Handicap Access...

[Danoff]

Organizations DO have a responsibility to meet.

Scenario:
Huge outdoor concert. 120 degree weather. No bathrooms. No running water. Dead concert goers. Human feces on the ground.

Who is responsible for that situation? The people, for not supply their own water or the event provider for not supply relief from the extreme temperatures? What about the human feces on the ground, should the concert going be charged for expelling their feces in public or is it the responsibility of the even provider to supply adequate bathroom facilities, i.e. porta-potties?

Uh... unless the people providing the concert signed some kind of gaurantee that those things would be provided, they are not under an obligation to provide them.

Scenario. You have some land and some hippies want to hang out on it. You say, go ahead knock yourselves out. But they literally do just that because they have no food or running water on you land. Then they sue you. They say "you have a responsibility to provide porta-potties, running water, and food for us since you said we could stay on your land."

Does that make sense to you? Here's another scenario. A drifter comes up to your front door asking if he can crash on your floor for the evening. You say yes (because you like having your things stolen and putting yourself at risk). He stays on the floor and in the morning wants to have some breakfast. You say "no way, hit the road." He says, "but you have a responsibility because you let me in." And sues you for millions of dollars worth of breakfast.

I have the right that was given to me by the owner. If the owner says that he is open for business, he has given me the right to his good and/or services.

Where in the phrase "open for business" is "I guarantee to serve you". Open for business means "I'm doing business". It doesn't mean "I will necessarily sell you something". It doesn't mean "I am required to provide services to you."

Here's an example. You go up to a roofer who's business has a sign in the window that says "Open for business". You go in and say I want you to fix my roof. He says "is it aluminum? We don't do aluminum roofing." You say "but you said you were open for business!!" Maybe he says "you live to far, I don't want to send one of my trucks that far." Maybe he says "I don't have any appointments for the next 3 months and I don't make them more than 3 months in advance." Maybe he says "I'm not going to be able to do a good job with that construction. You should contact Joe down the street." Maybe he says "Oops, that sign wasn't supposed to be lit, we're closed." Maybe he says "the cash register is stuck, I can't get it open. You'll have to try back with us some other time."


"Open for business" means that they're inviting costomers. That's it. It doesn't mean you have a right to any services. It doesn't mean "Business Guaranteed" or "You can't be refused."

 

[Famine]

Organizations DO have a responsibility to meet.

Scenario:
Huge outdoor concert. 120 degree weather. No bathrooms. No running water. Dead concert goers. Human feces on the ground.

Who is responsible for that situation? The people, for not supply their own water or the event provider for not supply relief from the extreme temperatures? What about the human feces on the ground, should the concert going be charged for expelling their feces in public or is it the responsibility of the even provider to supply adequate bathroom facilities, i.e. porta-potties?

Glastonbury .

 

[Swift]

Where did that come from? I was only making a comment. I never said it was someone's right not to be offended.

I didn't mean to take your head off. It just bores me that people are so worried about offending others. I'm not saying we should go out of our way TO offend people. But if my life in itself offends you, oh well.

And if a disabled person would be offended by being picked up then they are just a bit too proud.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I didn't mean to take your head off. It just bores me that people are so worried about offending others. I'm not saying we should go out of our way TO offend people. But if my life in itself offends you, oh well.

And if a disabled person would be offended by being picked up then they are just a bit too proud.

Yeah, I agree with that.

 

[Pako]

"Open for business" means that they're inviting costomers. That's it. It doesn't mean you have a right to any services. It doesn't mean "Business Guaranteed" or "You can't be refused."

I think you are reading to far into it. Open for business means a patron has a right to the services and/or products that are provided by that business. If they don't do aluminum roofing, then they can't hardly provided that service. The same goes with your other scenarios. My scenario also provides accountability for loss of life. It is expected for event providers to accommodate their patrons. I would love for personal accountability to go back on the individual, but our society is sooo far from personal accountability that we have to rely on everyone else to take care of use.

