 lawyers will help them? Stop being scared from big companies. There is something called human rights.


The solution is simple. Start your own cab company and dedicate part of your fleet to service these orders you're worried about. That's what the cab industry does.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> The driver for knowingly accepting Ubers terms of service which reitterates requirement to comply with federal regulation regarding service animals.


This is very true my sister in her line of work is around animals she is allergic to. By accepting the job she assumes the risk of being around the animals and she also is smart enough to take medication to lesson her symptons.

If you take allergy medicine, the chances of you having a bad enough sneeze attack that you lose control of your car is miniscule


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

NedLumby said:


> You're using the cake example because it suits you. You simply can't deny goods and services to one group of people that you provide to another group.
> 
> Plenty of people think sex outside of marriage is a sin and that divorce is a sin. You're either
> a) advocating for laws that would allow the only grocery store in town to refuse to sell groceries to single moms because they're "sinful" and they "can't support sin" or
> ...


Actually you misunderstood everything i said. I didnt say a christian bakery should deny serving cake to gay couple. But they have the right not to customize it for their wedding as if they want a statue of two men or two women at the top of the cake. As i said before. I give ride to everybody even gay people. But i wont trasport gay people to their wedding if Uber ask me to do so.

The issue is more about denying service to people. Everybody are sinners and need salvation. It is more of not participate in sinful ceremonies.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> You look at issues from your own lense only. Does your wife ride with you everyday? Does she has school in the morning? Are you willing to vacuum your car at 2:00 am?


Another weak argument. You would not have a service dog everyday. At most you would get one once a week. You cant vacuum your car once a week?


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> Nobody gives a hoot about male or female clubs. Things get real sticky when people refuse service based on religion or sexual preference.
> 
> It's not that difficult to understand.


But it is still discrimination based on sex. Im a man and they wont let me in.

You are not getting the point. Gay people try to goto christian stores and harras owners because of their faith. They know the government have their back.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> Another weak argument. You would not have a service dog everyday. At most you would get one once a week. You cant vacuum your car once a week?


Sneeze attack can happen from one time.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> Actually you misunderstood everything i said. I didnt say a christian bakery should deny serving cake to gay couple. But they have the right not to customize it for their wedding as if they want a statue of two men or two women at the top of the cake. As i said before. I give ride to everybody even gay people. But i wont trasport gay people to their wedding if Uber ask me to do so.
> 
> The issue is more about denying service to people. Everybody are sinners and need salvation. It is more of not participate in sinful ceremonies.


Funny how you use the bakery example. That bakery you're talking about is ( was. they went out of business and closed their door) in Portland....not a great town to discriminate in.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> Actually you misunderstood everything i said. I didnt say a christian bakery should deny serving cake to gay couple. But they have the right not to customize it for their wedding as if they want a statue of two men or two women at the top of the cake. As i said before. I give ride to everybody even gay people. But i wont trasport gay people to their wedding if Uber ask me to do so.
> 
> The issue is mot about denying service to people. Everybody are sinners and need salvation. It is more of not participate in sinful ceremonies.


Every month or so this topic gets a new thread and folks like you rant about how you shouldn't have to do this or that. It's the law. You are not an employee, you are an independent contractor. Part of the service you agreed to contract with Uber to provide involves service animals. If you can't work with pets for whatever reason then don't accept the contract.

IT''S THE LAW whether you agree or not, like it or not, .... Argue all you want and sue all you want. You won't be able to find a decent attorney to take the case and they will make you pay up front. No one will take your case on contingency because it's a loser. Please crawl out of your cave and stop denying reality.


----------



## NedLumby (Aug 17, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Actually you misunderstood everything i said. I didnt say a christian bakery should deny serving cake to gay couple. But they have the right not to customize it for their wedding as if they want a statue of two men or two women at the top of the cake. As i said before. I give ride to everybody even gay people. But i wont trasport gay people to their wedding if Uber ask me to do so.


