5 ms·

If you're handicapped you don't expect to be able to go hiking. However you do expect to be able to go to restaurants

by themitigating 4y ago

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
Why do you expect that?
- TheNorthman 4y ago
  I mean, aside from the obvious principle of reasonable accommodation guaranteed by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? Or, perhaps more specifically the guarantee from Article 19, barring segregation from the community at large? Expecting the declarations on human rights to be followed is not unreasonable.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    should all resturants also be vegan? Nut free? We don't want to segregate, right? Nobody "deserves" to go to a resturant.
    - TheNorthman 4y ago
      Is being vegan a disability? Regarding nuts, I don't know about the rest of the world but in my country, restaurants are required to disclose allergens in their foods, if asked.
      - tasuki 4y ago
        Disclosing allergens is a different thing though: that's akin to "disclosing" that the restaurant isn't wheelchair accessible. Should all restaurants also be required to serve food for whatever combination of allergies one might have? My mother has several food allergies, there are restaurants where she can't eat any meal. Would you welcome a law mandating each and every restaurant to start serving meals she can eat?
        Arainach 4y ago
        Again, allergies aren't a protected class.
        tasuki 4y ago
        I'm not from the US and had to look up what "protected class" meant. It seems to be a well-intentioned yet somewhat arbitrary list. It appears to be regularly amended. Perhaps allergies will be on the list one day too?
  - comte7092 4y ago
    “Principle of "reasonable accommodation" The Convention defines "reasonable accommodation" as "necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others” [0] Suing every hole in the wall out of business is hardly in line with reasonable accommodation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_Persons_with_Disabilities?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_Pe...
    - TheNorthman 4y ago
      > Suing every hole in the wall out of business is hardly in line with reasonable accommodation. Suing is the enforcement mechanism chosen by the Israelis and the US, not the reasoning behind the requirement. The reasoning is: The disabled should have equal access to dining and it's not an undue burden to expect ramps outside of businesses. Most of the developed world is like this. You might disagree with that reasoning but clearly a political majority in the US didn't and doesn't.
tasuki 4y ago
Each and every restaurant? I agree we want the world to be fair. I recently went through a difficult situation, during which my partner was unable to visit restaurants, even if they were wheelchair accessible. Was that fair? What about people who can't financially afford going to a restaurant? Is it more fair to exclude someone on the basis of their financial situation rather than based on their physical disability? Btw, I love hiking. If I were to become disabled and not be able to go hiking, I'd miss it more than going to restaurants. Is that fair?
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  Yes. Because if not each and every restaurant, who gets to pick and choose? If the restaurant owners, none. If the disabled, all. And there isn't really an in-between is there? So all is better than none. Are you arguing we shouldn't have such laws because they don't reach 100% of people? That's letting perfect be the enemy of good. > I recently went through a difficult situation, during which my partner was unable to visit restaurants, even if they were wheelchair accessible. Was that fair? It is more fair than if restaurants weren't wheelchair accessible. > Is it more fair to exclude someone on the basis of their financial situation rather than based on their physical disability? It is more fair than if they were also excluded based on their physical disability. >If I were to become disabled and not be able to go hiking, I'd miss it more than going to restaurants. Is that fair? It is more fair than if you were also not able to go to restaurants. You see? These are all still better. It is not perfect, but arguing that we should do away with these laws because they are not perfect doesn't help it become better, just worse.
  - kylebyproxy 4y ago
    > who gets to pick and choose? Generally, that's the role of a legislature. We could, for instance, exempt restaurants unable to afford renovations from that burden. Unfortunately, there are sticklers like you that would rather those restaurant not exist.
    - krainboltgreene 4y ago
      > Generally, that's the role of a legislature. Not only would this be an insane job for the legislature, they aren't equipped to handle the volume.
bell-cot 4y ago
If the restaurant merely rents, how responsible is it for the landlord's property being less than accessible? If the restaurant is in a Historic District, and the board/commission/whatever in charge of that is generally opposed to pro-accessibility changes - who (other than the lawyers) benefits when the restaurant ends up as a de-facto abandoned building? If my "handicap" is a severe peanut allergy, should I be able to demand that every restaurant have a separate, peanut-free kitchen - with only certified peanut-free ingredients, etc.? (One can repeat this argument for other allergies, people whose personal beliefs require kosher/halal/vegan/etc. food, and so on.) If there are (say) 100 restaurants in a city, what is the marginal value for handicapped people of forcing a 101th restaurant to spend $$$$ to qualify as handicap-accessible?
- anonAndOn 4y ago
  > should I be able to demand that every restaurant have a separate, peanut-free kitchen Why stop there? There also needs to be a separate nut-free section of the restaurant for dining. Inaccessibility is frustrating but nuts are deadly!
- JCharante 4y ago
  I kinda agree. If the restaurant rents then the landlord renting out their space as restaurant space should be liable
  - tssva 4y ago
    The restaurant owners chose to rent a property with knowledge that they were going to operate a restaurant on the property, and they also knew or should have known the accessibility requirements for restaurants. Why shouldn't they be liable.
    - bell-cot 4y ago
      As a generality, both the economy and the legal system work far better when the seller of a good (or landlord of a rental property) bears the burden of making sure that his goods/properties are in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, etc. And "fit for purpose", etc. If you wanted to rent an office, an apartment, or even a '5 x 10' self-storage unit, would you find it reasonable for Step 1 to be "hire a team of property lawyers and inspectors, to find out if the place I want to rent is in compliance with all current Federal, State, County, City, and Historical District laws, standards, rules, regulations..."? I'm thinking "no". "Accessibility" is one of many legal requirements for a restaurant, and very few of the people who might want to open a restaurant are property lawyers.
collegeburner 4y ago
yeah to at least some restaurants. but it's ok to say that not every restaurant has to be accessible. we should minimize the extent to which someone's disability is everyone else's problem. same reason a lot of these new tech laws affect companies with over 2 million users or whatever, small companies don't have the resources to deal with it. so should a big chain restaurant have ramps? yeah. should a small mom and pop shop have to close cause it cant afford it? nahh screw that.
- kyleee 4y ago
  also because the cost / feasibility of coming into compliance can vary greatly, ex some places basically don't have space for a ramp without wholesale changes to the building, etc.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Are there reasonable limits to this expectation? Would businesses have to accommodate people who need iron lungs (if those were still in use)?
hedora 4y ago
In 48 states in the US, if you complain, the establishment has N days to fix it. Otherwise, you can sue. In the other two states (California and New York) there are cottage industries where people look for subtle infractions (even at businesses that have made good faith efforts to comply with the ADA), then file shake down suits.

