Back bar access through ADA bar

[ADAguy]

Same as some Mormons (smiling)?

 

[conarb]

No matter who the bartender tells to move isn't he discriminating against that person? As a matter of fact it would probably be easier for the guy in the wheelchair to roll back than for others to climb down and then back up onto bar stools.

 

[steveray]

The problem is CA that they are ONLY displacing the disabled person, if the whole bar had to move every time, it would be equal...But don't worry, from what I have seen, no one really enforces accessible seating at the bar...

 

[mark handler]

... no one really enforces accessible seating at the bar...

That is Why people file lawsuits

 

[tmurray]

No matter who the bartender tells to move isn't he discriminating against that person? As a matter of fact it would probably be easier for the guy in the wheelchair to roll back than for others to climb down and then back up onto bar stools.

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Doesn't sound like discrimination to me.

 

[ADAguy]

Conarb, love how you channel the voice of Ed Kemper with your comments.

 

[conarb]

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Doesn't sound like discrimination to me.

When you have an amendment to the constitution that says:

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you give any person, or persons, special treatment under the law that is a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In addition, if you enforce a law that requires an individual, like a small businessman, to spend money to create special accommodations for a group of people, that is depriving that person, like the businessman, of his money.

 

[sergoodo]

Had the same thought, but it was his hypothetical so I let it go. I was also curious why Muslims were at a bar, but they must have just been eating lunch.

I determined "How big ah' bartender is this bartender?" is not funny and for this hypothetical I used my hypothetical comedic license. Not intended to be a sexual identification political jab.

Back to the point, regardless of opinions about the ADA; that small businessman is not an individual being deprived, the law deprives everybody equally. For an inverse comparison law gives special treatment to doctors only allowing them to prescribe drugs - is it a violation of equal protection that the white woman in space #3 is deprived of Ambien(property) because she cannot write her own prescription? Anybody can be a doctor. Anybody can be a small businessman...uh wait...you meant businessperson right?

 

[conarb]

Maybe with another conservative judge on the Supreme Court we can get the whole thing thrown out and get back to treating everyone equally under the law. This will be coming to a head with Black college students all over the country demanding that white males leave,

Black trans disabled students are actively being sought out and confronted by campus police constantly, police are refusing to explain their actions and harassment,” a group of protesters told The Olympian, the local newspaper, in a statement. “Students will not stand for this anymore, as students of color have never felt comfortable on campus and have not been treated equally.”¹

¹ http://college.usatoday.com/2017/06...cels-days-of-classes-due-to-external-threats/

 

[tmurray]

When you have an amendment to the constitution that says:



If you give any person, or persons, special treatment under the law that is a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In addition, if you enforce a law that requires an individual, like a small businessman, to spend money to create special accommodations for a group of people, that is depriving that person, like the businessman, of his money.

Businesses aren't people.

 

[steveray]

Soylent green is people.....

 

[conarb]

Businesses aren't people.

Legally businesses are people, that's one of the gripes about the Citizens United decision, so a small Chinese restaurant like Sam Wo is put out of business because it can't comply no matter how much money is taken from the family to serve a few obnoxious people like the "Black trans disabled students" who have shut down Evergreen College demanding all white males leave the college.

 

[tmurray]

So these businesses should be permitted to choose what classes of people that have the pleasure of spending money there?

You know, when I was going to college I worked full time at a flower shop as a night and weekend manager. One Thursday night there was a black gentleman who came to the door about 6:30PM he opened the door and asked if it was OK to come in. I told him of course he could we are open unit 8:00PM. He gave me a little bit of a funny look, but motioned for his wife and granddaughter to come in. He explained he was looking for a small arrangement for his daughter who had just had another baby. I gave his granddaughter a carnation like we usually did in situations like this and when ringing him out he asked his wife and daughter to head out to their car and he needed to speak with me about something. I started racking my brain because I assume I had offended him somehow and couldn't figure out what I had done. But he told me he was from the southern US and when he asked if it was OK to come in, it wasn't if we were open, it was if we let black people in our store. He told me there are places that he is still not permitted to enter based on his skin and he was so happy his grandchildren were growing up in a place where this was the furthest thing from someone's mind.

