5 ms·

I still believe they shouldn't be obligated. It's stuff they're giving away for free. It's like giving a beggar a sandwich and then having to compensate the beg

by jolmg 7y ago

I still believe they shouldn't be obligated. It's stuff they're giving away for free. It's like giving a beggar a sandwich and then having to compensate the beggar for having included cheese in the sandwich I gifted them when they're lactose-intolerant. I'd just not give away sandwiches in the future, then.

rckoepke 7y ago
Most people would agree we need clearer legal framework around this. I like a business vs home analogy. If you build a storefront, it needs to be wheelchair accessible. That seems reasonable to me. If I build a home in the middle of nowhere, my own home does not have to be wheelchair accessible but if I want to build a home in a city, that city may require my home to be wheelchair accessible. I suspect Berkeley thought they were building an addition on their home, not their business. Still, it's clear that my analogy is NOT how it works in the real world. There's a critical lack of clarity here, and answers are needed especially for blogs and personal sites. I personally strongly believe that when we build things for people with disabilities, they become so much easier for people without disabilities to use. I'd personally like to see websites easier to use with screenreaders and other 3rd party aides. But I don't think it should apply to personal webpages or small blogs. It doesn't really matter what I think though. The legal requirements today are quite unknown.
HarryHirsch 7y ago
The analogy fails. Consider instead a charity kitchen in a town with a fairly substantial Jewish or Muslim community, but the charity kitchen insists on serving pork. Here are some statistics about hearing loss: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics-hearing https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics... They are enlightening. 25 % of people between 65 and 75 are hearing-impaired, rising to 50 % of people over 75. What exactly is the argument for excluding the aged from Berkeley's online offerings? It would be wiser to argue in favour of accommodation for disabilities because it may be that you will need them sometime in the future.
- ta999999171 7y ago
  > Consider instead a charity kitchen in a town with a fairly substantial Jewish or Muslim community, but the charity kitchen insists on serving pork. ...less sympathetic than GP's example, religion is a choice.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    religion is a choice That's true for both sides. Why someone would do charity but leave a well-defined group out of it is a mystery.
    - jolmg 7y ago
      How about, instead of a charity kitchen, it's a restaurant that gives away its leftovers? If they only have pork leftovers, should they not give those away to those in need? By disallowing them, their choice would either be to throw the food in the trash or obtain other food to give away in addition to the pork. Of course, most businesses would just shrug and throw it away.
- zweep 7y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that a charity kitchen dispensing pork should be illegal?

by jolmg 7y ago

rckoepke 7y ago

Most people would agree we need clearer legal framework around this. I like a business vs home analogy. If you build a storefront, it needs to be wheelchair accessible. That seems reasonable to me. If I build a home in the middle of nowhere, my own home does not have to be wheelchair accessible but if I want to build a home in a city, that city may require my home to be wheelchair accessible. I suspect Berkeley thought they were building an addition on their home, not their business. Still, it's clear that my analogy is NOT how it works in the real world. There's a critical lack of clarity here, and answers are needed especially for blogs and personal sites. I personally strongly believe that when we build things for people with disabilities, they become so much easier for people without disabilities to use. I'd personally like to see websites easier to use with screenreaders and other 3rd party aides. But I don't think it should apply to personal webpages or small blogs. It doesn't really matter what I think though. The legal requirements today are quite unknown.

HarryHirsch 7y ago

The analogy fails. Consider instead a charity kitchen in a town with a fairly substantial Jewish or Muslim community, but the charity kitchen insists on serving pork. Here are some statistics about hearing loss: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics-hearing https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics... They are enlightening. 25 % of people between 65 and 75 are hearing-impaired, rising to 50 % of people over 75. What exactly is the argument for excluding the aged from Berkeley's online offerings? It would be wiser to argue in favour of accommodation for disabilities because it may be that you will need them sometime in the future.

ta999999171 7y ago
> Consider instead a charity kitchen in a town with a fairly substantial Jewish or Muslim community, but the charity kitchen insists on serving pork. ...less sympathetic than GP's example, religion is a choice.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  religion is a choice That's true for both sides. Why someone would do charity but leave a well-defined group out of it is a mystery.
  - jolmg 7y ago
    How about, instead of a charity kitchen, it's a restaurant that gives away its leftovers? If they only have pork leftovers, should they not give those away to those in need? By disallowing them, their choice would either be to throw the food in the trash or obtain other food to give away in addition to the pork. Of course, most businesses would just shrug and throw it away.
zweep 7y ago
Are you seriously suggesting that a charity kitchen dispensing pork should be illegal?