If you're handicapped you don't expect to be able to go hiking. However you do expect to be able to go to restaurants

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago

Why do you expect that?

TheNorthman 4y ago
I mean, aside from the obvious principle of reasonable accommodation guaranteed by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? Or, perhaps more specifically the guarantee from Article 19, barring segregation from the community at large? Expecting the declarations on human rights to be followed is not unreasonable.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  should all resturants also be vegan? Nut free? We don't want to segregate, right? Nobody "deserves" to go to a resturant.
  - TheNorthman 4y ago
    Is being vegan a disability? Regarding nuts, I don't know about the rest of the world but in my country, restaurants are required to disclose allergens in their foods, if asked.
    - tasuki 4y ago
      Disclosing allergens is a different thing though: that's akin to "disclosing" that the restaurant isn't wheelchair accessible. Should all restaurants also be required to serve food for whatever combination of allergies one might have? My mother has several food allergies, there are restaurants where she can't eat any meal. Would you welcome a law mandating each and every restaurant to start serving meals she can eat?
      - Arainach 4y ago
        Again, allergies aren't a protected class.
        tasuki 4y ago
        I'm not from the US and had to look up what "protected class" meant. It seems to be a well-intentioned yet somewhat arbitrary list. It appears to be regularly amended. Perhaps allergies will be on the list one day too?
- comte7092 4y ago
  “Principle of "reasonable accommodation" The Convention defines "reasonable accommodation" as "necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others” [0] Suing every hole in the wall out of business is hardly in line with reasonable accommodation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_Persons_with_Disabilities?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_Pe...
  - TheNorthman 4y ago
    > Suing every hole in the wall out of business is hardly in line with reasonable accommodation. Suing is the enforcement mechanism chosen by the Israelis and the US, not the reasoning behind the requirement. The reasoning is: The disabled should have equal access to dining and it's not an undue burden to expect ramps outside of businesses. Most of the developed world is like this. You might disagree with that reasoning but clearly a political majority in the US didn't and doesn't.

tasuki 4y ago

Each and every restaurant? I agree we want the world to be fair. I recently went through a difficult situation, during which my partner was unable to visit restaurants, even if they were wheelchair accessible. Was that fair? What about people who can't financially afford going to a restaurant? Is it more fair to exclude someone on the basis of their financial situation rather than based on their physical disability? Btw, I love hiking. If I were to become disabled and not be able to go hiking, I'd miss it more than going to restaurants. Is that fair?