Business owners on private property are held to different laws and rights than non-business owners on private property. What of the thief that I shot and maimed for life because I was defending my life and property?

I feel he gave up his rights when he broke into my house, yet I am liable for protecting what is mine.

 

[Danoff]

I think you are reading to far into it. Open for business means a patron has a right to the services and/or products that are provided by that business.

Not legally or contractually - nor does that even make sense. So I don't know where you're getting this notion from.

If they don't do aluminum roofing, then they can't hardly provided that service.

They could provide the service but they choose not to.

My scenario also provides accountability for loss of life. It is expected for event providers to accommodate their patrons. I would love for personal accountability to go back on the individual, but our society is sooo far from personal accountability that we have to rely on everyone else to take care of use.

So what of my scenario with the landowner allowing the hippies to squat? Is he legally required to provide food and water and does he take responsibility for their lives, simply because they are on his land? Does that make sense to you? Try to forget for a moment about the world we live in. Imagine yourself far from here in the middle of nowhere with some land you own. People approach you and ask if they can squat. You say yes. Does that make you responsible for their well being? If so, why on Earth is that the case?

Business owners on private property are held to different laws and rights than non-business owners on private property. What of the thief that I shot and maimed for life because I was defending my life and property?

I feel he gave up his rights when he broke into my house, yet I am liable for protecting what is mine.

Far be it from me to protect the law, but show me one valid case where a thief sued someone for shooting her after breaking into their house.

 

[Famine]

Far be it from me to protect the law, but show me one valid case where a thief sued someone for shooting her after breaking into their house.

Am I allowed to join in, or is it US law only?

 

[Danoff]

Am I allowed to join in, or is it US law only?

Feel free to show us how screwed up UK law is.

 

[Pako]

Not legally or contractually - nor does that even make sense. So I don't know where you're getting this notion from.



They could provide the service but they choose not to.



So what of my scenario with the landowner allowing the hippies to squat? Is he legally required to provide food and water and does he take responsibility for their lives, simply because they are on his land? Does that make sense to you? Try to forget for a moment about the world we live in. Imagine yourself far from here in the middle of nowhere with some land you own. People approach you and ask if they can squat. You say yes. Does that make you responsible for their well being? If so, why on Earth is that the case?



Far be it from me to protect the law, but show me one valid case where a thief sued someone for shooting her after breaking into their house.

If I was making money from squating hippies on my land, then there would be some liability on my part, otherwise, no. Am I inviting hippies to squat for a quarter, or was I approached and allowed it out of the goodness of my heart.

What do you mean by a 'valid' case? Where a thief was actually awarded money for damages sustained while breaking into someones house?

 

[Danoff]

If I was making money from squating hippies on my land, then there would be some liability on my part, otherwise, no. Am I inviting hippies to squat for a quarter, or was I approached and allowed it out of the goodness of my heart.

Let's say you told them they could stay on your land if they gave you 50 bucks. Water and food were not mentioned at the time of the agreement. Are you required to provide water, food, and restrooms in addition to taking responsibility if anything happens to them? (eg: one of them drowns in your lake)

Edit: No, you know what? Nevermind the above. That's not even necessary to make my point. Let's say you did it out of the kindness of your heart. Let's say you told them they could squat on your land free of charge. What then?

What do you mean by a 'valid' case? Where a thief was actually awarded money for damages sustained while breaking into someones house?

An actual case that wasn't thrown out before it reached trial.

 

[Famine]

Feel free to show us how screwed up UK law is.

1. Engage stunned disbelief mode.
2. Ensure chin is properly supported.
3. Place a guzunder beneath your computer chair.
4. Search for "Tony Martin".

 

[Danoff]

I don't know how you can live there. When you can't even shoot someone who is robbing you... that's just sad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I don't know how you can live there. When you can't even shoot someone who is robbing you... that's just sad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

That is funny!