You're talking in circles now, this isn't fun anymore. I sincerely hope as the world passes your antiquated and hateful views by, that you find a way to become more open minded, because there's nobody out there with any kind of power that has both your economic and social interests in mind.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> If someone allergic to peanuts and uber force them to eat peanuts and die. Do you think their 20 lawyers will help them? Stop being scared from big companies. There is something called human rights.


Why in the world would Uber force you to eat peanuts? I swear, your analogy skills are beyond subpar...



DriveMeNot said:


> My lawsuit wont be there to change the ADA law (even though i believe they should make exceptions). I will sue Uber for not providing a safe environment for the driver. We as drivers are forced to follow the ADA rule without Uber providing the right tool for our safey and family safety. In otherwords, if i get bitten by a dog or if my son gets sick. We all know anyways that Uber function in the grey area when it comes to safety anyways and their lawyers just trying to burry the idea as long as they could.


Uber is bound by a law suit by federal judges to uphold federal law. Your lawsuit will go absolutely nowhere because you have agreed to the terms of uber services.

If the dog bites you, regardless of if they are service animals or if they were in your vehicle or not, the owner will be liable for their dogs action. You can sue the dog owner in such cases but that fear of that possibility does not exempt you from the law. It will do nothing to make uber liable as they have been directed by federal judges to comply with such laws.



DriveMeNot said:


> People dont like to look at situations here. I have been giving them many situations and all what they answer is. IT IS THE ALMIGHTY ADA RULE.


This is the power of federal law. Feel the burn, feel ittttt.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> Funny how you use the bakery example. That bakery you're talking about is ( was. they went out of business and closed their door) in Portland....not a great town to discriminate in.


There are over 10 stories so far similar to what happened.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> But it is still discrimination based on sex. Im a man and they wont let me in.
> 
> You are not getting the point. Gay people try to goto christian stores and harras owners because of their faith. They know the government have their back.


"Christians" pound on my front door every Sunday trying to sell me their version of "god". ;-)

Why do I have to put up with this form of harassment?


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> "Christians" pound on my front door every Sunday trying to sell me their version of "god". ;-)
> 
> Why do I have to put up with this form of harassment?


These are not christians. They are jahovas witnesses. I dont like their way of going from door to door.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Im going to give one more scenario. I want someone to expalin to me what would happen to the driver:

We all know that dogs dont wear seatbelts in the car. Lets say an Uber driver accepted a service dog. This Uber driver is very safe driver with 0 records of accidents and been driving over 30 years. At an intersection a cross traffic car cut a red light but since our driver is very caustious he hit the break and avoided an accident and saved his life and the blind man's life. But too bad since the dog did not wear a seatbelt. The head of the dog slammed on the window and broke her neck and died.

Tell me if Uber is going to help you in this situation. Tell me how much money you will pay from your own pocket to compansate for what happened.

At least with taxi drivers their company cover them with special insurance.

Because you wanted to be a good citizen and follow rules by fear of being deactivated. Your life is ruined.

This is all of my point about service dogs. You have personal liability more than trains, buses, and taxis. Because Uber work in the grey area when there are laws.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Im going to give one more scenario. I want someone to expalin to me what would happen to the driver:
> 
> We all know that dogs dont wear seatbelts in the car. Lets say an Uber driver accepted a service dog. This Uber driver is very safe driver with 0 records of accidents and been driving over 30 years. At an intersection a cross traffic car cut a red light but since our driver is very caustious he hit the break and avoided an accident and saved his life and the blind man's life. But too bad since the dog did not wear a seatbelt. The head of the dog slammed on the window and broke her neck and died.
> 
> ...


You come up with the worse scenarios. The driver who ran the red light would be liable for the dogs death, not you.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> You come up with the worse scenarios. The driver who ran the red light would be liable for the dogs death, not you.


You didnt read what i said. There was no accident. Just the dog died because of your harsh break. Dogs dont wear seatbelts.

