Handicap Access...

[James2097]

What exactly was supposedly wrong with the old ramp? The slope too severe? No railing? What?

 

[Swift]

What exactly was supposedly wrong with the old ramp? The slope too severe? No railing? What?

Apparently it's too steep.

 

[James2097]

So basically you need more floorspace for the ramp or you use up too much of the platform with the ramp... Sure you've looked at all possible configurations of ramp that would work with the floorspace you have?

 

[Swift]

So basically you need more floorspace for the ramp or you use up too much of the platform with the ramp... Sure you've looked at all possible configurations of ramp that would work with the floorspace you have?

If you look at the pictures, you'll see that the current ramp takes up a good part of the platform. Then they wouldn't even let us put a ramp into the ajoining room. That's because we can't have a "special" access for the handicapped. But, aren't the disabled or handicapped special by very definition?

Oh well, we're going to end up having to do it. I still won't like it though.

 

[James2097]

I can see why you need a lift, its a little higher than I had envisaged. A ramp into an adjoining room would've been cool though, cause then you could use it for other stuff as well, in effect creating an extra doorway.

Ok you've got a drum kit, where's the Marshall stack and bass rig? This $7000 could go towards so much cooler stuff!! Mind you, if the church can afford a grand piano, why worry about the lift so much? Even the fact that you've actually seen a dude use the old ramp with a wheelchair shows me that "if you build it, they will come". I reckon the lift would get more use than you think (even just to lift equipment up and down etc).

At the end of the day you've gotta just buy the damn thing so maybe the best idea is to just get it over with and then feel poor for a while.

 

[Swift]

I can see why you need a lift, its a little higher than I had envisaged. A ramp into an adjoining room would've been cool though, cause then you could use it for other stuff as well, in effect creating an extra doorway.

Ok you've got a drum kit, where's the Marshall stack and bass rig? This $7000 could go towards so much cooler stuff!! Mind you, if the church can afford a grand piano, why worry about the lift so much? Even the fact that you've actually seen a dude use the old ramp with a wheelchair shows me that "if you build it, they will come". I reckon the lift would get more use than you think (even just to lift equipment up and down etc).

At the end of the day you've gotta just buy the damn thing so maybe the best idea is to just get it over with and then feel poor for a while.

Most of the stuff you see on the stage was donated, incuding the piano. When I say we're a faith ministry, I mean it.

 

[James2097]

If heaven existed, the person that donated the piano would be going there. Even without heaven existing, its still a damn nice thing to do!

Personally I like the gospel style churches (although I'm not religious in any way) where they sing funky James Brown songs and do awesome backflips etc. Do they really exist? (as shown in the Blues Brothers)? I could get into that kind of thing. 👍

 

[Swift]

If heaven existed, the person that donated the piano would be going there. Even without heaven existing, its still a damn nice thing to do!

Personally I like the gospel style churches (although I'm not religious in any way) where they sing funky James Brown songs and do awesome backflips etc. Do they really exist? (as shown in the Blues Brothers)? I could get into that kind of thing. 👍

My church is very worshipful. With lots of dancing and energizing music. You just might like it. 👍

 

[ledhed]

It may be cheaper and more sensible for you to install a lift. You can use it to load stuff onto the stage when it isnt being used for people.

 

[JacktheHat]

The attempts to accuse him of being discriminatory or unchristian are off base and, after his previous post, I believe uncalled for.

Explain this statement then:

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

Famine, the definition of a church (taken from www.dictionary.com) is:

1. A building for public, especially Christian worship.
2. often Church
1. The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body.
2. A specified Christian denomination: the Presbyterian Church.
3. A congregation.
3. Public divine worship in a church; a religious service: goes to church at Christmas and Easter.
4. The clerical profession; clergy.
5. Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state.

Which is why I stated that churches are required to be open to the public by definition.

 

[Famine]

Yet it is still a building which has been erected through monies from a private organisation.

Private organisation = private property.

 

[JacktheHat]

Yet it is still a building which has been erected through monies from a private organisation.

Private organisation = private property.

But it is still a place of public worship.

Public = everbody.

 

[Famine]

No - it's only open to whomever the private organisation says it is. Well, at least it ought to be, in an ideal world.

A Church IS private property. It is owned by a private landowner. If it were truely public then it wouldn't be closed at night.

 

[JacktheHat]

No - it's only open to whomever the private organisation says it is. Well, at least it ought to be, in an ideal world.

NOT if it wants to call itself a church and employ the status that this brings.

A church is not a business, it's a charity.

