Handicap Access...

[Swift]

I would say it's not as church then, it's a place of worship but not a church.

Then you don't get it. And NOBODY is denying access to disabled people in any way shape or form. So I'm not sure where you get that from.

 

[JacktheHat]

Then you don't get it. And NOBODY is denying access to disabled people in any way shape or form. So I'm not sure where you get that from.

I was just following YOUR, and others in this thread, logic.

I got the impression from YOUR statements that you didn't want disabled people on the stage.

example:

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

 

[Pako]

Just let the county know that your church believes in healing and that all crippled people get healed before they 'walk' onto the stage.

Now being a little more serious, I can see your gripe as the 'stage' serves no public access points. I'm sure that if someone in your church that was in a wheel chair, was talented at keyboards, and was asked to play in the worship group, then adding a ramp to code wouldn't be out of the question, and make such accommodations would be justified.

It seems ridiculous to me that they would force the issue on a non-access area.

 

[Swift]

I was just following YOUR, and others in this thread, logic.

I got the impression from YOUR statements that you didn't want disabled people on the stage.

example:

GranPrix went over that already. To be disabled means that you have trouble with physical or mental performance of some kind. So, that would "generally"(as I said before) lead to someone that wouldn't have a need to be on stage.

There's an older gentlemen in our church that recently had a stroke and he's in an electronic wheelchair. He's been coming to our church for about 25 years straight WITHOUT missing a Sunday morning service. In fact, he help to build the very sanctuary that we worship in. Do you think he's up in arms that we don't have "perfect" access for him to get up on stage? Nope! because what we had before was sufficient.

But after all this, you still miss my point. This is about the government tell us what we must do with our building. I mean, If someone came to your house that YOU paid for and said you had to do things a specific way, I'm sure you wouldn't be to happy. Especially when the money was going to come from YOUR pocket.ets.

 

[JacktheHat]

GranPrix went over that already. To be disabled means that you have trouble with physical or mental performance of some kind. So, that would "generally"(as I said before) lead to someone that wouldn't have a need to be on stage.

There's an older gentlemen in our church that recently had a stroke and he's in an electronic wheelchair. He's been coming to our church for about 25 years straight WITHOUT missing a Sunday morning service. In fact, he help to build the very sanctuary that we worship in. Do you think he's up in arms that we don't have "perfect" access for him to get up on stage? Nope! because what we had before was sufficient.

But after all this, you still miss my point. This is about the government tell us what we must do with our building. I mean, If someone came to your house that YOU paid for and said you had to do things a specific way, I'm sure you wouldn't be to happy. Especially when the money was going to come from YOUR pocket.ets.

Swift, I can see your point. I just don't agree with it.

If you'd bothered reading my posts you wouldn't need to keep whining about spending anymore money.

The rules where in place before the contract was given out, yes?

The person/s who carried out the work were qualified architects/contractors, yes?

Then it's the responsibility of them to correct their work and bring it into line with the regulations that are in place.

-

Using one disabled person as an example is not valid, either. Mental and physical disabilities are wide ranging and what is adequate for one is not adequate for all.
That is why the government (in the UK at least) has done extensive research into what constitutes adequate disabled access.

 

[Swift]

Swift, I can see your point. I just don't agree with it.

I'm sure you realize that it's possible to disagree and neither person be wrong.

If you'd bothered reading my posts you wouldn't need to keep whining about spending anymore money.

The rules where in place before the contract was given out, yes?

And because there are rules in place that automatically makes them correct? Slavery laws were in place at one time in both of our countries. Does that make them correct just because they were there?

The person/s who carried out the work were qualified architects/contractors, yes?

Then it's the responsibility of them to correct their work and bring it into line with the regulations that are in place.

Yes, as stated earlier.
-

Using one disabled person as an example is not valid, either. Mental and physical disabilities are wide ranging and what is adequate for one is not adequate for all.
That is why the government (in the UK at least) has done extensive research into what constitutes adequate disabled access.

Uh, it's a totally valid example? How is it not valid? I didn't say it was a study or a canvasing of the area. I just said that one of the FOUNDING members of this particular place of worship is now in a wheelchair and is not upset about access to the stage. That's a perfectly valid example as long as I don't say that it's for every single disabled person in the country.

I think it's extremely important to have disabled access to public buildings. When I say public, I mean paid for by taxes. But to force any private organization to do certain things with their building is just wrong in my opinion.

 

[JacktheHat]

I'm sure you realize that it's possible to disagree and neither person be wrong.

I realise that, it just seemed that you couldn't...

But after all this, you still miss my point.

...see?