It is ok to discriminate against families and refuse to give them a ride because they dont have baby seat or booster seat. But if anything happens to the dog you will have to pay $15,000 to $50,000 from your own pocket.

Uber insurance is iffy.

Of course i will bring in the worst case scenarios. They could happen to anyone and ruin someone's life.


----------



## Shangsta (Aug 15, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Of course i will bring in the worst case scenarios.


I didnt say worst case scenario I said you come up with the worst scenarios meaning they dont make sense.

A service dog would not fly through a window in an accident because it is not buckled in. They are trained to sit on the ground in cars. They dont sit with their tongue hanging out the window like the cartoons.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> You didnt read what i said. There was no accident. Just the dog died because of your harsh break. Dogs dont wear seatbelts.
> 
> It is ok to discriminate against families and refuse to give them a ride because they dont have baby seat or booster seat. But if anything happens to the dog you will have to pay $15,000 to $50,000 from your own pocket.
> 
> ...


I suppose when I argue with an idiot on the internet it just makes me dumber but I can't resist. 
First off, do you know what the value of a pet is in a law suit or insurance proceeding? Nothing. Second, yes, they can sue for loss of services, etc... but it just belies your ignorance. Anyone who says sue this, sue that, ... has never been involved in a law suit. It takes money and a great deal of effort to initiate a suit. Most reasonable people won't bother and guess what, once in a while, bad things happen to good people. It's called life. If you weren't an argumentative moron about this and actually lived your life to minimize all of these stupid risks you pull out of your butt, you would be crouching in fear inside your house.

Grow up, obey the law and do unto others as you would have them do unto you, in other words try being nice to other people who are not just like you. Even those dirty heathen gays deserve to be treated with kindness and respect


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Shangsta said:


> I didnt say worst case scenario I said you come up with the worst scenarios meaning they dont make sense.
> 
> A service dog would not fly through a window in an accident because it is not buckled in. They are trained to sit on the ground in cars. They dont sit with their tongue hanging out the window like the cartoons.


And you keep defending with worst reasons to avoid thinking of what would happen to you if you are in this situation.

I didnt say the dog's head will be hanging outside the window. I said he could die because of the harsh break. Maybe his head got stuck under your seat and his neck broke.

The point is who is liable? You think Uber and its insurance comapny covering service dogs? Think again.

Be prepared to pay over $15,000 to replace the dog.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Disgusted Driver said:


> I suppose when I argue with an idiot on the internet it just makes me dumber but I can't resist.
> First off, do you know what the value of a pet is in a law suit or insurance proceeding? Nothing. Second, yes, they can sue for loss of services, etc... but it just belies your ignorance. Anyone who says sue this, sue that, ... has never been involved in a law suit. It takes money and a great deal of effort to initiate a suit. Most reasonable people won't bother and guess what, once in a while, bad things happen to good people. It's called life. If you weren't an argumentative moron about this and actually lived your life to minimize all of these stupid risks you pull out of your butt, you would be crouching in fear inside your house.
> 
> Grow up, obey the law and do unto others as you would have them do unto you, in other words try being nice to other people who are not just like you. Even those dirty heathen gays deserve to be treated with kindness and respect


Will you say what you say to avoid thinking about the situation. The easy thing to do is start a personal attack to shut someone.

My scenario could happen. A service dog cost between $15,000 to $50,000 depending on the training. Only you will be responsible to pay for damages since no insurance will cover you. You are just making light of the situation because you want to put it in denial. Surely it might be rare that it happens. But it could happen and it could ruin someone's life. The ADA rule was meant for comapnies who cover their drivers. Taxies, Buses, trains, and planes they all cover situatuions to protect their drivers.

You will be on your own if something like that happen to you with Uber.

