I Hope you guys sue Hooters, Winghouse and Tilted Kilt while you're at it.
A lot of women refuse to ride with male uber or Lyft drivers for fear of safety.
Don't worry, I'll wait.
There is nothing wrong with this.
Get over yourselves.
Your wait is over. There is everything wrong with this.
The woman who refuses to ride with the male driver is the "consumer". Consumers have wider discretion than do providers. The consumer can refuse to accept the service requested at discretion. "Discretion", in this context, means that the consumer
ain't gotta' give no reason fer it. Conversely, the provider can be required to render a reason for failure to provide service.
I am not familiar with the other two, or the third one cited by
NachonCheeze, nor have I ever eaten or drunk at Hooters, but, as I understand it, Hooters is selling mainly
bustin' loose to heterosexual males. As this is an essential part of their business model, it gets a pass. It falls under the category "sound business reason". A transvestite (apply this word in its obsolete sense) with silicone falsies will not achieve the same ends. I am guessing that Hooters does not employ waitresses with A cups. It gets a pass on this one, as well. Finally, males and less "gifted" females can secure alternate employment at Hooters as host/hostess, cook, manager, accountant, bouncer, table busser, cashier, ....you get the idea.
You might counter that Chariot is selling a safe ride to females and is using the female only driver model to achieve that, thus it has "sound business reasons". That
might hold water, but
it don't make no steam. An interlocutor could argue that the management of Chariot is profiling males as rapists. One could submit the argument that a male driver who passes a background check is just as safe. In fact, if the jurisdiction requires an FBI fingerprint/background check of TNC drivers, the argument would go double. While a female driver might be hard put to violate a female passenger, what would stop her from discharging a firearm in the wrong direction or committing armed robbery of a passenger? What Chariot is selling is a safe ride. A female driver is not a requirement for the rendering of a safe ride.
You do not need the female driver to sell safety to other females. You do need the "gifted" female to sell your brand to heterosexual males. The latter is Hooter's target audience. As
Dan The Lyft Man correctly points out, despite Hooter's target audience's being heterosexual males, that is not a requirement to purchase a beer or a burger, there. If you are gay (of either gender), a female (of any orientation) or whatever, if you are willing to pay for a beer, a burger or both, Hooters will sell any or all of it to you.
As far as "getting over yourself" goes, I will warrant that more than a few cab drivers would love to have had that defence when they were hauled before the appropriate tribunal for refusing to carry someone to a certain neighbourhood.
In the case of
Mitchell, et al. vs. DCX, I suspect that the management of DCX would have been ecstatic to have had that as a defence against those
do-gooders who sued them because their drivers did not hang out in certain neighbourhoods to wait for calls. Considering that it is still not specifically against any law for any limousine, cab or TNC driver to avoid hanging out in certain neighbourhoods to look for passengers, the management of DCX should have been able to tell those busybodies to "get over themselves". Funny, it did not work out that way.
.