And because there are rules in place that automatically makes them correct? Slavery laws were in place at one time in both of our countries. Does that make them correct just because they were there?

No, but as I stated the laws regarding disabled access to buildings were extensively researched with disabled people in mind. I doubt that the people who made slavery legal did a consensus among the slaves to see how they felt about it...

Uh, it's a totally valid example? How is it not valid? I didn't say it was a study or a canvasing of the area. I just said that one of the FOUNDING members of this particular place of worship is now in a wheelchair and is not upset about access to the stage. That's a perfectly valid example as long as I don't say that it's for every single disabled person in the country.

No it isn't, Swift, because we are discussing disabled access. We are not discussing whether or not a particular person has adequate access.

I think it's extremely important to have disabled access to public buildings. When I say public, I mean paid for by taxes. But to force any private organization to do certain things with their building is just wrong in my opinion.

1. Churches benefit from the tax system.
2. Churches should be open to the public by definition.
3. Any private organisation that is open to the public requires adequate disabled access otherwise it is discriminating - which is illegal.


There is a good reason why there are laws preventing discrimination. Look in your history books if you don't think they're necessary.

-


Although... In the UK faiths/churches/religions are the only employers STILL allowed to discrimate against employees on the grounds of their sexuality.

 

[Swift]

1. Churches benefit from the tax system.
2. Churches should be open to the public by definition.
3. Any private organisation that is open to the public requires adequate disabled access otherwise it is discriminating - which is illegal.


There is a good reason why there are laws preventing discrimination. Look in your history books if you don't think they're necessary.

Ok, you think that churches are public places. Not having to pay taxes(some private corporations) and being paid for by taxes are two completely different things.

Point two: It's a place of public worship. So the public is welcome. We still reserve the right to turn anyone away for whatever reason we see fit. Just like any other private company. Though I have not known this to ever happen at our church.

Your point three is completely up to opinion. I think it's oppresive to force someone to accept everyone and make all kinds of changes using the money of the private company. It's one thing if the government funded all these changes. But they don't. They make the business spend all kinds of money to come up to standards that may never need to be used by anyone.

I find myself leading more towards the libertarian viewpoint on issues like this.

 

[JacktheHat]

Ok, you think that churches are public places. Not having to pay taxes(some private corporations) and being paid for by taxes are two completely different things.

Point two: It's a place of public worship. So the public is welcome. We still reserve the right to turn anyone away for whatever reason we see fit. Just like any other private company. Though I have not known this to ever happen at our church.

Your point three is completely up to opinion. I think it's oppresive to force someone to accept everyone and make all kinds of changes using the money of the private company. It's one thing if the government funded all these changes. But they don't. They make the business spend all kinds of money to come up to standards that may never need to be used by anyone.

I find myself leading more towards the libertarian viewpoint on issues like this.

Point 3 is the law. As I stated before there is a reason we have anti-discrimination laws.

If you want to open a building to the public it HAS to be accessible to ALL. You may not like it but it's still true.

 

[Danoff]

1. Churches benefit from the tax system.
2. Churches should be open to the public by definition.
3. Any private organisation that is open to the public requires adequate disabled access otherwise it is discriminating - which is illegal.

1. Benefiting from the tax system does not make you owned or operated by the government.
2. Churches are private and should be open to whoever they choose.
3. Private organizations should not be required to provide adequate disabled access. Discriminating is NOT illegal.

Edit:

If you want to open a building to the public it HAS to be accessible to ALL. You may not like it but it's still true.

We all know the law. It's just a bad law.

 

[JacktheHat]

1. Benefiting from the tax system does not make you owned or operated by the government.
2. Churches are private and should be open to whoever they choose.
3. Private organizations should not be required to provide adequate disabled access. Discriminating is NOT illegal.

Edit:

We all know the law. It's just a bad law.

1. But it does require you to fill certain requirements.
2. Churches should be open to everyone, or to put it another way 'all of God's children'.
3. Private organisations that are open to the public also have to fill certain requirements, such as adequate access, otherwise they can't open to the public. Discrimination IS illegal (along with immoral, unethical and just wrong).

YOU may think it's a bad law, personally I think protecting the public is a good thing.

 

[Swift]

We all know the law. It's just a bad law.

I think that sums up this thread in one statement.

Just because something is the law doesn't make it good or correct. There are hundreds of places to site this.

 

[Swift]

YOU may think it's a bad law, personally I think protecting the public is a good thing.

Ok, do you have handicapped acess to all parts of your home? You'll then reply with, "my home isn't open to the public." But that doesn't mean that a disabled person won't ever "need" access to your home. So, why not have the access so you don't discriminate?