This is why either Uber be clear about what will happen to the service dog if he die in your car rules?. You dont even transport babies without baby seat because you will be liable.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> Will you say what you say to avoid thinking about the situation. The easy thing to do is start a personal attack to shut someone.
> 
> My scenario could happen. A service dog cost between $15,000 to $50,000 depending on the training. Only you will be responsible to pay for damages since no insurance will cover you. You are just making light of the situation because you want to put it in denial. Surely it might be rare that it happens. But it could happen and it could ruin someone's life. The ADA rule was meant for comapnies who cover their drivers. Taxies, Buses, trains, and planes they all cover situatuions to protect their drivers.
> 
> ...


ADA is not a rule, it's LAW. Regardless of who you think it was meant for, it applies to you if you drive for hire.

Your scenario could happen, like I said, bad things happen to good people sometimes. So never drive, never own property, never venture outside your apartment, something bad might happen to you. You can't protect against any and all risk so you take prudent steps to limit your exposure and go on about your life. Worrying about a service dog dying in your car is a bit much. A quick google search finds several service animals hit by cars but not a single one that dies in a car. So I'm thinking you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning while your lotto numbers are called.

In the unlikely event it occurs, here's a web site that's thoroughly pro animal, telling you that your best bet might be to sue in small claims court.

http://aldf.org/resources/when-your...med/damages-for-death-or-injury-of-an-animal/

Hardly a life ruiner, if all went in their direction which is unlikely, it's capped at whatever the max is in your state (2-10K) which should not be life ruining and is unlikely at best. So lets stop beating this dead horse and accept that like it or not, ADA is the law of the land. It may not be fair to all but it's the law.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Disgusted Driver said:


> ADA is not a rule, it's LAW. Regardless of who you think it was meant for, it applies to you if you drive for hire.
> 
> Your scenario could happen, like I said, bad things happen to good people sometimes. So never drive, never own property, never venture outside your apartment, something bad might happen to you. You can't protect against any and all risk so you take prudent steps to limit your exposure and go on about your life. Worrying about a service dog dying in your car is a bit much. A quick google search finds several service animals hit by cars but not a single one that dies in a car. So I'm thinking you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning while your lotto numbers are called.
> 
> ...


I liked this post of yours more than the previous one.

Anyways, yes the Law is the Law. It is the transportation company's job to complay with the Law to protect riders and drivers and their properties and dogs.

Taxi drivers, buses, trains all protected if something like that happens. I want to see from Uber's insurance company any coverages that will protect the driver if something like that happens.

Also 2 - 10k is too much in todays economy. Dont forget Uber drivers barely make the minimum wage while they try to put food on the table. Again you cant treat this situation lightly.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> I liked this post of yours more than the previous one.
> 
> Anyways, yes the Law is the Law. It is the transportation company's job to complay with the Law to protect riders and drivers and their properties and dogs.
> 
> ...


 Given that the event has likely never happened, should you worry about it. There has been one known incident of a meteorite striking a person so don't go outside and live under an impervious metal roof.

I don't know if it's the transportation companies job to comply but Uber has cast itself not as a transportation company but as providing you the IC with leads. So by your reasoning, you are responsible.

Not going to debate anymore, you pick and choose what you reply to and your interpretations of fact are clouded with your bias and emotion.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Disgusted Driver said:


> Given that the event has likely never happened, should you worry about it. There has been one known incident of a meteorite striking a person so don't go outside and live under an impervious metal roof.
> 
> I don't know if it's the transportation companies job to comply but Uber has cast itself not as a transportation company but as providing you the IC with leads. So by your reasoning, you are responsible.
> 
> Not going to debate anymore, you pick and choose what you reply to and your interpretations of fact are clouded with your bias and emotion.


Then as IC i wont transport dogs unless Uber provide me with a proof that im insured. In that case Uber is the one that is not complying with the ADA rules because they havent followed all the rules to protect both riders and drivers.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> I liked this post of yours more than the previous one.
> 
> Anyways, yes the Law is the Law. It is the *transportation company's job* to complay with the Law to protect riders and drivers and their properties and dogs.
> 
> ...