ThatPlayer 4y ago
Yes. Because if not each and every restaurant, who gets to pick and choose? If the restaurant owners, none. If the disabled, all. And there isn't really an in-between is there? So all is better than none. Are you arguing we shouldn't have such laws because they don't reach 100% of people? That's letting perfect be the enemy of good. > I recently went through a difficult situation, during which my partner was unable to visit restaurants, even if they were wheelchair accessible. Was that fair? It is more fair than if restaurants weren't wheelchair accessible. > Is it more fair to exclude someone on the basis of their financial situation rather than based on their physical disability? It is more fair than if they were also excluded based on their physical disability. >If I were to become disabled and not be able to go hiking, I'd miss it more than going to restaurants. Is that fair? It is more fair than if you were also not able to go to restaurants. You see? These are all still better. It is not perfect, but arguing that we should do away with these laws because they are not perfect doesn't help it become better, just worse.
- kylebyproxy 4y ago
  > who gets to pick and choose? Generally, that's the role of a legislature. We could, for instance, exempt restaurants unable to afford renovations from that burden. Unfortunately, there are sticklers like you that would rather those restaurant not exist.
  - krainboltgreene 4y ago
    > Generally, that's the role of a legislature. Not only would this be an insane job for the legislature, they aren't equipped to handle the volume.

bell-cot 4y ago

If the restaurant merely rents, how responsible is it for the landlord's property being less than accessible? If the restaurant is in a Historic District, and the board/commission/whatever in charge of that is generally opposed to pro-accessibility changes - who (other than the lawyers) benefits when the restaurant ends up as a de-facto abandoned building? If my "handicap" is a severe peanut allergy, should I be able to demand that every restaurant have a separate, peanut-free kitchen - with only certified peanut-free ingredients, etc.? (One can repeat this argument for other allergies, people whose personal beliefs require kosher/halal/vegan/etc. food, and so on.) If there are (say) 100 restaurants in a city, what is the marginal value for handicapped people of forcing a 101th restaurant to spend $$$$ to qualify as handicap-accessible?

anonAndOn 4y ago
> should I be able to demand that every restaurant have a separate, peanut-free kitchen Why stop there? There also needs to be a separate nut-free section of the restaurant for dining. Inaccessibility is frustrating but nuts are deadly!
JCharante 4y ago
I kinda agree. If the restaurant rents then the landlord renting out their space as restaurant space should be liable
- tssva 4y ago
  The restaurant owners chose to rent a property with knowledge that they were going to operate a restaurant on the property, and they also knew or should have known the accessibility requirements for restaurants. Why shouldn't they be liable.
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    As a generality, both the economy and the legal system work far better when the seller of a good (or landlord of a rental property) bears the burden of making sure that his goods/properties are in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, etc. And "fit for purpose", etc. If you wanted to rent an office, an apartment, or even a '5 x 10' self-storage unit, would you find it reasonable for Step 1 to be "hire a team of property lawyers and inspectors, to find out if the place I want to rent is in compliance with all current Federal, State, County, City, and Historical District laws, standards, rules, regulations..."? I'm thinking "no". "Accessibility" is one of many legal requirements for a restaurant, and very few of the people who might want to open a restaurant are property lawyers.

collegeburner 4y ago

yeah to at least some restaurants. but it's ok to say that not every restaurant has to be accessible. we should minimize the extent to which someone's disability is everyone else's problem. same reason a lot of these new tech laws affect companies with over 2 million users or whatever, small companies don't have the resources to deal with it. so should a big chain restaurant have ramps? yeah. should a small mom and pop shop have to close cause it cant afford it? nahh screw that.

kyleee 4y ago
also because the cost / feasibility of coming into compliance can vary greatly, ex some places basically don't have space for a ramp without wholesale changes to the building, etc.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

Are there reasonable limits to this expectation? Would businesses have to accommodate people who need iron lungs (if those were still in use)?

hedora 4y ago

In 48 states in the US, if you complain, the establishment has N days to fix it. Otherwise, you can sue. In the other two states (California and New York) there are cottage industries where people look for subtle infractions (even at businesses that have made good faith efforts to comply with the ADA), then file shake down suits.