Handicap Access...

[MrktMkr1986]

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.

Then unfortunately you may have to get on another payment plan to finish the stage ramp.

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

So basically you're saying private discrimination is OK. One thing you have to understand about that is:

If we do go back to that (legalizing private discrimination), private organizations will not post signs that say "No Blacks allowed". People who are truly prejudice will find other more insidious ways to keep people they don't want out. For example: raising prices, nepotism etc...

Did I ask them to step in?

No, that's their job. Did I ask the government to create Social Security? No, that's their job. Coincidentally, social security also includes benefits for the disabled... but I guess that's "junk" too.

 

[Grand Prix]

Yups, all disabled people deserve to live on the street because employers don't want to hire disabled persons.

 

[Swift]

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.

A very good friend of mine WAS a parapolegic. And was a very active member of the church as he could be. But he NEVER wanted or needed to be ON THE STAGE.

This is our building, God's house. But sheesh, it's the stage. Not the main doors.

I saw what my friend went through and how he kept his faith, even unto his death. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about as far as my experiences. So don't assume you know me. I don't assume to know you.

 

[DuckRacer]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Handicapped people should have the same rights as normal, healthy people. I don't care if they don't want to be on the stage, or speak on it, or anything else like that. In the future, a handicapped person may have some important things to say on the stage.

Just pay the $7,000, and pray to God that he'll prompt domeone to tithe to your church.

 

[Swift]

Handicapped people should have the same rights as normal, healthy people. I don't care if they don't want to be on the stage, or speak on it, or anything else like that. In the future, a handicapped person may have some important things to say on the stage.

Just pay the $7,000, and pray to God that he'll prompt domeone to tithe to your church.

Ok, nobody gets this but Danoff.

It's not the handicapped or access to the builidings that angers me. It's the gov't mandating that we do it. That's the part that I don't like.

Duck, you do realized that was written while slavery was still going on right? Those truths are self evident as far as rights go. But why should a private corparation have to continually alter things to give people the privilege of entering or access to each and every part of the building.

This is not a matter of rights as this is not a government building. My god, why don't they have to make all cars handicapped accessible? That's what I'm talking about here.

 

[JacktheHat]

Ok, nobody gets this but Danoff.

Don't you mean 'nobody agrees with my narrow, selfish point of view but Danoff'?

Even if we didn't live in a society which protected the rights of disabled people surely a church would be doing it anyway?

There is one word which describes your attitude in this thread and that word is 'unchristian'.

 

[Famine]

I get it as well - and Mars does too.

Jack - Do you have disabled access to your house? Do you have a disabled toilet on the ground floor (or with disabled access to one not on the ground floor)?

If not, why are YOU allowed to not have these things, but someone who runs their own private business must be forced, by the state, to have them? Where's the difference? If they are providing a service and choose to provide a really crappy one, they will (probably) lose business. But it's STILL private property, like your house, and they should still be able to reject the entry of any person for any reason, like your house.

 

[JacktheHat]

I get it as well - and Mars does too.

Jack - Do you have disabled access to your house? Do you have a disabled toilet on the ground floor (or with disabled access to one not on the ground floor)?

If not, why are YOU allowed to not have these things, but someone who runs their own private business must be forced, by the state, to have them? Where's the difference? If they are providing a service and choose to provide a really crappy one, they will (probably) lose business. But it's STILL private property, like your house, and they should still be able to reject the entry of any person for any reason, like your house.

BUT my house is not open to the public, therefore it doesn't come under the legislation.

Any business or charity etc. that is open to the public has to have adequate access for the public to enter and exit along with alternative fire escape routes etc. yada, yada.

I'm not saying the church in question should fork out for the costs, as I've mentioned previously the contractor/architect is at fault for not being aware of the relevant legislation.

However statements like this:

Generally speaking, the handicapped have trouble speaking, performing or whatever.

...lead me to my conclusion that Swift's attitude is unchristian.

 

[Famine]

Well, I agree with you perhaps on the last part, but a PRIVATE busines is not open to the public. It is open to whomever the business owner chooses. It must also, therefore be closed to whomever the business owner chooses, or they wouldn't be allowed to eject someone who was misbehaving inside it. This is what "private" busines means.

