[vkou]

When a private business has to meet the legal demands set out by laws governing serving disabilities, it is up to the business in question to shoulder those costs, not society.

Don't like it? Close down shop. Someone else's business will replace you, you won't be missed, and life will go on.

It's outrageous to suggest that private businesses have to be bribed so that they follow the law.

[xboxnolifes]

It's not about "bribing". It's about using positive incentive-based economic policy instead of outright bans if certain regulations aren't met. Requiring companies to support certain things doesn't suddenly make them free.

Either way, society eventually shoulders the costs. It just comes down to which members shoulder it more.

[kelnos]

> Either way, society eventually shoulders the costs. It just comes down to which members shoulder it more.

Right. In this case, the question is: should Uber riders as a whole shoulder the cost of accommodations for disabled people (presumably Uber could make the price of every ride slightly more expensive in order to compensate for the added cost for disabled riders), or should society as a whole bear this cost (via taxes and subsidies), including people who don't use Uber?

I think a reasonable argument could be made for either, honestly.

[RHSeeger]

>> It's outrageous to suggest that private businesses have to be bribed so that they follow the law.

> It's not about "bribing". It's about using positive incentive-based economic policy instead of outright bans if certain regulations aren't met.

And, to be very clear, this is done constantly. If you leave your home to go anywhere but a nature walk, I guarantee you you pass within close range of at least entity that is getting/generating some sort of rebate or similar for following a regular. Energy rebates alone are everywhere you look.