just to prevent more "but the driver has an allergy, too" comments:
yes, some might. and we can have a debate about that.
but most don't, and an allergy is explicitely not the reason all of the drivers in this case gave. so it doesn't apply here.
The difference is that at some point in your Uber "career" you will be expected to transport someone with a service animal and you can't legally refuse to transport them. The way the law is written you can't even ask to see proof it's a service animal, if someone tells you it's a service animal then it legally is a service animal to explicitly prevent this form of discrimination.
If you can't perform all the legal requirements of a job then there's a case to be made that you probably shouldn't be doing that job.
I agree with the last part at least. What I mean is "we can have a debate about whether the current legal requirements need exceptions for eg allergic drivers".
yes, some might. and we can have a debate about that. but most don't, and an allergy is explicitely not the reason all of the drivers in this case gave. so it doesn't apply here.