Your house is, similarly, private property.

 

[JacktheHat]

Well, I agree with you perhaps on the last part, but a PRIVATE busines is not open to the public. It is open to whomever the business owner chooses. It must also, therefore be closed to whomever the business owner chooses, or they wouldn't be allowed to eject someone who was misbehaving inside it. This is what "private" busines means.

Your house is, similarly, private property.

But the property in question is a church, which is not a private business, and should be open and accessible to everybody by definition...

 

[Famine]

A Church IS in fact private property. The CofE, for instance, is the second largest private landowner in the United Kingdom (after the Crown).

 

[Swift]

I get it as well - and Mars does too.

My apologies.

...lead me to my conclusion that Swift's attitude is unchristian.

No, it doesn't. You haven't even read all of my posts in this thread have you? This thread is not about the handicapped at the core. It's about the gov't pushing rules on a private corporation. That's right, our church is a corporation so that one person cannot just work their will on the congragation and use church money any way they see fit.

It is open to whomever the business owner chooses.It must also, therefore be closed to whomever the business owner chooses, or they wouldn't be allowed to eject someone who was misbehaving inside it. This is what "private" busines means.

My point exactly. If a guy came in with a weapon, or not wearing any pants, shirt whatever ANY business could kick them out. But when it comes to access, we need to make sure everyone who could every possibly get in, gets in. This is the legislation that I'm going after.

Honestly, I'm not at all against the idea of a ramp to the stage as it would make things easier not just for handicapped but for moving equipment, etc. It's the fact that it's being FORCED on us but the government.

Is it narrow? Perhaps.

 

[James2097]

If I had to tick a catagory, I'd say a church is a business. Quite a large chain of them, too.

Ok serious question... How is the church paid for? Upkeep etc? Is there any profit? (distinct from prophet )

If the people that attend the church pay to keep it going, then I'd have to classify it loosely as a business.

 

[Danoff]

If I had to tick a catagory, I'd say a church is a business. Quite a large chain of them, too.

Ok serious question... How is the church paid for? Upkeep etc? Is there any profit? (distinct from prophet )

If the people that attend the church pay to keep it going, then I'd have to classify it loosely as a business.

That's what both sides are saying - that the church should be classified as a business. That's fine. But it's a private business, which means it owns the building and everything in it.

Any business or charity etc. that is open to the public has to have adequate access for the public to enter and exit along with alternative fire escape routes etc. yada, yada.

No it's not. Even if it is open to the public it's by choice, the public doesn't have a RIGHT to patronize the business. You can open your home to the public by choice to. Do you need to install handicapped access to have an open house to sell your home?

Even if we didn't live in a society which protected the rights of disabled people surely a church would be doing it anyway?

The rights of the disabled are not what is being discussed here, it's the rights of property owners.

Handicapped people should have the same rights as normal, healthy people. I don't care if they don't want to be on the stage, or speak on it, or anything else like that. In the future, a handicapped person may have some important things to say on the stage.

If they don't want to let him on stage that's their choice. If they do want to let him on stage but only if they carry him up there, that's their choice too.

Thought experiment. Let's say a church believes that women are inferior. The women in the congregation wear black clothes that only show their faces. They walk behind their spouses or men at all times and do not speak.

The church forbids women to speak before the congregation. That's discrimination. Is that ok? I would say certainly (though it's stupid). It is their choice to discriminate.

Then unfortunately you may have to get on another payment plan to finish the stage ramp.

Funny how everyone else gets to spend his church's money.

 

[Grand Prix]

Swift apparently has nothing against disabled people, yet he does not want his church (The House of God, who feels compassion for all living things) to build a wheelchair ramp to the central stage. He claims that he knew a parapalegic, and that person didn't want to go on the stage because he had "poor performing skills", and most disabled people in general don't like performing anyway. On another front Swift does not want the government to enforce wheelchair access to the stage, because they would violate the church's rights.

Wouldn't the church (assuming IT IS a church of selfless Christains) build the ramp anyway, to be selfless and forgiving to the disabled community? Or maybe Swift's paticular organization looks down upon "handicapped (Man I hate that word) people" as God did when they were born?