Guess what, as an Independent Contractor, you ARE the transportation company so it is your job to comply with the laws. We are not Uber employees, we all assume our own level of risk when driving. Uber is technically the technology company that links passengers to drivers, but you yourself are a contractor providing services to the passengers.

In the likelihood of a service animal dying from a hard break situation, given the million to one chance of that happening, that's one that I would leave for the chips to fall.



DriveMeNot said:


> Then as IC i wont transport dogs unless Uber provide me with a proof that im insured. In that case Uber is the one that is not complying with the ADA rules because they havent followed all the rules to protect both riders and drivers.


I don't think you understand how IC works. Uber is not obligated to provide you wish such coverage or proof of coverage. If you choose not to transport that service animal without proof of coverage, you can do so by insuring your Partner App is flipped to the left in the OFFLINE position until you receive such proof of coverage.

Uber is complying with the ADA law. There was a law suit that was settled recently about it. They paid upwards of $300,000 for the settlement as well as issuing in their TOS that all drivers must comply with ADA as it is written or face immediate deactivation. That's the term of their settlement. It is up to you on what level of liability you are willing to expose yourself to.

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-service-animals-20160715-snap-story.html


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> Guess what, as an Independent Contractor, you ARE the transportation company so it is your job to comply with the laws. We are not Uber employees, we all assume our own level of risk when driving. Uber is technically the technology company that links passengers to drivers, but you yourself are a contractor providing services to the passengers.
> 
> In the likelihood of a service animal dying from a hard break situation, given the million to one chance of that happening, that's one that I would leave for the chips to fall.
> 
> ...


So in conclusion you are telling me i need to buy my own commercial insurance to protect myself since im the company while if a service dog ride with me.

Knowing that the commercial insurance is expensive, not sure if it is worth it for UberX income.

No wonder taxi drivers laugh at us. They know that we are not fully protected.

All what i notice from what you say and everybody say. If it is easy issue it is Uber's problem. If it is hard issue, its your problem as IC.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Then as IC i wont transport dogs unless Uber provide me with a proof that im insured. In that case Uber is the one that is not complying with the ADA rules because they havent followed all the rules to protect both riders and drivers.





DriveMeNot said:


> So in conclusion you are telling me i need to buy my own commercial insurance to protect myself since im the company while if a service dog ride with me.
> 
> Knowing that the commercial insurance is expensive, not sure if it is worth it for UberX income.
> 
> ...


Now you're finally getting it.


----------



## Toonces-the-cat (Jun 7, 2016)

Ozzyoz said:


> I read somewhere the the settlement includes terms that Uber will permanently deactivate a driver who refuses to pickup a rider with a Guide Dog. I once had a person bring a small dog and she kept the dog on her lap, and no issues whatsoever. But with bigger dogs that can shed, what if a driver doesn't want dog fur to get on the inside of the car? Can that driver charge a cleaning fee for all that dog fur? Since drivers are independent, and the car is a personal car and not company provided, can a drive sue for his independent contractor rights in refusing a ride?
> 
> http://dralegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Settlement_Agreement_Executed_w_Addenda.pdf


Why would anyone refuse a guide dog?


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Toonces-the-cat said:


> Why would anyone refuse a guide dog?


Allergies ....


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

DriveMeNot said:


> Thanks for your opinion, but think about the following:
> 
> 1. I was talking to someone about how it doesnt make sense for the government to force itself to push people to do things that might be considered in the grey area. I never said stop helping the blind, i came with solutions that are win win to everybody. Also you make it sound simple that i vacuum the car. When you work all night long and get back home in the dark and then you will have to take your kid to school in the morning. It is not that simple and it happens once every 100 ride. You cant make light of this situation. It is like you are telling me if someone has a peanut butter allergy it is ok to try it once every 500 meals. You are illogical.
> 
> ...


