Handicap Access...

[Swift]

So... you don't want disabled people on stage or you just don't want them having a dignified route?

No, you don't get it. there are people that aren't handicapped that have NEVER been on stage. The stage isn't for everyone. Just like you can't be a fighter pilot if you're too short, too tall not 20/20 vision, etc. That would easily be a form of discrimination. But it's not. Why? Because to make a fighter for a 7 foot person that's near sighted isn't logical.

To alter a stage(or a bathroom that has no way for a person in a wheel chair to get there) just so we can say, "We're politically correct" is useless.

I just want to make sure that you all understand that I have nothing against people with physical disabilities. Just the fact that our entire society has to jump through expensive hoops because one of them "might" need access to a specific part of the building.

 

[JacktheHat]

No, you don't get it. there are people that aren't handicapped that have NEVER been on stage. The stage isn't for everyone. Just like you can't be a fighter pilot if you're too short, too tall not 20/20 vision, etc. That would easily be a form of discrimination. But it's not. Why? Because to make a fighter for a 7 foot person that's near sighted isn't logical.

To alter a stage(or a bathroom that has no way for a person in a wheel chair to get there) just so we can say, "We're politically correct" is useless.

I just want to make sure that you all understand that I have nothing against people with physical disabilities. Just the fact that our entire society has to jump through expensive hoops because one of them "might" need access to a specific part of the building.

If you had considered disabled people before doing the work you wouldn't have this problem.

 

[Swift]

If you had considered disabled people before doing the work you wouldn't have this problem.

Try to keep up, young boy.

And yes, there was a ramp there but is wasn't up to "code" That was thanks to our builder.

That was just a few posts ago and in the pictures in the first post.

 

[JacktheHat]

Try to keep up, young boy.



That was just a few posts ago and in the pictures in the first post.

Yes, did you or your builder consider disable people and/or the regulations relating to their access?


NOPE

 

[Swift]

Yes, did you or your builder consider disable people and/or the regulations relating to their access?


NOPE

You're really trying to be slow now aren't you?



There is a ramp there on the left. But as I stated before it wasn't up to "code". Obviously, that's the fault of the architect and the builder. However, I still find it silly that it's mandatory. That and the fact that it's going to cost us upwards of $7K.

 

[Danoff]

I agree... We had a bizarre thing here at my work... main access to the building is via a slope, but the slope is too steep for wheelchair access (non-regulation anyway), so they have recently built a flat platform with a wheelchair lift at the end. To my knowledge it has never been used. But if only one person HAS to use it at some point, then its construction is justified.

It's not for you to say whether certain construction on someone else's building is worth their money. If you were paying for it, maybe you could make that claim.

It's not your building, so you don't get any say in how it's constructed.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

But as I stated before it wasn't up to "code". Obviously, that's the fault of the architect and the builder. However, I still find it silly that it's mandatory. That and the fact that it's going to cost us upwards of $7K.

Why is the money even an issue? Will it bankrupt the church if they're forced to pay for it? By building the ramp you are allowing people in wheelchairs to do something that they wouldn't have been able to do before. I know some people in wheelchairs that would be HIGHLY offended if you were to try to lift them up.

By giving disabled people the same availability of access you are treating them the same. By not having it you are discriminating against them.

And the fact that there are disabled people in your congregation but none have ever been on to the stage is proof of that.

^^^^^ Exactly. ^^^^^​

Also, I must say that I am absolutely appalled by these statements:

This is where I think liberalism and socialism are just horrible. Making others conform to standards that effect them financially because "you" want to feel good about yourself. Bleh.

That's BS.

Socialism is about strengthening the ties that bind our communities and promoting equality.

By the way Swift, I also think people should be able to say "No Blacks Allowed"

That's sick.

Consigning people to apartheid-like conditions will only serve to depress their opportunities to succeed.

LOL, I was just thinking about that last night. Sure if it's a PRIVATE business they can do that. Of course they probably won't get much business at all(no matter what color they exclude) but sure, why not.

Nonsense. It's been tried before and it doesn't work. It took South Africa and the United States a VERY long time to figure that out.

But my main point is why do we have all these laws and regulations on private industry?

Put simply, because they've abused their freedom in the past.

I mean we spend these millions of dollars, rip out all these toilets to accomadate people that may never get there.