 

[Danoff]

Swift apparently has nothing against disabled people, yet he does not want his church (The House of God, who feels compassion for all living things) to build a wheelchair ramp to the central stage. He claims that he knew a parapalegic, and that person didn't want to go on the stage because he had "poor performing skills", and most disabled people in general don't like performing anyway. On another front Swift does not want the government to enforce wheelchair access to the stage, because they would violate the church's rights.

Wouldn't the church (assuming IT IS a church of selfless Christains) build the ramp anyway, to be selfless and forgiving to the disabled community? Or maybe Swift's paticular organization looks down upon "handicapped (Man I hate that word) people" as God did when they were born?

Maybe they don't have the money and so they do what they can. It's all a matter of priorities. Perhaps new pews or new carpeting is more important than a $7000 lift that nobody is around to use.

 

[James2097]

The logical solution is to just build a ramp. Surely one could convince the powers that be that the ramp would function just as well as a $7000 lift for the particular task. That amount of money seems excessive for the purpose at hand.

Why exactly does it need to be a lift? Surely any safe system that could happily get a wheel-chaired person up a few steps would fullfill the requirements set out by the authorities.

 

[Swift]

Maybe they don't have the money and so they do what they can. It's all a matter of priorities. Perhaps new pews or new carpeting is more important than a $7000 lift that nobody is around to use.

It's really scary how accurate that statement is concidering you don't know my church.

Why exactly does it need to be a lift? Surely any safe system that could happily get a wheel-chaired person up a few steps would fullfill the requirements set out by the authorities.

We did have a ramp, but it was not up to "code" Though I saw a person in a wheel chair use it just fine.

The ramp would comprimise virtually the entire point of expanding the stage by turning the majority of it(the expansion) into ramp space. That's the challenge as I see it.

BTW, it will cost about the same to redo the ramp or get the wheelchair lift.

 

[Danoff]

It's really scary how accurate that statement is concidering you don't know my church.

Hey, that's just the kind of guy I am.

So what about eliminating the platform altogther? You could put in a smaller stage that doesn't need a ramp. That might be cheaper than putting in the lift... just a thought.

 

[Swift]

Hey, that's just the kind of guy I am.

So what about eliminating the platform altogther? You could put in a smaller stage that doesn't need a ramp. That might be cheaper than putting in the lift... just a thought.

Well, the stage was already there we simply expanded it. So to take the stage down would be even more expensive. Not to mention that it's usually good to have the speaker higher then teh audience since we don't have stadium seation in our building.

 

[Grand Prix]

Don't worry Swift, I'm sure God will provide your church with $7,000 if you guys pray hard enough for it. He works miracles, after all.

 

[Swift]

Don't worry Swift, I'm sure God will provide your church with $7,000 if you guys pray hard enough for it. He works miracles, after all.

Thanks. But that's not my issue. I've seen God to much bigger things then a measly $7K bill.

My issue is with all the MANDATORY handicapped access. I mean, how many resturants that you know have their menus in bralle(sp)? Why should the gov't use our tax money to mandate other business to have access to people that may or may not even come to that particular establishment.

 

[FoolKiller]

Swift apparently has nothing against disabled people, yet he does not want his church (The House of God, who feels compassion for all living things) to build a wheelchair ramp to the central stage. He claims that he knew a parapalegic, and that person didn't want to go on the stage because he had "poor performing skills", and most disabled people in general don't like performing anyway. On another front Swift does not want the government to enforce wheelchair access to the stage, because they would violate the church's rights.

Wouldn't the church (assuming IT IS a church of selfless Christains) build the ramp anyway, to be selfless and forgiving to the disabled community? Or maybe Swift's paticular organization looks down upon "handicapped (Man I hate that word) people" as God did when they were born?

I think what Swift is saying, based on just now reading this entire thread from beginnning to end and seeing him say it pretty straightforward, is that he does not have a problem with his church building a wheelchair ramp. NEVER does he say he doesn't want them to. In fact, they have one, but the contractor screwed it up.

Swift's issue is that he is forced to do this. He never said they aren't worthy of being on stage or they don't have the right. He could care less if they are on stage or not, but having the government tell him how it has to be just irritates him, as it does all libertarians.

