3 ms·

Sure, I get it. However, as a person with a disability, I can tell you one thing for sure: I much prefer knowing that someone doesnt want me. Imagine someone

• Johnny555 4y ago
  Imagine someone was forced by law to take you as a customer, but doesn't like you at all I don’t care if the pharmacy clerk likes me or approves of my lifestyle, but I do expect them to fill my prescription even if it’s against their feelings or religious beliefs. I don’t see how a fair society can exist without anti-discrimination laws.
  • lynx23 4y ago
    Your comparison isn't really appropriate. In a shop, I can walk in, get my stuff, and walk out in a few minutes. If you rent, your landlord will always be your landlord, and there are plenty of opportunities for ongoing conflict. As a person with disability, I know that I will loose if someone picks a fight with me. Maybe you should try to put yourself in the position of someone with lower priviledges before blindly insisting that anti-discrimination laws are all we need to fix things.
    • Retric 4y ago
      They don’t suggest they actually fixed things, just that they were necessary. In a true profit maximizing meritocracy many disabled people would not be able to survive because nobody would employ them etc. The degree of accommodation required by law isn’t about the disabled so much as the issues should people be allowed to systematically exclude them.
      • eru 4y ago
        > In a true profit maximizing meritocracy many disabled people would not be able to survive because nobody would employ them etc. Just give them money?
        • kevviiinn 4y ago
          Giving people money isn't profitable
          • eru 4y ago
            Duh. Neither is going to the cinema or displaying paintings in your living room. You can see charity as a form of (possibly conspicuous) consumption, if you will.
            • kevviiinn 4y ago
              The person I'm replying to replied to someone discussing a profit maximizing entity which is the context. I understand there is value to other behaviors but corporations don't
              • eru 4y ago
                Corporations are supposed to do whatever their shareholders want. The default assumption is that shareholders want to maximize profit, but shareholders can also want different things. In any case, even the most ruthless capitalist society imaginable is not made out of corporations alone. Corporations are just a legal shell. People work for them, people own them, people buy their products, etc. In a true profit maximizing meritocracy some disabled people might not get a job (though they still might, at lower pay commensurable with their productivity). [0] But there's nothing stopping people from (a) charitable giving, or (b) enacting laws to give tax payer funded assistance to disabled people. (You might argue with (b), but you can't really argue with (a).) [0] Compared to eg someone like John von Neumann, I'm an idiot, but I can still find work even with my comparatively weak intellect. I just can't expect as much pay as John von Neumann would warrant. Of course, that pay might in principle be low enough that people can't survive on it. That's where charity and/or public assistance comes in.
    • lazyasciiart 4y ago
      You’re actually arguing for the opportunity to be excluded from the housing market entirely? Or you can’t imagine that would happen, and you’re just in favor of being forced to pay more for worse housing? Because we don’t have to do this as a hypothetical with spherical cows - it used to be legal, for all kinds of disadvantaged groups, and it wasn’t better for them. Women, black people, parents, people with criminal histories, people who were unemployed, or Chinese, Irish, Jewish, etc… So, maybe you should stop assuming that you are the only person in the conversation who knows what they are talking about.
      • lynx23 4y ago
        [flagged]
  • brianwawok 4y ago
    Sounds like in at least 6 states, your pharmacist can indeed not to give you medicine? https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/2152/religious-rights-of-pharmacists-and-morning-after-pills https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/2152/religious-...
• smnrchrds 4y ago
  It's not a matter of hatred in the vast majority of the cases, but convenience and profits. In a society where discrimination on the basis of disability is permitted, you may find that as people with disabilities cannot get a taxi or get on an airplane: the disability makes such a service more expensive to run and capitalism and profit maximization eliminates it naturally, no hate needed. Perhaps at some point an enterprising entity decides to break into the market of providing services for people with disabilities, at three times the cost of a normal fare. That would be somewhat better, but still not ideal. I know this would happen because I moved from a country without anti-discrimination laws to a country with. I encountered more people on wheelchairs in the public during my first month in the latter than the previous 20-something years in the former. In the absence of anti-discrimination laws, all avenues for participation of people with disabilities in the society, even things as simple as going grocery shopping, was all but non-existent. As far as I know it still is like that in the old country. Not because people hate everyone needing a wheelchair: people are reasonably nice and thoughtful in the old country too. But in the absence of laws forcing accommodations, no accommodations are made, with obvious results.
  • nickpp 4y ago
    > I moved from a country without anti-discrimination laws to a country with Maybe the country you moved to was also rich and with a functioning free-market economy? Capitalism naturally incentivizes entrepreneurs to seek and serve niche markets while doing everything to accept and accommodate potential customers. In contrast, planned, state-run economies don't care in the slightest and just do the bare minimum required by law. Here is your job to jump through the hoops and manage to give them your money.
    • smnrchrds 4y ago
      > Maybe the country you moved to was also rich and with a functioning free-market economy? Yes, but the economy of the old country, while poorer, was not exactly state-run. All grocery stores were private businesses created by entrepreneurs. Same with taxis. Yet neither accommodated people with disabilities. It was not like grocery stores were owned by the government and those who ran them were disinterested government employees. They were private businesses who made their own decisions and still they did not accommodate people with disabilities.
• skibidibipiti 4y ago
  [dead]
• throwaway742 4y ago
  Because you could end up with a scenario where there is nothing available.