A Church IS private property. It is owned by a private landowner. If it were truely public then it wouldn't be closed at night.

I think you'll find a lot, if not most, churches don't turn people away whatever time of day it is. They offer food and shelter to the needy as well as 'spiritual' advice.

 

[Famine]

NOT if it wants to call itself a church and employ the status that this brings.

A church is not a business, it's a charity.

Tell that to the General Synod.

A church is part of a business. A charity can ALSO be a business. And again, the Church of England is the second largest private landowner in the UK, after the Crown.

I think you'll find a lot, if not most, churches don't turn people away whatever time of day it is. They offer food and shelter to the needy as well as 'spiritual' advice.

I know you'll find that all, if not all, churches have their doors locked at 10pm at the latest (other than for scheduled worship - midnight mass and the like), though you can likely call on the Vicarage (if it's a traditional church) at any time of day. The church building is locked when the private owner says it must be locked, thus making a nonsense of any claim it has of being "public".

 

[JacktheHat]

Tell that to the General Synod.

A church is part of a business. A charity can ALSO be a business. And again, the Church of England is the second largest private landowner in the UK, after the Crown.

And the head of any church is allegedly God, and as we are all allegedly God's children we are therefore all entitled to patronise any church because they allegedly belong to God.

I know you'll find that all, if not all, churches have their doors locked at 10pm, though you can likely call on the Vicarage (if it's a traditional church) at any time of day. The church building is locked when the private owner says it must be locked, thus making a nonsense of any claim it has of being "public".

The church is defined as a place of public worship, whether they should be required to be open 24 hours to justify this is not something which we need to debate here.

As you may well be aware from the 'creation vs. evolution' thread I am not an advocate of religion or churches and believe them to be outmoded control mechanisms.
However, if these 'organisations' want to enjoy the benefits of being registered religions and churches then they have to play by the rules.

 

[Famine]

And the head of any church is allegedly God, and as we are all allegedly God's children we are therefore all entitled to patronise any church because they allegedly belong to God.

Yeeeeeeeeah. What do you think it says atop the propety deeds for every piece of private land the Church of England owns?

I'll give you a clue - it isn't God.

The church is defined as a place of public worship, whether they should be required to be open 24 hours to justify this is not something which we need to debate here.

Why not?

A park. Public property or not? When does it "open"?
WHSmiths. Public property or not? When does it "open"?
A pavement. Public property or not? When does it "open"?
My house. Public property or not? When does it "open"?

In all cases, public property is open or available all the time. Private property is closed at least some of the time - the times when the private owner decrees it to be closed.

If a church is not open 24 hours a day then it is not public property. If it is not built using taxpayers' money, then it is not public property.

However, if these 'organisations' want to enjoy the benefits of being registered religions and churches then they have to play by the rules.

They do. What's your point here?

Incidentally, according to dictionary.com, neither "synagogue" nor "mosque" contains the word "public" in any definition. Does this mean that Christian places are different from Jewish and Islamic ones in their public/private status?

 

[JacktheHat]

Yeeeeeeeeah. What do you think it says atop the propety deeds for every piece of private land the Church of England owns?

I'll give you a clue - it isn't God.

Well they still claim that God is the head of their churches and they still claim that God is there employer (even in tribunal cases).

Why not?

A park. Public property or not? When does it "open"?
WHSmiths. Public property or not? When does it "open"?
A pavement. Public property or not? When does it "open"?
My house. Public property or not? When does it "open"?

In all cases, public property is open or available all the time. Private property is closed at least some of the time - the times when the private owner decrees it to be closed.

If a church is not open 24 hours a day then it is not public property. If it is not built using taxpayers' money, then it is not public property.

Is a park a place of public worship?
Is WHSmiths a place of public worship?
Is a pavement a place of public worship?
Is your house a place of public worship?

They do. What's your point here?

So why is Swift complaining about installing the lift/ramp which is required by law then?

 

[Famine]

Well they still claim that God is the head of their churches and they still claim that God is there employer (even in tribunal cases).

The Head of the Church of England is the Queen...

Is a park a place of public worship?
Is WHSmiths a place of public worship?
Is a pavement a place of public worship?
Is your house a place of public worship?

Is a mosque? Is a synagogue? Not according to dictionary.com.

So why is Swift complaining about installing the lift/ramp which is required by law then?

Because the law is unjust. And adequate facilities - even if not adhering to Code - are in place already for the rare person who needs them anyway.

 

[JacktheHat]

The Head of the Church of England is the Queen...

...representing God.