Whether or not that was a joke, that was cold. *Someone turn down the A/C, please!*

This building has been there for 15 years and at no point was there a handicapped person on stage, though we do have them as a part of our congregation.

You mean segregation -- not congregation.

It's not for you to say whether certain construction on someone else's building is worth their money. If you were paying for it, maybe you could make that claim.

It's not your building, so you don't get any say in how it's constructed.

That's where the gov't steps in.

 

[Danoff]

That's BS.
That's sick.
Nonsense.
Because they've abused their freedom in the past.
Whether or not that was a joke, that was cold. *Someone turn down the A/C, please!*
You mean segregation -- not congregation.

Nice, solid, well grounded, reasoned arguments Brian. Every one of them.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Nice, solid, well grounded, reasoned arguments Brian. Every one of them.

I'm glad you think so.

 

[Danoff]

That's where the gov't steps in.

The government doesn't own the building any more than Touring does.

 

[ledhed]

We are not treating them the same. We are going through extra steps to give them access. That's not the same the last time I checked.

And yes, there was a ramp there but is wasn't up to "code" That was thanks to our builder.

My point is simple. This building has been there for 15 years and at no point was there a handicapped person on stage, though we do have them as a part of our congregation.

You still do not understand for the law to be fair it has to effect everyone equally . A public building has to offer access to everyone equally ...period no exceptions. They didnt write the law with exceptions for those that have no handi capped using it . The mere fact that a handicapped person may at some time need access is enough . They should be able to get in and out and the building just like anyone else . Why do you feel you should get an exception but a GYM in the middle of a city doesnt ? Handicapped people dont use a Church ?

 

[Danoff]

You still do not understand for the law to be fair it has to effect everyone equally.

It isn't possible for a law to affect everyone equally. The law preventing us from murdering, for example, affects people who want to murder much more than it affects either of us. For the law to be fair, it has to treat citizens equally. Murdering another human being is illegal regardless of whether the murderer is black, white, religious, handicapped, whatever.

It is not necessary for private buildings to provide handicapped access for the law to treat citizens equally. If the law said "private buildings must be capable of providing access to everyone." That treats all citizens equally. So does "private citizens can do whatever they want with their buildings." So the law treating citizens equally isn't what is contested here. Either of those laws will do that.

What the current requirements for handicapped access do is to force others to treat citizens equally. That isn't the same thing as the law treating citizens equally. When you force citizens to treat each other equally, you're perofrming a bit of social engineering at the cost of liberty.

A public building has to offer access to everyone equally ...period no exceptions.

By public I assume you mean paid for with public funds rather than a private business that appears to be open to everyone in the public. What does "offer access to everyone equally" mean? Does it mean that the method of access is the same for everyone? Certainly not, since that would mean stairs would be sufficient. Does it mean that everyone must be able to access the building with the same amount of effort? That's impossible.

Buildings that are funded with public money should make efforts to ensure that the method of access is easy for people that are at all mobile. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will have an equally easy time getting in, it doesn't even mean that everyone will be able to access the building. Just that most people will not have a problem.

Where the line is drawn for how easy it needs to be is not something I'm particularly concerned about. This is ONLY for public buildings though, buildings that are in a sense owned by all tax payers.

They didnt write the law with exceptions for those that have no handi capped using it . The mere fact that a handicapped person may at some time need access is enough .

If it's private? Does that mean you have to install a ramp to your front door? A handicapped person might need to access it.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's not for you to say whether certain construction on someone else's building is worth their money. If you were paying for it, maybe you could make that claim.

It's not your building, so you don't get any say in how it's constructed.

It's a university... it's a public building... so technically it my money (by 'my' I mean public)... anyway, you're missing the point.... who cares who pays for it.... Disabled people have the same right of access to this building as I do. It is the responsibility of the owners and the relevant council/government to ensure that they have that access, period.

 

[Danoff]

It's a university... it's a public building... so technically it my money (by 'my' I mean public)... anyway, you're missing the point.... who cares who pays for it.... Disabled people have the same right of access to this building as I do. It is the responsibility of the owners and the relevant council/government to ensure that they have that access, period.

Sure, if it's a public university then they should have handicapped access since handicapped people pay taxes as well. If it's a private university though.... they shouldn't even have to ACCEPT handicapped people, let alone provide for them.

