If society decides that a sacrifice should be made in favor of a disabled Uber customer, society should incur that cost and compensate the Uber driver the market rate for their time.
Wait fees, in this case, are not being used (in the abstract) to discriminate because there is an time cost inherent in this business model that somebody needs to inur.
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.
Either way, society eventually shoulders the costs. It just comes down to which members shoulder it more.
> 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.
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.
Ultimately the nature of codifying altruism in the law is that someone must sacrifice for someone else; the sacrificer and as well as the recipient of the sacrifice are subject to an Overton window.