Theft from private property -- it's OK to shoot.

Theft from government and men with guns will show up at your door.

I think I'm starting to see the connection now.

 

[Pako]

1. Engage stunned disbelief mode.
2. Ensure chin is properly supported.
3. Place a guzunder beneath your computer chair.
4. Search for "Tony Martin".

Isn't he still serving time with his latest parole being denied while the robber he wounded is now released from prison?

 

[Famine]

No, I think he's out. He was tagged for a while - but the burglars (except Barras, obviously) were out long before him.

He's a bit of a loon, by all accounts (the "Keep England White" sort, though I don't know his stand on that particular issue) but even so, if three men who are physically in their prime break into your house while you're alone and you can't do anything but sit there and watch them, wuh tuh fuh?

There's an issue of "Do two wrongs make a right?" - is a crime committed against someone while they're committing a crime still a crime or not? Does a criminal forfeit ALL of his rights by committing a criminal act? - involved in this, but the plain fact is, if they weren't committing a crime, not one of them would have been hurt by the man they were committing a crime against.


A kid local to me broke the law by climbing onto the roof of a (closed) public sports centre. He had to get over a couple of large fences and some razor wire to do it, but he managed it. While he was up there, he fell off and broke his leg. He - again using legal aid - successfully sued the council which ran the sports centre as it, against Health & Safety regulations, didn't put up any signs which said that it could be dangerous to climb on the roof (never mind the fact they'd put up fences topped with razor wire to stop the little scrote doing it).

 

[Swift]

A kid local to me broke the law by climbing onto the roof of a (closed) public sports centre. He had to get over a couple of large fences and some razor wire to do it, but he managed it. While he was up there, he fell off and broke his leg. He - again using legal aid - successfully sued the council which ran the sports centre as it, against Health & Safety regulations, didn't put up any signs which said that it could be dangerous to climb on the roof (never mind the fact they'd put up fences topped with razor wire to stop the little scrote doing it).

How would any judge not laugh that out of his/her court?

I don't know how you can live there. When you can't even shoot someone who is robbing you... that's just sad.

I think the ONLY reason there was a case was that he had a gun illegally. That's what I sermized by the reading.

 

[Famine]

And he shot the kid in the back - which implies he was already fleeing.

There's a very specific part of our law which says that you are allowed to defend yourself, using "reasonable force", from a burglar in your home, but you aren't allowed to lie in wait for them, or attack them from behind.


This is patently ridiculous, as apprehension of the person committing the crime gives that crime a 100% resolution rate, regardless of whether you hide behind a door and belt them in the face, or nugget them with a cricket bat.

Which brings me onto a further point - the weapon you use must not be there for that purpose. Examples: I can get my hockey stick out of the cupboard, but I can't keep a 9" steakknife under my pillow.

 

[Danoff]

Which brings me onto a further point - the weapon you use must not be there for that purpose. Examples: I can get my hockey stick out of the cupboard, but I can't keep a 9" steakknife under my pillow.

What? [sarcasm] That makes sense [/sarcasm]

 

[Danoff]

Here's an interesting article on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/12/05/movies.disabled.ap/index.html


We're aparently forcing movie theaters to cater to the deaf and blind... nice. If there were enough people to warrant this kind of regulation then it wouldn't be needed because theaters would be fighting for their business.

"Movies are an important part of popular culture," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. "Every adult and child should be able to enjoy a film with family and friends, especially during the holiday season."

You have the right to bear arms.
You have the right to free speech.
You have the right to force movie theater owners to install the latest most expensive technology to help you enjoy crappy films like AEON Flux or War of the Worlds dispite the fact that you're deaf and blind.

*sigh*

 

[Swift]

Here's an interesting article on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/12/05/movies.disabled.ap/index.html


We're aparently forcing movie theaters to cater to the deaf and blind... nice. If there were enough people to warrant this kind of regulation then it wouldn't be needed because theaters would be fighting for their business.

