RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

[brudgers]

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

"Performance area" is directly from ADAAG. By definition anything in ADA does not apply to places of worship.

If the IBC was intended to apply to areas used for worship, it would so state...of course it doesn't since doing so would conflict with the scheme for turning A117.1 and the IBC into ADA law.

Almost. The IBC indicates all buildings are subject to Chapter 11 and then lists the areas where non-applicability exists. As you note, it is not federal law. It is stand alone. The IBC does not have first amendment issues with its application or subjective feelings about fraternal organizations like the members of congress espouse.

The IBC is not a federal law wannabe so get off that shtick. It's a building code not civil rights legislation.

Yes group A buildings are exempt from vertical accessibility except as specified in 1108.

Since worship areas are not required to provide vertical accessibility by 1108, none need be provided.

The ICC and Access Board tried to jamb the IBC through as ADAAG. Fortunately they failed.

All the effort was on changing ADAAG to match A117.1 and Chapter 11. None was on changing the building code. Your tax dollars at work.

 

[JBI]

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

"...the right to accessibility comes into conflict with the right to worship as one chooses..."

Not to a parpalegic priest.

 

[Plans Approver]

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

"Performance area" is directly from ADAAG. By definition anything in ADA does not apply to places of worship.

Actually, "performance area" or "performance areas" do not appear in ADAAG. Performance areas are addressed in IBC 1108.2.7. In IBC Chapter 2, you'll find:

"RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, PLACE OF. A building or portion thereof intended for the performance of religious services."

I'm done with this thread. See ya at the next one.

 

[JBI]

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

OUCH!

 

[brudgers]

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Be sure you require accessible choir lofts, baptisteries, and pulpits.

Meanwhile, the the sanctuary will remain intended for worship and not the performance of religious services.

 

[Big Mac]

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

brudgers, I am amazed that you would be so concerned about civil rights and yet deny those rights to a disabled pastor, guest speaker, performer, etc. by not allowing them access to the platform. Ironic.

I attmepted to post a response a little while ago but it appears that it didn't take. If this turns out to be a duplicate, I apologize.

 

[brudgers]

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

brudgers, I am amazed that you would be so concerned about civil rights and yet deny those rights to a disabled pastor, guest speaker, performer, etc. by not allowing them access to the platform. Ironic.I attmepted to post a response a little while ago but it appears that it didn't take. If this turns out to be a duplicate, I apologize.

Federal Civil Rights law exempts places of worship from Title III of the ADA.

There is no right to accessibility within a church, even though providing it may be the ethical thing to do, because the First Amendment to The US Constitution trumps civil rights law.

Look at it this way.

Religious groups are allowed to discriminate in ways that other sorts of organizations are not.

First Baptist Church of Springfield doesn't have to justify not hiring a Buddhist as pastor.

 

[Big Mac]

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Well I will give you the fact that you certainly have a unique approach. Apparently you are content to just keep rambling until you wear everybody out. Whether the thought process is rational or not.

What it "they" say - don't confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

burdgers, are you saying that anything related to worship (including whole buildings like churches, synagogue, temples) is exempt from the IBC or only to chapter 11. Or do you mean only the area of the building where the worship is actually done. In my church the worshiping was done on the main floor of a church.

I only started this asking about a ramp. I never considered apply this to a worship area would be a problem. I am only paid to enforce the code and not civil rights.

 

[brudgers]

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Unlike other definitions in the building code, "Places of Worship" are defined by intent rather than usage.

A building intended for "the free expression of belief" might be, on the surface indistinguishable, from a "place of worship," yet cannot be classified as a "place of worship" since it is intended for something other than "the performance of religious services."

So long as the space is intended for something other than "performing religious services" it is not a place of worship, though it would still be Occupancy A3 since it is similar to other uses in the category, and may even be used for worship.

BTW, I assure you that the intent of the space is not "performance of religious services" even if it is conducive to doing so.

 

[brudgers]

Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP

Well I will give you the fact that you certainly have a unique approach. Apparently you are content to just keep rambling until you wear everybody out. Whether the thought process is rational or not.What it "they" say - don't confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up.

The interesting thing is that the further you unpack the code, the less solid the ground.

It turns out that the only way to determine if a ramp is required is to look at the intent, not use, of the space.

I suspect that a determination based on intent is unique within the building code.

I also believe that classification based on intent places the determination with the applicant, not the Code Official...particularly when it comes to religion.

The problem with the Ick is that it tries to ignore how messy the actual world is.