2 ms·
Well, I see you are citing materials which you did not read / don't understand. "Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law, a
by lmilcin 5y ago
Well, I see you are citing materials which you did not read / don't understand.
"Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law, according to which racial segregation did not necessarily violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guaranteed "equal protection" under the law to all people. Under the doctrine, as long as the facilities provided to each "race" were equal, state and local governments could require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be segregated by "race", which was already the case throughout the states of the former Confederacy. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate".[1]"
Nothing to do with disabilities.
It is plain stupid to think you can require all services to be equally available, in the same way, shape and form to both normal, blind and deaf people and disallow services that can't be enjoyed by all, equally.
Existence of blind people should not be a reason to disallow rock concerts.
- klyrs 5y agoPlain stupid, eh? The DOJ has disagreed with you as recently as 2011, but the ad hominem really seems to work for you. https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/separate-not-equal https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/separate-not-equ... And, again, a rock concert isn't equivalent to a government service. You've invented a notion that everybody needs to have the same exact experience, which is weird. The government needs to provision services equally to everybody. If they aren't funding their call centers for adequate access, then it isn't equal access. But anyway, I go to dance parties with Deaf people (or did, before Covid) and they love music with lots of bass.