"Movies are an important part of popular culture," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. "Every adult and child should be able to enjoy a film with family and friends, especially during the holiday season."

You have the right to bear arms.
You have the right to free speech.
You have the right to force movie theater owners to install the latest most expensive technology to help you enjoy crappy films like AEON Flux or War of the Worlds dispite the fact that you're deaf and blind.

*sigh*

This is the ridiculousness that I was talking about when I started this thread. Doesn't this make NO sense? How can the government come in, tell a PRIVATE, legal business that they have to purchase insanely expensive equipment to help some people that have a hard time hearing or seeing a movie. I'm sorry, but we have DVD's for a reason. I barely go to the movies anymore and it's because crap like this keeps raising ticket prices and food prices. I mean, where does the government of New York think these theatres are going to recoup their costs?


Movies are not part of our culture, they are a luxury. 40 years ago they were part of the culture when they were affordable. Now, for 9$ or more a ticket plus snacks. Forget about it. You can go to a decent sitdown restaurant and pay less then that for two people.

This PC movement is really sick, I mean sick. I don't like the fact that someone isn't able to hear, see, run, or whatever. Honestly, it's rough and I know it's rough. But why force businesses to charge their consumers more so the government can feel good about itself?

Now, if the gov't wants to give the business the money to do said upgrades, that's a different story. But we all know that's not the case.

Thanks Danoff, I was just thinking about this topic over the weekend.

 

[Fairlady240zg]

How can the government come in, tell a PRIVATE, legal business that they have to purchase insanely expensive equipment to help some people that have a hard time hearing or seeing a movie.

Its called the Americans with Dissabilities Act. Check it out..
Private buisinesses must try to accomodate people with disabilities, if it is not at an overly crazy price. Is it really that insanely expensive for these large chains to put acouple of these devices into some of their theatres??

I barely go to the movies anymore and it's because crap like this keeps raising ticket prices and food prices. I mean, where does the government of New York think these theatres are going to recoup their costs?

Im pretty sure that the government gives these theatres help with taxes and stuff if they make changes to their theatres to help people with disabilities. I believe this is also mentioned in the act or added to one similar.
Maybe its also the millions they spend making the movie and paying the actors? We are paying some dumbass that much money to act? For real?? Maybe this is the reason why so many people are foregoing movie theatres..?

Now, for 9$ or more a ticket plus snacks.

With snacks?? Damn, I need to live where you are..its 11 bucks a piece here for a movie. $7 flat for the beer theatre.(called this cause you can go and drink, smoke do whatever, they dont care..) Usually just people talking and starting fights.

This PC movement is really sick, I mean sick. I don't like the fact that someone isn't able to hear, see, run, or whatever. Honestly, it's rough and I know it's rough. But why force businesses to charge their consumers more so the government can feel good about itself?

You know its rough? Dont take this personally, but to me your coming off pretty insensitive..
Its not about the government feeling good. Its about giving everyone in the country to the basic rights you take for granted.. 👍

 

[Famine]

Here is my house - my private land. Someone rings the doorbell. I can choose to answer it or ignore them.

Here is my house - my private land - from which I've decided to sell self-reciprocating flange sockets. Someone rings the doorbell. I cannot chose to ignore them because the government says so.


How is it a "basic right" to go into someone's private property without their approval, just because they've chosen to sell things from there?

If someone doesn't want to let disabled people into their shop, then they shouldn't have to. They'd be stupid and lose an awful lot of business but at least they haven't lost their freedom of expression, idiotic though that expression may be. And that is the crux of this thread - not whether disabled people should be allowed into shops, but whether it is right that government can demand that private property must be structurally altered against the owner's wishes.

 

[MugenVTEC]

Here is my house - my private land. Someone rings the doorbell. I can choose to answer it or ignore them.

