Not necessarily.

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

https://www.bostonglobe.com/...cEs0BqhEP/story.html

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Did you read the article or just the headline?

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

Did you read it (and respond to me) within 2 minutes?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I did. It's not very long.

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

That's what she said.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

'kay.

The reason I say "not necessarily" is that the article only talks about the probability that Chariots for Women might violate state law in Massachusettes. It says nothing about federal anti-discrimination laws (which it might also violate . . . or might not). There is also mention of a BFOQ defense that Chariots for Women might have a way to qualify for, although there's not enough detail to know. In any event, the article far from states that hiring only women drivers is illegal. At best, it posits that it is "probably" illegal.

I'd just throw out there the case of Hooters restaurant, which hires only female servers. You don't need to be female to serve food, yet Hooters seems to be able to do just that with minimal discrimination lawsuits (I know of two they settled, but have NOT changed their policy to hire only women servers). Hooters argues that in addition to serving food, their servers play a specific role for which female sex appeal is an integral role. Can't say that this is a BFOQ, but they've successfully disposed of some discrimination challenges and the EEOC even dropped a gender claim against them on this issue in the mid-1990's. I can conceive of a viable argument along similar lines (albeit not "sex appeal") in which Chariots for Women might be able to credibly argue that being female is a BFOQ (or at least close to it) for their business model.

It wouldn't be easy, but the argument is there.

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

There are legal gray areas. Hooters, which I already brought up. There are women-only fitness clubs that happen to be staffed by women. Generally the gray-area companies are allowed to operate as long as someone doesn't make a big a stink and sue them. You're welcome to sue Chariot or whatever if you're really offended by what they're doing and equate it to bigotry.

I just think it's a solution in search of a problem.

Nobody will need to sue them. They'll fail on their own.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Another n=1 experience, but perhaps with a few more in-depth details about training and some statistics regarding uber.

http://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2016/04/29/uber-driver-sexual-pass

Creepy, yes. But are you any more or less likely to have an encounter like this in a cab?

Here's n=1=1.

Taxi and Uber assualts, same night.

http://nypost.com/...uber-drivers-police/

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I agree - it isn't clear to me where you would look to find real data on assaults or reported assault in a taxi or uber, if it exists at all.

Begs the question if the safety issue is a red herring from the taxi industry as a response to uber cutting into their market share.

Without question it is. Sexual assault is not unique to Uber.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?