I'm not trying to say the US is bad and Canada is good, there are more than enough racist people here.

What I'm saying is that not being allowed into a store because of the colour of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation or your physical ability is not freedom.

 

[conarb]

What I'm saying is that not being allowed into a store because of the colour of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation or your physical ability is not freedom.

The 14th Amendment was passed to insure that all states followed the 13th Amendment freeing the slaves, the southern states were known as "the solid south" because the whites there voted solidly for the Democratic Party and were arguing "states' rights" under the 10th Amendment, ironically it's the Democrats today that are arguing "states' rights" in the sanctuary city issue claiming that the Federal Government doesn't have the right to tell them what to do asserting the 10th Amendment.

There is a difference between doing what is the right thing to do (in your opinion), and doing what is legally right, using your right thing to do argument I could argue that I don't have to obey the building codes because doing so would increase the price of construction so that it would bar the poor from occupying my buildings. We either live under the rule of law or we all decide what is the right thing to do. Just look, now we have racism, sexism, and ableism, now I'm hearing elitism, I worked night and day to go to an elite college to move up the socioeconomic ladder, now they are calling me elitist equating that to racism, etc. Where is this going to end, will someone who has a phobia about red flowers be able to demand that you remove all red flowers so he can come into your flower shop?

Of course there is a difference between telling a black man that he can't come into your store and his own inability to come into the store because the doorway isn't wide enough, there is a difference between active discrimination and passive discrimination.

 

[tmurray]

Well ADA is a law, so it is both the ethical thing and the legally right thing.

 

[conarb]

Well ADA is a law, so it is both the ethical thing and the legally right thing.

My point is that it is unconstitutional law as I've posted above, in violation of the 14th Amendment. We need a more conservative court system that will finally throw this crap out. Look at the recent immigration ban, the US Codes give the President unilateral authority to ban anyone he wants from entering the country, so far several courts have ruled that that authority violates the constitutional ban of Freedom of Religion since the President is using it to ban Muslims, the Supreme Court will decide this but my point is the ADA violates the 14th Amendment as I've outlined above, if do-gooders want to help handicapped people do it legally, put door widths and other requirements into the code for all to observe, and if the buildings were built to code they are legal until remodeling requires they meet current codes.

We recently voted for an administration that promised to drastically reduce regulations, this would be a good place to start. Nobody should be forced to spend money for someone else, it's one thing to say you have to serve a black man, it's totally another thing to say you have top spend $30,000 to serve a disabled man.

 

[tmurray]

You have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

 

[conarb]

You have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

No, only the courts, which should have been done here. If they wanted civil rights law there is a constitutional amendment to go through, but it's a tough bar to pass, the women wanted special rights and they tried to get the ERA through starting in 1923, eventually they piggybacked on Johnson's 1964 Civil Rights act, then the handicapped piggybacked on it in 1990.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender; it seeks to end the legal distinctions between men and women in terms of divorce, property, employment, and other matters. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. The amendment was introduced in Congress for the first time in 1923 and has prompted conversations about the meaning of equality for women and men. In its early history, middle-class women were largely supportive, while those speaking for the working class were often opposed, arguing that employed women needed special protections regarding working conditions and employment hours. With the rise of the women's movement in the United States in the 1960s, the ERA garnered increasing support, and, after being reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths (D-MI), in 1971, it passed both houses of Congress in 1972 and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.