They have access into the church and all necessities such as restrooms. It is not a necessity to get on stage, but the government says they have to be able to. This is a government control issue, not a discrimination issue, which Swift has stated clearly, as well as the fact that he is not against building a ramp. Here, let me quote:

You haven't even read all of my posts in this thread have you? This thread is not about the handicapped at the core. It's about the gov't pushing rules on a private corporation. That's right, our church is a corporation so that one person cannot just work their will on the congragation and use church money any way they see fit.

...

Honestly, I'm not at all against the idea of a ramp to the stage as it would make things easier not just for handicapped but for moving equipment, etc. It's the fact that it's being FORCED on us but the government.

And that was all in one post, only eleven back. The attempts to accuse him of being discriminatory or unchristian are off base and, after his previous post, I believe uncalled for.

Swift, the church should bring up an issue with the contractor. Unless it was volunteer work he/she should have to fix their "illegal" work and be held liable. If it was volunteer then maybe they can volunteer to fix it.

The only argument I can see around the private property issue is if you count the tax exempt status as government giving money to the church. However, I don't see it that way because it is just being treated as any other private non-profit community building organization.

 

[Grand Prix]

Thanks. But that's not my issue. I've seen God to much bigger things then a measly $7K bill.

My issue is with all the MANDATORY handicapped access. I mean, how many resturants that you know have their menus in bralle(sp)? Why should the gov't use our tax money to mandate other business to have access to people that may or may not even come to that particular establishment.

Because disabled people pay taxes as well? But the government also gives them funding so they can be hired....Hmm, it is a bit of a pickle isn't it?
Personally I don't mind that movie theaters don't have closed captioning, but as least I can lip-read and most theaters are too loud for even me. The difference is that I can access a theater like "normal" people, and a guy in a wheelchair might not be able to. I, or even a blind person can see a movie or go on a stage any time we wanted to. A parapalegic might not.

 

[Famine]

Any business or charity etc. that is open to the public has to have adequate access for the public to enter and exit along with alternative fire escape routes etc. yada, yada.

No it's not. Even if it is open to the public it's by choice, the public doesn't have a RIGHT to patronize the business. You can open your home to the public by choice to. Do you need to install handicapped access to have an open house to sell your home?

Just to clarify, Jack is right to say that they MUST have adequate access for disabled persons since legislation was passed in the UK which requires it.

Though it's true that they shouldn't have to, but in the UK they do.


GP - What does tax payment have to do with patronisation of a private enterprise, such as a restaurant or theatre?

 

[Danoff]

Just to clarify, Jack is right to say that they MUST have adequate access for disabled persons since legislation was passed in the UK which requires it.

Though it's true that they shouldn't have to, but in the UK they do.

I assumed he was speaking from a personal desire to see the regulations rather than stating the law. The law says it's required over here too. You may be right though, he may have simply been stating the law.

 

[Swift]

Foolkiller, thank you for seeing that.

As far as the contractor. He was paid a pretty hefty amount. So we're going after him legally. But only God knows how long that will take. We can't get our finally inspection until we do all these things. Granted, we can still use the church. But since we are Christians, we want to do our best to obey the laws of the land.

Hmmm...Maybe Jack was just stating facts. Though the way he said it sounded like an opinion.

 

[Grand Prix]

GP - What does tax payment have to do with patronisation of a private enterprise, such as a restaurant or theatre?

Good question. Well, the private enterprise in question would have to build disabled access, which would be funded by government taxes. That's how it works here I think. Of course the US and UK are probably different.

 

[Famine]

Totally funded by taxes or part-funded by taxes?

If it's totally funded, thus the government pays for the things it says you must have by law (even though its position on private property and access to it is inconsistent) then that's fine-ish. If it's part-funded then it's just as unacceptable as forcing it onto a private landowner in the first place.

 

[Grand Prix]

Totally funded by taxes or part-funded by taxes?

If it's totally funded, thus the government pays for the things it says you must have by law (even though its position on private property and access to it is inconsistent) then that's fine-ish. If it's part-funded then it's just as unacceptable as forcing it onto a private landowner in the first place.

I might have to look that up. It depends on the provincial government, really. A socialist party like our NDP would have it totally funded. The Liberal party would most likely not fund it completely. I agree that partly-funded is unacceptable.