In this case, the reader is presented with a dilemma concerning Domino’s delivery service and customers ordering from unsafe neighborhoods. Domino’s and other pizza delivery companies (namely Pizza Hut and Little Caeser’s) implement a program that ranks neighborhoods based on their safety; residents living in “red” neighborhoods must drive to the store to pick up their pizza. Domino’s enforces this to protect their drivers from being assaulted or murdered. The ethical dilemma is that these “red” or “dangerous” neighborhoods tend to be comprised of mostly minority groups. Upon refusal on Domino’s part to deliver to the Fobbs family, the comment was made that “it can only be because we are black people.” The American Civil Liberties Union decided that this system is discriminatory, and San Francisco passed a city law prohibiting use of the system on the grounds that it discriminates against minorities. There are two ways to look at this case. The first is that Domino’s is discriminating against minority groups with its neighborhood safety system. If this is the case, Domino’s (and the other companies implementing the system) should alter its policy, allowing for delivery to these neighborhoods. By refusing delivery, Domino’s is losing sales and profits, which goes against what shareholders are looking for when investing in a company. In addition, customers living in these neighborhoods would likely discontinue or avoid supporting the company, as would others who viewed the situation in this way. Moreover, the system is simply racist and discriminatory and needs to be done away with. If the consumer is willing to pay for a pizza, what right does Domino’s have to deny them? The second viewpoint is that the system functions correctly and helps protect drivers from dangerous neighborhoods. In enforcing this policy, Domino’s is investing in the well-being and safety of