Congress had originally set a ratification deadline of March 22, 1979. Through 1977, the amendment received 35 of the necessary 38 state ratifications. With wide, bipartisan support (including that of both major political parties, both houses of Congress, and Presidents Ford and Carter) it seemed headed for ratification until Phyllis Schlafly mobilized conservative women in opposition, arguing that the ERA would disadvantage housewives and cause women to be drafted into the military. Four states rescinded their ratifications before the 1979 deadline, however, there is no precedent or mechanism within the US Constitution for rescinding, and thus, it becomes a legal question. In 1978, a joint resolution of Congress extended the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982, but no further states ratified the amendment before that revised deadline.¹

At the present time all citizens do not have equal rights under the constitution, if the voters wanted equal rights they should have passed the ERA and added the handicapped to it.


¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

 

[ADAguy]

conarb you should have been a lawyer. All of us have been discriminated against to one degree or another. The founders of our country understood this and wrote a document that was intended as a living document. Unfortunately it has become the plaything of a few professionals. You seek to split hairs over every word, ADA was not intended as a code, only a "legal" guideline as to "minimums".

The code is a model to be accepted, rejected or modified by AHJ's. DOJ has always lacked the staffing necessary to find codes to be safe harbors, though the IBC is much closer (though not retroactive) then ever before. Even new construction is still lacking due to ineffective enforcement, giving cause to lawsuits. At this rate and per your opinion we should never see pre-ADA buildings approaching the level of compliance of post-ADA buildings.

 

[tmurray]

At this rate and per your opinion we should never see pre-ADA buildings approaching the level of compliance of post-ADA buildings.

That is actually the way it works in Canada. Until they are renovated then we make them accessible as possible based on the scope of work and the challenges the existing construction faces. Would a similar thing work there? I'm not sure. While it works here, for every similarity between our nations there also appears to be a difference.

Going back to what is "fair", is it fair that someone cannot come into your store based on the class of person they are(regardless of active or passive discrimination)? No, but it's also not fair to force someone to update a building that is a hundred years old based on a new law that has nothing to do with life safety. I can even see Conarb's argument about retroactive earthquake requirements. I don't completely agree with it, but I certainly see his perspective.

But as Conarb so articulately pointed out, just because something is unfair, doesn't make it illegal. And until a law has been struck down by the courts, it must be complied with.

 

[ADAguy]

TM, having just spent time in Canada I fully appreciate its people and the clarity with which your newspapers inform them. I also found your highway patrol to be very reasonable when dealing with travelers from the US. Your form of government and legal system in many ways is a more logical system then ours but then again do you have anything like the ACLU or the NRA in Canada, or as many lawyers?
How is it that you open door policy to immigrants from the Middle East has not lead to the issues we have in the states?

 

[tmurray]

The media in Canada must be factually correct in their reporting. Clarity helps in ensuring this. I believe you had a similar law, but it was repealed.

There are certainly special interest groups with the same goals as their American counterparts, but I personally have found these organizations to be much more moderate in their goals than their US counterparts.

For instance in Canada you are required to have a license to own a firearm. If you want a handgun or something like an AR15, you need a restricted firearms license. Even then, all rifles are limited to a 5 round clip. I've never heard someone complain about our licensing requirements. But then again, this is a difference in the fundamental rights between our two nations. We believe in the right to health care, you in right to bear arms.

What issues are you seeing with middle east immigrants? Any religious extremists acts I've heard of lately have been homegrown (this includes 2 here in Canada in the last couple years).

Canada is a little different in its integration of immigrants. In speaking with people who have immigrated here from the US, they say they were expected to adopt American traditions and values. Here in Canada, our identity is multiculturalism, so people can just do what they want to do, provided they d not violate any laws. We might ask the Ugandan family why they don't turn the lights on in their house at night, but simply because we're curious.

FYI, it's because electricity is extremely limited where they came from and they are simply not used to being able to use as much as they want.

 

[ADAguy]

"T" thank you for sharing these insights. Maybe because we were a nation of revolutionaires that mentality carries on. Our presidents don't wear crowns though some think they do.
As to prisons, do you incarcerate as many as we do?

 

[tmurray]

Yours is 5 times higher. But there again, we don't incarcerate for simple position of marijuana. It is simply a fine offense.