Here is my house - my private land - from which I've decided to sell self-reciprocating flange sockets. Someone rings the doorbell. I cannot chose to ignore them because the government says so.


How is it a "basic right" to go into someone's private property without their approval, just because they've chosen to sell things from there?

If someone doesn't want to let disabled people into their shop, then they shouldn't have to. They'd be stupid and lose an awful lot of business but at least they haven't lost their freedom of expression, idiotic though that expression may be. And that is the crux of this thread - not whether disabled people should be allowed into shops, but whether it is right that government can demand that private property must be structurally altered against the owner's wishes.

Dam Famine is so intelligent. I wonder where he gets all this. Is he an alien or something ???

 

[Fairlady240zg]

How is it a "basic right" to go into someone's private property without their approval, just because they've chosen to sell things from there?

Im pretty sure that went out the window when you turned your home into a business...?

If someone doesn't want to let disabled people into their shop, then they shouldn't have to. They'd be stupid and lose an awful lot of business but at least they haven't lost their freedom of expression, idiotic though that expression may be. And that is the crux of this thread - not whether disabled people should be allowed into shops, but whether it is right that government can demand that private property must be structurally altered against the owner's wishes.

Businesses wouldnt let blacks, whites, asians whatever into their shops if your gonna put it that way..

Alot of people change their businesses to comply with people with disabilities..whether it is because of the government or not, its in good taste and the mark of a good business.
You dont HAVE to do anything. The act simply states that if it is not at a exhorbitant(spelling?) expense, you should put one in. This act is rarely inforced unless it is a government building or one frequented by alot of people. Im guessing your homes business is not huge, and you should have no problem.
Note: I just realized your in england...I have no clue what their laws are or read anything other than swifts post... 👍

 

[Swift]

Im pretty sure that went out the window when you turned your home into a business...?



Businesses wouldnt let blacks, whites, asians whatever into their shops if your gonna put it that way..

As radically stupid as racism is. That should be the private business person's choice. As famine already stated, they're going to loose incredible amounts of money, but it should be their choice.

Alot of people change their businesses to comply with people with disabilities..whether it is because of the government or not, its in good taste and the mark of a good business.
You dont HAVE to do anything. The act simply states that if it is not at a exhorbitant(spelling?) expense, you should put one in. This act is rarely inforced unless it is a government building or one frequented by alot of people. Im guessing your homes business is not huge, and you should have no problem.
Note: I just realized your in england...I have no clue what their laws are or read anything other than swifts post... 👍

If you read the first post in this thread, you would know that that county if forcing a church to completely redo and restructer a ramp leading up to the platform for the cost of at least 7K$.

Why should we have to complete alter our platform when there is already a functional ramp in place. I'm not against disabled people in the slightest as we have a good amount in our church. They can use the current ramp just fine. So why does the gov't feel the need to MAKE us change all of it?

As Famine said, that's the crux of the thread. Not the civil liberties act, I know about that(it doesn't make things right just because it's a law though) but the fact the gov't makes organizations change things at the expense of the organization.

 

[Famine]

Im pretty sure that went out the window when you turned your home into a business...?

How? It's still private property. Let's say I work from home and have a business doing freelance proof-reading. My house is the registered address of my business. Should I be forced to admit anyone into my house interested in my services? Do I need to install a disabled ramp and extra-wide doors in case of fat people?

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Matter of fact is that just because a landowner decides to provide a service from his premises, government shouldn't force them to admit anyone who may be interested in the service.

You should have the right to refuse to serve or admit anyone for any reason - whether that reason is bourne out by rational decision (not selling a shotgun to someone who is clearly steaming drunk) or just irrational prejudice. Otherwise what's the point of owning anything, if "government" can tell you what you must do with it?

Businesses wouldnt let blacks, whites, asians whatever into their shops if your gonna put it that way..

Why is this a bad thing?