 

[Danoff]

1. But it does require you to fill certain requirements.
2. Churches should be open to everyone, or to put it another way 'all of God's children'.
3. Private organisations that are open to the public also have to fill certain requirements, such as adequate access, otherwise they can't open to the public. Discrimination IS illegal (along with immoral, unethical and just wrong).

YOU may think it's a bad law, personally I think protecting the public is a good thing.

I'm talking about public vs. private. If benefitting from the federal tax system makes you public, then I know a lot of poor people who are now public property.

 

[Pako]

Just tell the city it's against your religion to have ramps going to the stage, something to the effect that ramps would only accommodate the serpent, which is a symbol of Satan, and you don't want Satan on the stage. $7k also seems a way out of range for something as simple as adding a ramp. I think it's out of control to require that.

Anyhow, it is a bad law. The Church is open to "all of God's children", but that doesn't mean we let all of God's children on the stage. EVERYONE is welcome to the church for praise and worship. Ask the city judge to put wheel chair access to his bench and see how far that goes. Public access right?

 

[JacktheHat]

Ok, do you have handicapped acess to all parts of your home? You'll then reply with, "my home isn't open to the public." But that doesn't mean that a disabled person won't ever "need" access to your home. So, why not have the access so you don't discriminate?

Close.

It's actually, "I'm not inviting the public into my home."

 

[JacktheHat]

I'm talking about public vs. private. If benefitting from the federal tax system makes you public, then I know a lot of poor people who are now public property.

They have to fulfill certain requirements to be eligible too.

 

[Swift]

Close.

It's actually, "I'm not inviting the public into my home."

Actually, you are. You're just being very selective as to which individuals of the public you invite. They are still part of "the public", you simply choose which ones you want to come in.

Amazing how private corporations can do the same thing.

 

[JacktheHat]

Actually, you are. You're just being very selective as to which individuals of the public you invite. They are still part of "the public", you simply choose which ones you want to come in.

Amazing how private corporations can do the same thing.

No, if I was to invite the public I would be inviting everyone. As my home is a private dwelling, and not a business, I don't do that.

Corporations that do not open their offices to the public still have to have adequate disabled access for staff.

 

[Danoff]

Corporations that do not open their offices to the public still have to have adequate disabled access for staff.

Again, we understand the law - it's just that it's a bad law. Why should a private corporation have to have adequate disabled access for ANYONE?

 

[JacktheHat]

Again, we understand the law - it's just that it's a bad law. Why should a private corporation have to have adequate disabled access for ANYONE?

Because people with disabilities are still valuable employees.

 

[Danoff]

Because people with disabilities are still valuable employees.

That's up to the private business owner to decide - not you.

 

[JacktheHat]

That's up to the private business owner to decide - not you.

No, that's a statement of fact. An employer can choose to employ whomever they wish, but they have to make their decision on the applicants ability to do the job not on their conforming to societies norms.

 

[Swift]

No, that's a statement of fact. An employer can choose to employ whomever they wish, but they have to make their decision on the applicants ability to do the job not on their conforming to societies norms.

So you make them conform to another ideal. Nice hypocracy.

 

[JacktheHat]

So you make them conform to another ideal. Nice hypocracy.

What? Employing people who can do the job? How is that hypocrisy?

 

[Danoff]

No, that's a statement of fact. An employer can choose to employ whomever they wish, but they have to make their decision on the applicants ability to do the job not on their conforming to societies norms.

They should be able to make THEIR (not that it is not yours) decision based on any criteria they choose - not necessarily based on ability to do the job. Besides, what if they include walking up a flight of stairs in the job description of a secretary?

 

[Pako]

You can require 'walking up stairs' IF it is a integral part of the job. Being able to carry 70lbs for a delivery service for example would not be discriminating. Being able to carry 70lbs to be eligible for a secretary job would be discriminating.

 

[Swift]

What? Employing people who can do the job? How is that hypocrisy?

If you say that a private company should have access to there building for staff that are disabled. But then tell them that they can higher whoever they want is hypocracy.

What if it's a moving company? Or a shipping and distrubution company? The only possible job for a disabled person would be desk work. What if that's done in a seperate building. Is the access still needed?

 

[Danoff]

You can require 'walking up stairs' IF it is a integral part of the job. Being able to carry 70lbs for a delivery service for example would not be discriminating. Being able to carry 70lbs to be eligible for a secretary job would be discriminating.

And why should it be illegal for businesses to discriminate?

 

[Pako]

Because minority groups felt left out due to no fault of their own. Two different people, both completely capable of performing the job. One is a man, the other a woman. Historically, this is a office where men workers do better socially than do woman so you hire the man. Is this against the law? Is this discrimination?