I don't get it. How about other people that were not part of the protest and were trying to get home/get to the airport? How about the Uber drivers trying to make a living? Just because they were not part of your protest you'll give them hate?
Is that "giving them hate"? Should MLK have made fastidiously sure to go to cordoned off areas where no one would have been inconvenienced in the slightest?
In this case, the mechanism of political action is constricting the labor supply instead of giving cash to politicians.
It seems crazy for a company to force workers to join a protest, until you think about how they force workers to turn a profit and then donate to politicians that would happily oppress those same workers.
Companies also collectively fire people to bolster their profits, maybe we should demand they do some mass firings for a good cause. Trump supporters, maybe?
(On a related note, there are some regulations around mass layoffs: https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/warn.htm
American companies will run a series of layoffs JUST below the limit to avoid the reporting mandates! Kind of like structuring deposits of $9,999 to avoid the reporting requirement at $10k. Interesting.)
Then comes Uber, the vulture that swoops in all in the name of disrupting the market. They're allowed to do it, sure. Whether it's morally right is another thing.
Be better, please.
And it's remarkable if your claim is that without Trump's Muslim Ban there would still be protests at JFK this weekend. Are you really arguing that?
I don't know exactly how different protests would have played out if Trump took different actions in office, but it is overwhelmingly obvious that the protests are the result of emotion, not facts.
Also, you seem to be confused about the phrase "get over yourself" means. It targets self importance such as "be better please", it makes no sense whatsoever as a response to my comment.
Your dubious claim about the motivations of large groups of individuals is not at all "overwhelmingly obvious."
Get over yourself.
But it's worth noting the difference between that protest and the one at JFK, which I think it's pretty clear was a direct reaction to a specific policy created by President Trump. Using the Women's March as some sort of catch-all "haters gonna hate" dismissal of the valid concerns that many Americans have about the sitting president's actions is, to put it simply, a remarkable argument.
By undermining the strike, Uber is saying that their profits are more important than the injustice being protested. They are saying that they are perfectly happy to help society function while it is committing such a grave act of injustice against a vulnerable minority. It is organizations and people like Uber who are perfectly willing to make money and let life go on as authoritarians destroy the lives of their fellow citizens that allow evil to persist and thrive. It is people who get on with their lives while those of their neighbors are being disrupted and destroyed that most threaten freedom.
Inconveniencing those sort of people is exactly the purpose of protesting. It's supposed to make regular everyday people who aren't directly affected by Trump's actions feel their impact. If you disagree with the protesters that's one thing, but complaining about it affecting "normal people" is really missing the point.