People have their prejudices. They ought to be free to express them (obviously not to the extent of infringing basic human rights*). Forcing them to act against their prejudices just intensifies them: "Goddamn negroes tellin' me how to run my goddamn shop.". It'd be better to educate them as to why their prejudices are unfounded and illogical but, as long as they aren't harming anyone, they should be left to their own devices.

Before long any business that refuses to serve black people would find themselves going bust anyway - all the refused black people would tell their non-black friends, who'd probably stop shopping there, then word would get into local, region and maybe national press. Before long he'd have a picket line on his doorstep and no customers. This is the free market in action.

The government has no right to tell people what they must and must not do on their private property, so long as they are not infringing any basic human rights*.

Alot of people change their businesses to comply with people with disabilities..whether it is because of the government or not, its in good taste and the mark of a good business.

Yes, it is. But it is a decision which should be taken by the business themselves and not forced upon them.

You dont HAVE to do anything. The act simply states that if it is not at a exhorbitant(spelling?) expense, you should put one in. This act is rarely inforced unless it is a government building or one frequented by alot of people. Im guessing your homes business is not huge, and you should have no problem.
Note: I just realized your in england...I have no clue what their laws are or read anything other than swifts post... 👍

The extant laws in my - or any other - country make no odds. I'm talking about what is right and what is not for ANY government - and it is not right to force people to provide access to their property for anyone who wants to go into it, business or not.

And I don't have a home business. I was using an hypothetical as an example.

*Note: Buying things from somewhere is not covered by basic human rights. Read your money.

 

[Fairlady240zg]

How? It's still private property. Let's say I work from home and have a business doing freelance proof-reading. My house is the registered address of my business. Should I be forced to admit anyone into my house interested in my services? Do I need to install a disabled ramp and extra-wide doors in case of fat people?

Again, back to previous post....

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Matter of fact is that just because a landowner decides to provide a service from his premises, government shouldn't force them to admit anyone who may be interested in the service.

You started a BUSINESS in your home. It is no longer a home, but a place of BUSINESS. Part of your home is now regulated by the government..

You should have the right to refuse to serve or admit anyone for any reason - whether that reason is bourne out by rational decision (not selling a shotgun to someone who is clearly steaming drunk) or just irrational prejudice. Otherwise what's the point of owning anything, if "government" can tell you what you must do with it?

Are you serious?

Why is this a bad thing?

People have their prejudices. They ought to be free to express them (obviously not to the extent of infringing basic human rights*). Forcing them to act against their prejudices just intensifies them: "Goddamn negroes tellin' me how to run my goddamn shop.". It'd be better to educate them as to why their prejudices are unfounded and illogical but, as long as they aren't harming anyone, they should be left to their own devices.

Im wondering what the civil rights movement was about then?

Before long any business that refuses to serve black people would find themselves going bust anyway - all the refused black people would tell their non-black friends, who'd probably stop shopping there, then word would get into local, region and maybe national press. Before long he'd have a picket line on his doorstep and no customers. This is the free market in action.

Im guessing you have never been in any southern state or certian areas of cities...? This would never happen. Thats a shame.

The government has no right to tell people what they must and must not do on their private property, so long as they are not infringing any basic human rights*.

It is a place of business. Therefore it should be open to everyone...private or not. Business is regulated by who?? The government, not by your own personal bias.

*Note: Buying things from somewhere is not covered by basic human rights. Read your money.[/QUOTE]

Nope, but You cannot restrict access to things because of race, gender or disability. Which is exactly what you are talking about.

Swift, I get what your saying, Ill have to read the first post.From what you say, I believe your case could be argued based on the disabilities act. Parts are vague and you already have handicapped access. Although it will probably be enforced because a church is probably bigger than a small business and could most likely afford it. Maybe because it is a church and frequented by people with disabilities? Im not sure.
I agree, if I was in your position, I wouldnt be happy.

Theres a big difference in the situation you speak of and famines.