Is a mosque? Is a synagogue? Not according to dictionary.com.

Are they churches?

Because the law is unjust. And adequate facilities - even if not adhering to Code - are in place already for the rare person who needs them anyway.

That's irrelevent.

 

[Famine]

...representing God.

Nope. The central tenet was the the monarch IS God.

Are they churches?

I refer you to my earlier question:

Incidentally, according to dictionary.com, neither "synagogue" nor "mosque" contains the word "public" in any definition. Does this mean that Christian places are different from Jewish and Islamic ones in their public/private status?

That's irrelevent.

No, that's the central issue of this thread. Is forcing private landowners to provide acceptable access for all people moral? The answer is no.

 

[FoolKiller]

Explain this statement then:

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

Before I answer this, I will inform you that I spent a summer in rehab because I was paralyzed on my left side due to a stroke. I know what it feels like to be handicapped and bound to a wheelchair. I still deal with the residual effects every day.

That said, I did not find this offensive or discriminatory because it is, for the most part, true. In order to be handicapped or disabled you must have a handicap or disability of some form. If handicapped people didn't have trouble with these things it would not be necessary to create special circumstance for them to have equal access.

Famine, the definition of a church (taken from www.dictionary.com) is:

1. A building for public, especially Christian worship.
2. often Church
1. The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body.
2. A specified Christian denomination: the Presbyterian Church.
3. A congregation.
3. Public divine worship in a church; a religious service: goes to church at Christmas and Easter.
4. The clerical profession; clergy.
5. Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state.

Which is why I stated that churches are required to be open to the public by definition.

First, Dictionary.com is not the legal standard in any country.
Second, Merriam Webster's Online defines this more clearly.

Main Entry: 1church
Pronunciation: 'ch&rch
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios lord, master; akin to Sanskrit sura hero, warrior
1 : a building for public and especially Christian worship
2 : the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
3 : a body or organization of religious believers: as a : the whole body of Christians b : DENOMINATION c : CONGREGATION
4 : a public divine worship <goes to church every Sunday>
5 : the clerical profession <considered the church as a possible career>

When spelled out more appropriately it sounds like a building for public worship, not a public building for worship. Amazing how one comma can make a sentence sound different. According to the Bible Christians are supposed to worship publicly in groups. "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." Matthew 18:20 (NIV)

On top of all that, Swift is in America, and American churches can ask people to not attend. I have seen it happen, and gladly chose to not attend that church myself, because I felt that was a very unChristian way to do things. So, even if you choose to read a definition differently than I do, they are still not held under the law the same as a government building.


And a mosque or synagogue are the equivelant of churches for other religions. I honestly believe you were just trying to be difficult there.

 

[JacktheHat]

Nope. The central tenet was the the monarch IS God.

Nope. The monarch has divine right, meaning they are a direct representative of God.

I refer you to my earlier question:

They are not defined as places of public worship so yes they are different.

No, that's the central issue of this thread. Is forcing private landowners to provide acceptable access for all people moral? The answer is no.

According to the law the answer is yes and, as I've stated previously, the contractor/architect should have been aware of that so any neccesary alterations are their responsibility.

 

[JacktheHat]

Before I answer this, I will inform you that I spent a summer in rehab because I was paralyzed on my left side due to a stroke. I know what it feels like to be handicapped and bound to a wheelchair. I still deal with the residual effects every day.

That said, I did not find this offensive or discriminatory because it is, for the most part, true. In order to be handicapped or disabled you must have a handicap or disability of some form. If handicapped people didn't have trouble with these things it would not be necessary to create special circumstance for them to have equal access.



First, Dictionary.com is not the legal standard in any country.
Second, Merriam Webster's Online defines this more clearly.

Main Entry: 1church
Pronunciation: 'ch&rch
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios lord, master; akin to Sanskrit sura hero, warrior
1 : a building for public and especially Christian worship
2 : the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
3 : a body or organization of religious believers: as a : the whole body of Christians b : DENOMINATION c : CONGREGATION
4 : a public divine worship <goes to church every Sunday>
5 : the clerical profession <considered the church as a possible career>

When spelled out more appropriately it sounds like a building for public worship, not a public building for worship. Amazing how one comma can make a sentence sound different. According to the Bible Christians are supposed to worship publicly in groups. "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." Matthew 18:20 (NIV)

On top of all that, Swift is in America, and American churches can ask people to not attend. I have seen it happen, and gladly chose to not attend that church myself, because I felt that was a very unChristian way to do things. So, even if you choose to read a definition differently than I do, they are still not held under the law the same as a government building.