I'm not even going to bother arguing with all the homophobic crap you're spewing, but getting back to the allergy issue: it's SO difficult to get home and vacuum, but then you say that's only 1 in 100 rides. So how is it that big a deal? Actually in over 1500 rides I've had a service dog once. He got a lot less fur in my car than my own dogs do, and was much better behaved.

You can never take your kid on any uber or taxi though, since he might have to deal with fur. My car is definitely not allergen free. I have 4 dogs and foster cats, which ride to adoption events every weekend.

Incidentally I have severe asthma and I'm allergic to cats and dogs. I get 4 allergy shots every 2 weeks. If your kid is as allergic as you say, get him to an allergist and on allergy shots. Regular docs are clueless and the shots really help, but it takes about 6 months to a year to really kick in. You can get them 3 times a week to build up to your maximum dose and then go to every 2 weeks.

I'm allergic to horses, weeds, trees, molds, grasses, cockroaches etc ad nauseum also. The number of shots depends on how allergic you are. I am VERY allergic. Your kid msy not need 4 shots. Most people don't. Luckily it's all inhalent for me, not foods. I eat trail mix in my car so if pax have nut allergies I guess they can't ride with me either.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

DriveMeNot said:


> People dont like to look at situations here. I have been giving them many situations and all what they answer is. IT IS THE ALMIGHTY ADA RULE.


But it IS. If you don't like that, try to get the law changed. But until and unless you succeed, too bad.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

DriveMeNot said:


> Actually you misunderstood everything i said. I didnt say a christian bakery should deny serving cake to gay couple. But they have the right not to customize it for their wedding as if they want a statue of two men or two women at the top of the cake. As i said before. I give ride to everybody even gay people. But i wont trasport gay people to their wedding if Uber ask me to do so.
> 
> The issue is more about denying service to people. Everybody are sinners and need salvation. It is more of not participate in sinful ceremonies.


I feel sorry for your son if he turns out to be gay.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

DriveMeNot said:


> We respect the law even if we dont agree with it. However the government has many laws that are not clear and open to interpertations.
> 
> The constitution grant me the freedom of religion. My faith teaches me that i should not agree with gay marriage but i should love all people.
> 
> ...


How is putting plastic figures on a cake against your religion? Where is THAT in your bible? It's not as if the couple is trying to get you to have sex with them.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

DriveMeNot said:


> But it is still discrimination based on sex. Im a man and they wont let me in.
> 
> You are not getting the point. Gay people try to goto christian stores and harras owners because of their faith. They know the government have their back.


Oh, you mean like this man was harassing the shop owners for not serving him?


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> These are not christians. They are jahovas witnesses. I dont like their way of going from door to door.


No they weren't. But who cares? Same coin, different sales pitch.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> Then as IC i wont transport dogs unless Uber provide me with a proof that im insured. In that case Uber is the one that is not complying with the ADA rules because they havent followed all the rules to protect both riders and drivers.


Read the agreement you signed off on to drive for Uber. In particular, page 9. If you think you have insurance coverage via Uber, you're wrong. They can sue the driver to recover any funds James River might pay out.

As an "independent contractor" you carry your own commercial insurance policy for your protection.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> No wonder taxi drivers laugh at us. They know that we are not fully protected.


Speaking for myself, I don't laugh at you. But I do get a bit annoyed when an Uber driver insists on spewing the "I have coverage through Uber," line.

If "partners" would actually read their agreement before signing up, they'd know Uber has written the contract in a way they can toss the drivers under the bus.

The reason cabs cost what they do is because we know the true operating costs. So for (some) Uber drivers to constantly spew how expensive cabs are becomes a bit amusing.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

DriveMeNot said:


> There are over 10 stories so far similar to what happened.


But only one, that I know of, made national headlines.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

*Q: *Refusing guide dog can result in deactivation? (title of topic)

*A:* Yes.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I feel sorry for your son if he turns out to be gay.