 

[Touring Mars]

Sure, if it's a public university then they should have handicapped access since handicapped people pay taxes as well. If it's a private university though.... they shouldn't even have to ACCEPT handicapped people, let alone provide for them.

So just because they are privately run, they should be entitled to selectively discriminate? That's ridiculous...

 

[Gil]

You're really trying to be slow now aren't you?



There is a ramp there on the left. But as I stated before it wasn't up to "code". Obviously, that's the fault of the architect and the builder. However, I still find it silly that it's mandatory. That and the fact that it's going to cost us upwards of $7K.

On the one hand you are correct.
On the other hand it is a privately owned church with a rather "public" mission.
Also, if your faith is considered a church it has what is known as a "tax exemption" priviledge. That means you have to put up with other little laws.
That aside, if your church worships God, and believes in Jesus Christ, I have to say I don't remember Christ turning away the infirm or the hungry or those with problems.
In fact, I believe that those were the very people that he went out of his way to minister to.

As for danoff's earlier comments, I have already addressed that issue, and he can't even begin to come up with any decent reasoning for that line of crap.

 

[Danoff]

As for danoff's earlier comments, I have already addressed that issue, and he can't even begin to come up with any decent reasoning for that line of crap.

I don't see it. You made some comment about separate but equal not being equal. Is that what you're talking about? Because if that's what you're talking about that you don't understand what I'm saying.

So just because they are privately run, they should be entitled to selectively discriminate? That's ridiculous...

Of course. Why shouldn't they be? If you own a shop why should you not be allowed to decide who can come in and who cannot? It's your shop. You bought the land, you built the shop, you got the word out... and now you HAVE to let whoever wants to walk in come in?

If you're selling bibles and crosses and a group of goth devil worshipping kids thinks its funny to hang out in your shop to slow your business, is it not your perogative to kick them out? If a group wants to hang out in your store and sing choir music to encourage your business is it not your choice to let them stay? That's discrimination, but since it's your property it's your call.

What's so rediculous about that? Is that not decent reasoning Gil?

 

[Gil]

Go back a few posts to the "No Blacks allowed" comment.
I have to say that I was a bit offended. Which I hope came across in the post about not saving my beloved family cat.
I hope you have a really rational explanation that will help me get past that.
Because I don't believe that you meant it the way that it came across to me.
And as a person of color that was a child in the '60's, when the civil rights movement was in its youth, It kinda put a sour taste in my mouth.

I do see your point better with the above example. But if the goth kids are on the sidewalk in front of my Bible shop then I really can only complain about them disturbing the peace, and loitering.
Unfortunately the first amendment allows freedom of speech, even if the speech is objectionable to a large number of people.
On private property, like inside the shop, you do have the right to refuse service to anyone.
But as I type this I'm beginning to see where you were going. I just wasn't too pleased with the example.

 

[Danoff]

Go back a few posts to the "No Blacks allowed" comment.
I have to say that I was a bit offended. Which I hope came across in the post about not saving my beloved family cat.
I hope you have a really rational explanation that will help me get past that.
Because I don't believe that you meant it the way that it came across to me.

I very much meant that people should be allowed to post signs that say "No Blacks Allowed" or "No Whites Allowed" or "No Jews Allowed" or "No Smokers Allowed" or "No Rich People Allowed" or "No Shirts Allowed".

What I meant was that when someone owns a store, they own it. They can choose who they allow in and who they will serve. They should be able to choose who they hire (for example, a chinese restaurant only hiring chinese people, hooters only hiring hot chicks, etc.). I don't distinguish someone's store much from their home. If they want to refuse to allow black people or white people to come into their home, that's their choice. Same with stores.

I don't see why that should offend you at all. If someone wanted to put up a sign that said "No Blacks Allowed", they would be complete morons and nobody would give them their business. But I think it's their right to be that stupid.

 

[Gil]

See edited post above.
What you got originally was my "knee-jerk" reaction.
Wasn't paying attention to #1 in my own sig.
I see your point now that I've had time to think rationally about what you were really saying.👍

 

[Famine]

So just because they are privately run, they should be entitled to selectively discriminate? That's ridiculous...

Play Devil's Advocate for a minute.