And a mosque or synagogue are the equivelant of churches for other religions. I honestly believe you were just trying to be difficult there.

That definition still clearly states it is a building for public worship. Public = everybody.

Mosques and synagogues are places of worship, but they are not by definition places of public worship.

 

[ledhed]

Tell that to the General Synod.

A church is part of a business. A charity can ALSO be a business. And again, the Church of England is the second largest private landowner in the UK, after the Crown.



I know you'll find that all, if not all, churches have their doors locked at 10pm at the latest (other than for scheduled worship - midnight mass and the like), though you can likely call on the Vicarage (if it's a traditional church) at any time of day. The church building is locked when the private owner says it must be locked, thus making a nonsense of any claim it has of being "public".

If a Church claims tax free statis it is in effect being subsidised by the government . Its public now the taxpayers demand it !

 

[Famine]

Nope. The monarch has divine right, meaning they are a direct representative of God.

No - it means the monarch IS God. This was central to the founding of the Church of England.

They are not defined as places of public worship so yes they are different.

So a meeting place for a specific branch of Christians MUST be open to all of the public, but a mosque or synagogue (or Meeting House, Temple or any other place of worship you care to mention) does not have to be?

Wow. Racist much?

Besides, as Foolkiller points out, a place of public worship is not the same as a public place of worship.

According to the law the answer is yes

At what point does legality confer morality?

The question was whether it's moral to have such a law, not whether it's legal - since obviously in that instance the answer would be yes.

In this case it is NOT moral, since the law applies to PRIVATE land - but only that on which business or congregation takes place.


If I opened my house for "public worship" on one single occasion, would I have to provide disabled access and crash mats for skydiving fishmonger lesbians?

 

[ledhed]

No but you would need to provide me with the address and a room . And pie and some baked beans and some fudge and a large cake .

 

[JacktheHat]

No - it means the monarch IS God. This was central to the founding of the Church of England.

Not according to this which states :

The Preface to the 39 Articles of the Church of England describes the monarch as 'being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith and ... Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.

So a meeting place for a specific branch of Christians MUST be open to all of the public, but a mosque or synagogue (or Meeting House, Temple or any other place of worship you care to mention) does not have to be?

Wow. Racist much?

I'm not saying it isn't but that's how they are defined.

Besides, as Foolkiller points out, a place of public worship is not the same as a public place of worship.

It still means it has to be accessible to the public.

At what point does legality confer morality?

The question was whether it's moral to have such a law, not whether it's legal - since obviously in that instance the answer would be yes.

In this case it is NOT moral, since the law applies to PRIVATE land - but only that on which business or congregation takes place.


If I opened my house for "public worship" on one single occasion, would I have to provide disabled access and crash mats for skydiving fishmonger lesbians?

You'd have to check with your council on that one.

 

[Touring Mars]

If I opened my house..., would I have to provide crash mats for skydiving fishmonger lesbians?

No, you wouldn't have to... but you'd be a fool not to. I can also heartily recommend expanding the sky-light

 

[FoolKiller]

That definition still clearly states it is a building for public worship. Public = everybody.

Mosques and synagogues are places of worship, but they are not by definition places of public worship.

I knew you were going to play the semantics game so I already had this page up waiting to be copied and pasted.

The definition of public according to Merriam Webster Online:

Main Entry: 1pub·lic
Pronunciation: 'p&-blik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English publique, from Middle French, from Latin publicus; akin to Latin populus the people
1 a : exposed to general view : OPEN b : WELL-KNOWN, PROMINENT c : PERCEPTIBLE, MATERIAL
2 a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law> b : of or relating to a government c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation
3 a : of or relating to people in general : UNIVERSAL b : GENERAL, POPULAR
4 : of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : SOCIAL
5 : devoted to the general or national welfare : HUMANITARIAN
6 a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community b : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market -- often used with go
- pub·lic·ness noun

The first definition (highlighted in red) is how I am defining public. "Exposed to general view." The second definition is how you are defining it. "Of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law> b : of or relating to a government c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation"

So, you cannot argue that by definition it is held to law the same way a public park or government building is, because you do not know that for fact. By definition it could just mean in front of other people.

A church is a public place to worship in the same way that a store is a public place to shop or a restaurant is a public place to eat, but they are private businesses. Government cannot tell Wal-Mart what grocery items can be on a shelf any more than they can tell a church what/how they can worship in their building.

Yet, somehow the government can come in and tell them both how to be PC.