He wont. I will train him to be a man. Its as simple as that. Being gay is a choice. Many take it out of fear to deal with the opposit gender. No one is born gay. The same way no one is born a thief. It is a choice. We all born with sinful nature. The moment you trust in Christ. He will save you from this sin and you will live what is normal and what God intended for you. Satan's job is to distord the truth.

I know in my heart now that you laugh inside you about what i just said. Just think of this. What if it is the truth?

It is obvious that it is the truth because in this life what is normal and goes with the creator's intention gets blessings. Those who twist what is normal lose blessings but it is never too late for them. Any gay person can become straight if they trust in God the creator.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> How is putting plastic figures on a cake against your religion? Where is THAT in your bible? It's not as if the couple is trying to get you to have sex with them.


The bible is not a manuel where is has sections to do or not to do. The bible says that homosexuality is a sin. Thats why i wont participate in any of their ceremonies. The same way i wont go to a theif house and have dinner with him knowing that he stole the food. It is common sense.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Oh, you mean like this man was harassing the shop owners for not serving him?
> 
> View attachment 72863


Your picture is totally different than what i talk about. In your picture you are talking about racisem. It would be similar to my point if the guy is being harrased because he demands from the business to make something for him that they disagree with. Not because customers are racist. Your example doesnt hold to my ideas.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> No they weren't. But who cares? Same coin, different sales pitch.


No not really. It is different. Christians believe in Jesus is God. JW believe he is just a god. So they are not the same sales pitch. We Christians are more realistic in dealing with witnessing. We dont bother people. We preach and those who have ears to listen is free to listen.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> Read the agreement you signed off on to drive for Uber. In particular, page 9. If you think you have insurance coverage via Uber, you're wrong. They can sue the driver to recover any funds James River might pay out.
> 
> As an "independent contractor" you carry your own commercial insurance policy for your protection.


Then whats the point of James River insurance?


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> He wont. I will train him to be a man. Its as simple as that. Being gay is a choice. Many take it out of fear to deal with the opposit gender. No one is born gay. The same way no one is born a thief. It is a choice. We all born with sinful nature. The moment you trust in Christ. He will save you from this sin and you will live what is normal and what God intended for you. Satan's job is to distord the truth.
> 
> I know in my heart now that you laugh inside you about what i just said. Just think of this. What if it is the truth?
> 
> It is obvious that it is the truth because in this life what is normal and goes with the creator's intention gets blessings. Those who twist what is normal lose blessings but it is never too late for them. Any gay person can become straight if they trust in God the creator.


Ok, I'll bite before a Moderator reels us back into reality.

So you believe attraction to a male by a male is a choice. In order for this to be considered a choice, one must believe that everyone is capable of such a choice. So you are capable of such a choice? Is it being a "sin" the only thing holding you back???

If you do not believe you hold the capacity to make such a choice, then you believe you had no choice but to be attracted to the opposite sex as you always have since birth. If you did not have that choice, what makes you believe they do? Because you believe it's a sin?

You cannot have it both ways. Either you are born attracted to a specific sex or you choose your attraction. If you believe you were born to be attracted to the opposite sex, then there's reasonable logic that they were born to be attracted to the same sex. Who would choose that lifestyle knowing the stigma and hardships that go along with it.

I'm a heterosexual man. I love women, I do not hold the capacity to choose otherwise. Because of this, I do not believe homosexuals hold the capacity to just choose to not be gay and start being attracted to women.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Then whats the point of James River insurance?


To cover Uber's ass...


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> Ok, I'll bite before a Moderator reels us back into reality.
> 
> So you believe attraction to a male by a male is a choice. In order for this to be considered a choice, one must believe that everyone is capable of such a choice. So you are capable of such a choice? Is it being a "sin" the only thing holding you back???
> 
> ...


Moderators dont believe in freedom of speech here. They shut many of my topics because they cant stand the truth.