Put out of your mind how abhorrent you think it is to not treat everyone the same (or similarly).


If everyone pays for something then everyone has the same right to access it. So a public library, for instance, must have no policy of excluding women, or white people, or Thai midgets, or quadraplegics or skydiving, lesbian fishmongers. They must provide adequate facilities for all - which includes approved disabled entry and toilet facilities and no laserbeams for erasing ginger hermits from time.

If the institution is, however, a private one, paid for by an individual, group of individuals or consortium, then they have the right - since they provide the facilities - to restrict entry. Now on one front this could be disabled people. On another it could be whites (Islamic community centre in Sheffield), women (The Royal and Ancient), men (The Women's Institute), or just a plain out-and-out selection policy (The Freemasons).


You put a sign up outside your shop saying "No disabled people" and a) you're an idiot but b) you'll lose customers. The customers you lose will tell their friends and you'll lose their (existing or potential) custom too. But since you provide the facility, it's your call. If you lose money you'll learn that it's the wrong one. But it's still your right to refuse the custom of anyone for any reason.

It's more important to educate people as to why inclusivity is better than exclusivity (though the R&A, the WI and the Freemasons may disagree) rather than legislate what they MUST do on their property in the eventuality that someone will need it.


Put another way, how many people on GTP have a disabled access ramp and toilet in their house? Are the ones who don't anti-disabled? Must they be forced into providing them in case someone who requires wheelchair access comes round? Of course not. So why are private businesses denigrated for it but private citizens not?

 

[ledhed]

It isn't possible for a law to affect everyone equally. The law preventing us from murdering, for example, affects people who want to murder much more than it affects either of us. For the law to be fair, it has to treat citizens equally. Murdering another human being is illegal regardless of whether the murderer is black, white, religious, handicapped, whatever.

It is not necessary for private buildings to provide handicapped access for the law to treat citizens equally. If the law said "private buildings must be capable of providing access to everyone." That treats all citizens equally. So does "private citizens can do whatever they want with their buildings." So the law treating citizens equally isn't what is contested here. Either of those laws will do that.

What the current requirements for handicapped access do is to force others to treat citizens equally. That isn't the same thing as the law treating citizens equally. When you force citizens to treat each other equally, you're perofrming a bit of social engineering at the cost of liberty.



By public I assume you mean paid for with public funds rather than a private business that appears to be open to everyone in the public. What does "offer access to everyone equally" mean? Does it mean that the method of access is the same for everyone? Certainly not, since that would mean stairs would be sufficient. Does it mean that everyone must be able to access the building with the same amount of effort? That's impossible.

Buildings that are funded with public money should make efforts to ensure that the method of access is easy for people that are at all mobile. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will have an equally easy time getting in, it doesn't even mean that everyone will be able to access the building. Just that most people will not have a problem.

Where the line is drawn for how easy it needs to be is not something I'm particularly concerned about. This is ONLY for public buildings though, buildings that are in a sense owned by all tax payers.



If it's private? Does that mean you have to install a ramp to your front door? A handicapped person might need to access it.

I provided a link to the whole text of the law if you care to interpret it and I posted the text as to what the law is trying to accomplish. Believe it or not I am trying not to be an advocate for or against. I am trying to just put forth what exist . I do find it understandable that it sucks to have to do something you dont thinnk is needed and I do understand the intent of the law . It exist so I deal with it even if I do not like it , my feelings about it are irrelevent .

 

[Danoff]

I provided a link to the whole text of the law if you care to interpret it and I posted the text as to what the law is trying to accomplish. Believe it or not I am trying not to be an advocate for or against. I am trying to just put forth what exist . I do find it understandable that it sucks to have to do something you dont thinnk is needed and I do understand the intent of the law . It exist so I deal with it even if I do not like it , my feelings about it are irrelevent .

Your feelings about law are not irrelevent. If you feel that the law is wrong, you should feel free to voice your opinion. Even band together with a group and protest, lobby, or whatever you feel like doing to try to get the word out.

I understand the law, and the intent of the law. I disagree with the law, but I agree with the intent. I think it's good for society to be inclusive, but I don't think it's good to do that at the cost of freedom.

 

[ledhed]

Here you go . http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/ofccp/ada.htm i forgot to link my other post .

