4 ms·

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-b

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.
tasuki 4y ago
You do raise good points. > If the restaurant owners, none. If the disabled, all. And there isn't really an in-between is there? Are you sure there's no in-between? I gave this grand total of few seconds of thought. Could perhaps the government or the city step in and provide wheelchair accessibility to select restaurants, based on feasibility, cost, location, and perhaps some other criteria? Restaurant owners suffer because of these laws. Are you 100% sure the suffering of the restaurant owners under these laws is lesser than the suffering of the disabled without these laws?
datadata 4y ago
You could do this: Restaurants would be eligible for a tax credit against earnings if they can show themselves to be accessible. The tax credit part would hopefully prevent abuse by businesses, and also make it so that only restaurants that are able to implement this efficiently would do it. Simply raise the tax credit until a sufficient number of restaurants take the carrot. You might have to do something to ensure sufficient geographic distribution.
ViViDboarder 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. I think this is why some laws state “reasonable accommodations”. If a ramp is impossible or unaffordable with the restaurants margins, what should be the course of action? Should the restaurant close? If so, that doesn’t actually improve accessibility. The current law may already use this barometer and the horror story examples may be overblown, but at least this seems like a reasonable way to approach things.
- Arainach 4y ago
  Businesses don't have an inherent right to exist. If your business can't be profitable while paying your workers a liveable wage, maintaining safety for employees and customers, etc. then your business should fail.
  - ViViDboarder 4y ago
    Sure. That just means higher unemployment and fewer overall consumer options.

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.

tasuki 4y ago

You do raise good points. > If the restaurant owners, none. If the disabled, all. And there isn't really an in-between is there? Are you sure there's no in-between? I gave this grand total of few seconds of thought. Could perhaps the government or the city step in and provide wheelchair accessibility to select restaurants, based on feasibility, cost, location, and perhaps some other criteria? Restaurant owners suffer because of these laws. Are you 100% sure the suffering of the restaurant owners under these laws is lesser than the suffering of the disabled without these laws?

datadata 4y ago

You could do this: Restaurants would be eligible for a tax credit against earnings if they can show themselves to be accessible. The tax credit part would hopefully prevent abuse by businesses, and also make it so that only restaurants that are able to implement this efficiently would do it. Simply raise the tax credit until a sufficient number of restaurants take the carrot. You might have to do something to ensure sufficient geographic distribution.

ViViDboarder 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. I think this is why some laws state “reasonable accommodations”. If a ramp is impossible or unaffordable with the restaurants margins, what should be the course of action? Should the restaurant close? If so, that doesn’t actually improve accessibility. The current law may already use this barometer and the horror story examples may be overblown, but at least this seems like a reasonable way to approach things.

Arainach 4y ago
Businesses don't have an inherent right to exist. If your business can't be profitable while paying your workers a liveable wage, maintaining safety for employees and customers, etc. then your business should fail.
- ViViDboarder 4y ago
  Sure. That just means higher unemployment and fewer overall consumer options.