Let me tell you something. The issue is not only concering gay people. It would be considered a sin if you get attracted as a man to your friend's wife. It would be a sin to have sex as a man with a woman before marriage. All these are choices. Everybody has the tendencies to sin and defy what is meant to be normal.

A theif makes a choice to steal or not.

Sick people who love kids they make a choice. Why cant we argue the same about them and say they are born attracted to kids?

I hope you understand my point that we need to draw a line. This line is simple marriage is between one man and one woman.

Soon muslim religion and Sharia law will ask the government to accomedate their faith by allowing a man to marry four women. How can you stop this? According to Obama love wins.

If gay people want to choose to sin. They could do that on their own. No one will deny them that. However dont go cry to the government that you need a marriage license and want to force everybody to accept it as being normal. No sorry it is not normal. I teach my kids that sex before marriage between a man and woman is wrong. And i teach them that homosexuality is a sin. But i never teach them to hate people. I teach them to love gay people and sinners and preach the truth to them.

Laugh at me as much as you want.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

DriveMeNot said:


> Moderators dont believe in freedom of speech here. They shut many of my topics because they cant stand the truth.
> 
> Let me tell you something. The issue is not only concering gay people. It would be considered a sin if you get attracted as a man to your friend's wife. It would be a sin to have sex as a man with a woman before marriage. All these are choices. Everybody has the tendencies to sin and defy what is meant to be normal.
> 
> ...


To be fair, this is the wrong subforum to discuss it. I moderate other forums myself, I understand what they do. Moderation is specifically about censorship of some sort, even if it's just to manage where things are said.

Doesn't the bible also teach that all sin is equal and that we're all sinners? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, yes? So you wouldn't service Homosexuals due to their sin but you'd service an adulterer? Service someone that disrespected their parents? If all sin is equal and we are all sinners, how do you justify providing service to ANYONE? If sin is your limitation for who you would prefer to provide service to, you wouldn't have anyone to service...

Marriage is no longer just a religious ceremony. There are civil and legal benefits to being married. When there are benefits on a legal standpoint for being married, you cannot exclude a class of citizens from receiving such benefits.

I wasn't able to handle one wife, more power to the guy that can handle four... if it's five consenting adults, I don't care...


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> To be fair, this is the wrong subforum to discuss it. I moderate other forums myself, I understand what they do. Moderation is specifically about censorship of some sort, even if it's just to manage where things are said.
> 
> Doesn't the bible also teach that all sin is equal and that we're all sinners? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, yes? So you wouldn't service Homosexuals due to their sin but you'd service an adulterer? Service someone that disrespected their parents? If all sin is equal and we are all sinners, how do you justify providing service to ANYONE? If sin is your limitation for who you would prefer to provide service to, you wouldn't have anyone to service...
> 
> ...


You did ignore most of my senarios. Well many muslim people are rich and can "wont say handle" can "control" many wives for their pleasure. Are you going to allow them to have many marriage certificates here at one point in life?

Also you totally misunderstood the situation. I never denied any ride to any person. Im a sinner too, but my sins where washed away by the blood of Jesus (you can laugh at that too if you want) but to explain theology here you need a person who is very open minded to accept some facts of life.

I always give rides to gay people and recieve five stars from them.

You are just confusing giving a public service with participating in their ceremonies.

A Christian bakery wont mind selling a gay person a cake. But they do mind making a customized cake that honor their wedding. This will be a token of acceptence to what they do is normal. Same thing with churches. Gay people can attend to listen to preachers but why do they want to change the faith so preachers can allow them to marry in their churchs? Why attacking the freedom of religion by crying to the government that these people discriminate against us.

If i was hired to drive gay couples to their wedding ceremony. I will deny the ride. If i get deactivated then i would know that my freedom of religion rights died in USA.


----------



## DriveMeNot (May 15, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> To cover Uber's ass...


So Uber is a risky business. We have to obey the tough rules while they make the money. I started to believe we need to unionize this. We need more protection.


----------