@ Danoff.... Its relevant when I vote or make my decision to vote and if I am going to build something that falls under the act . But its not relevant until I can influence it ( the law ) one way or the other . I just have to deal with it because it exist wheather I like it or not . Do I make any sense yet ? It IS Friday you know ....

@ famine ..do you think the lesbian fishmongers have pie ? Are they hot lesbian fishmongers in fishnet stockings and leather corsets with pie ? would you have pictures perhaps ? And if you do can I see them for my research ?

 

[Sage]

But its not relevant until I can influence it ( the law ) one way or the other .

But the whole intent of this forum is to voice our opinions about such things. E.g., many of the things Libertarians want are currently illegal, but you’d never know what a Libertarian was if everybody in the world decided to only discuss what’s currently legal. This thread wouldn’t even exist, since it’d go no farther than “Well, that’s the law, Swift”.

And we are trying to influence the law by rallying for a cause – there’s no point in trying to rally up support a few minutes before the voting booths open.

 

[Touring Mars]

Play Devil's Advocate for a minute....

Yes, fair points well made... you're quite right... however much it may suck that some places seem not to care to enable access to those less physically able, I guess they don't actually have to.... I just didn't think that churches would come into this category... I guess it's more a moral question than a legal or technical one. Legally they don't have to bother, but morally they should provide wheelchair access for disable people and crash mats for the skydiving lesbians.

 

[Swift]

Yes, fair points well made... you're quite right... however much it may suck that some places seem not to care to enable access to those less physically able, I guess they don't actually have to.... I just didn't think that churches would come into this category... I guess it's more a moral question than a legal or technical one. Legally they don't have to bother, but morally they should provide wheelchair access for disable people and crash mats for the skydiving lesbians.

It's not about access to the church, but to the stage. For instance. I was at a local festival yesterday that literal closed down a few roads. They had a stage that had no handicapped access whatsoever. And there were law enforcement and legislative reps all over the place.

What I'm saying is that it obviously depends on who you are and how much money you've padded the legistlation with, not so much what you have set up.

 

[Swift]

Why is the money even an issue? Will it bankrupt the church if they're forced to pay for it? By building the ramp you are allowing people in wheelchairs to do something that they wouldn't have been able to do before. I know some people in wheelchairs that would be HIGHLY offended if you were to try to lift them up.

Bankrupt us? I certainly hope not. But we're a faith based ministry. Meaning we don't have thousands of dollars stashed away somewhere. We recently had the roof redone and had to get on a payment plan for it.

Also, I must say that I am absolutely appalled by these statements:



That's BS.

Socialism is about strengthening the ties that bind our communities and promoting equality.

That's sick.
Nonsense. It's been tried before and it doesn't work. It took South Africa and the United States a VERY long time to figure that out.

Put simply, because they've abused their freedom in the past.

Whether or not that was a joke, that was cold. *Someone turn down the A/C, please!*

I have to agree with Danoff here. That's just junk.

You mean segregation -- not congregation.

I'm really getting a little bored of this attitude. How is not having very easy access to a STAGE segragating the handicapped. Generally speaking, the handicapped have trouble speaking, performing or whatever. That's what the stage is for. It's not segregation, it's just how it is.

That's where the gov't steps in.

Did I ask them to step in?

 

[Grand Prix]

I'm really getting a little bored of this attitude. How is not having very easy access to a STAGE segragating the handicapped. Generally speaking, the handicapped have trouble speaking, performing or whatever. That's what the stage is for. It's not segregation, it's just how it is.

Mmmm-hmm. Terry Fox couldn't run. Rick Hansen couldn't travel around the world. Ray Charles couldn't play the piano. Beethoven couldn't compose music. Stephen Hawking can't calculate theories. Yeps, all handicapped people can't perform at something they're most likely not to.

Little girl: "You're mad that your family idolizes the lousy cripple and not you?"
Old Woman: "We've all been there!"
- Family Guy

It's exactly this kind of attitude I despise about conservatives... But maybe I'm overreacting.

 

[Agent Smith]

Swift, since first reading this thread, I've been praying to your god that he cripples you and turns you into a parapalegic or worse.
Not out of spite or anger, but in the hopes that it would teach you a little tolerance, understanding and most importantly, empathy.