 

[Danoff]

You started a BUSINESS in your home. It is no longer a home, but a place of BUSINESS. Part of your home is now regulated by the government..

It is still your property, and is under your control. Only if the public paid for your property can you rightly be forced to open it to any member of the public.

Im wondering what the civil rights movement was about then?

It was about stopping the government (paid for by everyone) from discriminating.

Im guessing you have never been in any southern state or certian areas of cities...? This would never happen. Thats a shame.

I've lived in the southern states you're probably referring to. I can guarantee you that in this day and age, racism by white people is not tolerated.

It is a place of business. Therefore it should be open to everyone...private or not. Business is regulated by who?? The government, not by your own personal bias.

The business is owned by a person. It is his personal property, purchased with his money, earned by his hard work. It does not belong to the public - as the public did not purchase or contribute to any part of it. Therefore, unless it is somehow infringing the rights of others (which do not include trespassing on someone else's property), it is not under their control.

 

[Famine]

You started a BUSINESS in your home. It is no longer a home, but a place of BUSINESS. Part of your home is now regulated by the government..

Point missed.

Yes, it IS regulated, but it SHOULDN'T be.

Are you saying that if I run a mail-order proof-reading business from my home I must install a disabled ramp and leave the front door to my house open, 8-til-late?

Are you serious?

Yes.

Say I own a shop. I don't, but say I do.

I have an item worth £20. You come in and want to give me £20 for that item. Am I bound by any law to exchange your £20 of money for my £20 item? Am I allowed to refuse to give you this item in exchange for your money?

Im wondering what the civil rights movement was about then?

So do I. But that's for another thread (the "Affirmative Action" one).

Nevertheless, it was about biased treatment by governmental organisations against individuals based on ethnicity, not by individuals against individuals. You see government is supposed to WORK FOR people and not the other way round. When you have governmental discrimination against a group of people because of their genetic makeup then you don't have a government working for them. Government should treat all individuals by the same criteria.

But it should still be the fundamental right of an individual to hold, and express, prejudiced views - however stupid and irrational they are - as long as they do not take those views to a point where they are trampling on basic human rights of any other person or persons.

People have the right to be jackasses.

It is a place of business. Therefore it should be open to everyone...private or not. Business is regulated by who?? The government, not by your own personal bias.

So, say I run a pub (bar). Am I, or am I not, allowed to refuse to serve someone who is clearly inebriated? Must I give them my £x product if they give me their £x money?

Do I have the right to choose who I serve, or must I serve everyone who has the ability to buy my stock?

*Note: Buying things from somewhere is not covered by basic human rights. Read your money.

Nope, but You cannot restrict access to things because of race, gender or disability. Which is exactly what you are talking about.

No, it isn't. I'm talking about people having the right to think what they want and that government has no place passing laws which stop them.

Who exactly does a man who refuses to serve a wheelchair user in his place of business hurt? He hurts himself, by alienating his customer base and losing him business. Why do we need legislation to prevent this guy putting himself out of business through his own stupidity and prejudice?

 

[Swift]

Swift, I get what your saying, Ill have to read the first post.From what you say, I believe your case could be argued based on the disabilities act. Parts are vague and you already have handicapped access. Although it will probably be enforced because a church is probably bigger than a small business and could most likely afford it. Maybe because it is a church and frequented by people with disabilities? Im not sure.
I agree, if I was in your position, I wouldnt be happy.

Theres a big difference in the situation you speak of and famines.

Why does everyone think that all churches have money just because they're churches? That's a huge stereotype that just isn't true. Especially in my churches case. We have many blessings, but we also have many needs and bills.

There is no difference in what Famine, Danoff and I are talking about. If taxes paid for the property then the gov't can tell us what to do all day and all night. However, taxes don't pay for business or churches so why does the gov't get to tell us how to run it. I can understand safety issues like fire alarms, a certain number of exits or signs pointing the way out. But having us install all these extra things for something that MIGHT happen is just stupid.