3 ms·

People get upset over this kind of cases but not being able to access a business is as discriminatory as the business shutting the door to someone because there

People get upset over this kind of cases but not being able to access a business is as discriminatory as the business shutting the door to someone because there's something the business does not like about that person. Discrimination is discrimination. The ADA act has made a huge difference in people's lives since it's passage in the '90s. We see these stories over and over which, is important to keep in mind, the exception not the rule. The majority of buildings are built ADA compliant now and most older buildings can be modified relatively inexpensively. Yes, this was the exception but even, in this case, the business was merged with another local building. One thing people always forget is that we all get old and many of us will end up with mobility limitations and we will be glad that a business is ADA compliant and we have the ability to access it.

gpm 7y ago
Like the ADA or not, this sentence is not true > People get upset over this kind of cases but not being able to access a business is as discriminatory as the business shutting the door to someone because there's something the business does not like about that person. There is a huge difference, morally and legally, between - Not spending $$$ on accommodating people. - Not going out of your way to accommodate people. - Closing your door in the face of potential business because you don't like people. It so happens that the ADA prohibits all of them (Edit: Language quoted below makes me unsure about whether or not it actually fully prohibits the first), many other anti-discrimination laws do not, and certainly I do not view someone who does the first the same as someone who does the third.
- WheelsAtLarge 7y ago
  >I do not view someone who does the first the same as someone who does the third. This is exactly why we have the law in the first place. If a group of people vs another can't access a business then it's discrimination. Which means a whole group can't get the services they need. If everyone felt like you did then stores, parks, schools and so many more services that are essential to life would be inaccessible to that group.
LorenPechtel 7y ago
Building ADA compliant is a good thing. Tearing down the old buildings isn't.

gpm 7y ago

Like the ADA or not, this sentence is not true > People get upset over this kind of cases but not being able to access a business is as discriminatory as the business shutting the door to someone because there's something the business does not like about that person. There is a huge difference, morally and legally, between - Not spending $$$ on accommodating people. - Not going out of your way to accommodate people. - Closing your door in the face of potential business because you don't like people. It so happens that the ADA prohibits all of them (Edit: Language quoted below makes me unsure about whether or not it actually fully prohibits the first), many other anti-discrimination laws do not, and certainly I do not view someone who does the first the same as someone who does the third.

WheelsAtLarge 7y ago
>I do not view someone who does the first the same as someone who does the third. This is exactly why we have the law in the first place. If a group of people vs another can't access a business then it's discrimination. Which means a whole group can't get the services they need. If everyone felt like you did then stores, parks, schools and so many more services that are essential to life would be inaccessible to that group.

LorenPechtel 7y ago

Building ADA compliant is a good thing. Tearing down the old buildings isn't.