I thoroughly agree with the California Restaurant Association as well as Domino's owner Wally Wilcox in their argument to not send workers into hazardous neighborhoods to deliver pizzas. The fact that the American Civil Liberties Union, along with Bill Fobbs, would even consider that racism is outrageous. If they would consider the stakeholders in this situation, along with the most important stakeholder, this would not even be a question. A human life takes precedence over a pizza being delivered no matter what.
             In an interest-based avenue, it is in the delivery person's best interest to deliver pizza in an effort to make money as well as serve the public. It is also in the customers' best interest to provide easy access to the pizza. That being said, the obvious objection is this: there is no reason to risk a human life so a pizza can get delivered. I understand the frustration for the customer when they are told they cannot have a pizza delivered but it isn't Domino's fault that the customer lives in the red or dangerous area.
             I can share a personal experience on this issue because I lived outside the city limits where restaurants that normally deliver pizza would not come because it wasn't in their best interest for cost reasons. The cost of providing the service outweighed the benefit received from it. Sure this upset me, but I didn't consider it prejudice or discriminatory, their reason for not delivering was driven by a reasonable business model. The same can be said for the current issue we are discussing except the outcome could be much more serious and clearly outlines the safety of the delivery person.
             If we look at this issue from a duty standpoint, the delivery personnel have a duty to deliver pizzas to the customer, but the pizza company also has a duty to provide for the safety of their staff. There are workplace hazards, insurance issues, and labor laws that would be against the notion of requiring a de...