quote:yes. let MB learn their mistake and move on. no need to internet bully a small business that made an honest (stupid, but not malicious) mistake.
Is it possible for both parties to be wrong?
Denial of Service
42,101 Views |
282 Replies |
Last: 8 yr ago by Slocum on a mobile
Criminal: no
Civil: yes.
Civil: yes.
Well according to the Gov's webpage on this topic
quote:Unfortunately the local "Dudley Do Rights" were not up to the task.
Contact local law enforcement agencies to report violations of this law.
Abbot's page
quote:
Well according to the Gov's webpage on this topicquote:Unfortunately the local "Dudley Do Rights" were not up to the task.
Contact local law enforcement agencies to report violations of this law.
Abbot's page
TAS /= ADA act/= ABA act
TAS-Texas Accessibility act.
ADA-Americans with disabilities act
ABA-Architectural Barriers Act.
TAS deals with construction design standards for non residential structures not accommodations
ADA deals with construction design standards and accommodation.
ABA deals mostly with renovation design standards
quote:No. The blind woman denied service was absolutely 100% not in the wrong. The restaurant denying her service was absolutely 100% in the wrong. HTH.
Is it possible for both parties to be wrong?
Are ya'll stall talking about this?has to be better ways to spend your time.
quote:What happened - yesquote:No. The blind woman denied service was absolutely 100% not in the wrong. The restaurant denying her service was absolutely 100% in the wrong. HTH.
Is it possible for both parties to be wrong?
the way she handled it - no.
I think people are talking about because the thought or discussion arises.
This is america, anyone should be able to deny service to anyone for whatever they want without implied threats from the state.
Stop trying to legislate desired morality.
Stop trying to legislate desired morality.
quote:except that it's illegal and all to do so based on a disability but whatever.
This is america, anyone should be able to deny service to anyone for whatever they want without implied threats from the state.
Slocum's point is precise.
Basically, many of the wrongs of the past were brought to attention by advocates.
One good example of this was the use of cartoon sketches. Many people did not know about children working in factories that were getting maimed or killed. When cartoon sketches/caricatures were released in newspapers, the message was soon being received and understood.
This same ideology was used for other atrocities in history. People became aware through advocates.
Trolls have always been around, so the attack on the blind or handicapped should not be regarded with any relevance. I think most of us are civilized humans that do care.
Basically, many of the wrongs of the past were brought to attention by advocates.
One good example of this was the use of cartoon sketches. Many people did not know about children working in factories that were getting maimed or killed. When cartoon sketches/caricatures were released in newspapers, the message was soon being received and understood.
This same ideology was used for other atrocities in history. People became aware through advocates.
Trolls have always been around, so the attack on the blind or handicapped should not be regarded with any relevance. I think most of us are civilized humans that do care.
Yeah... my point is it shouldn't be illegal and human beings are under no obligation to follow unjust laws. Any history book you pick up will teach you this lesson.
Saying it shouldn't be done simply because its against the law is to admit you have no idea why it shouldn't be done. Law = / = moral. Dont abdicate thought just because there is a bad law on the books.
Saying it shouldn't be done simply because its against the law is to admit you have no idea why it shouldn't be done. Law = / = moral. Dont abdicate thought just because there is a bad law on the books.
quote:yeah that's not true. youre still under obligation to follow the law and can still be held accountable for breaking the law.
human beings are under no obligation to follow unjust laws
whether you agree with this law, or what is just and not just is a matter for a totally different thread.
but the fact is that the law exists, and the restaurant did not follow it and therefore should be held accountable.
quote:it's your opinion that it's a bad law. i dont think it's a bad law at all.
Dont abdicate thought just because there is a bad law on the books
An example if the light bulb is dim.
Imagine going to court and the prosecutor is charging you with speeding in a school zone, and the fine is $850.00.
You say you were speeding because you ate greasy food and had to get home: Verdict Guilty
You say the law is stupid and you should pay a normal speeding violation. You state school zones are stupid and for the weak minded. Verdict Guilty
You say you never saw the sign that advised you of a school zone. Verdict Guilty
Basically, you don't have a defense.
Thanks
Imagine going to court and the prosecutor is charging you with speeding in a school zone, and the fine is $850.00.
You say you were speeding because you ate greasy food and had to get home: Verdict Guilty
You say the law is stupid and you should pay a normal speeding violation. You state school zones are stupid and for the weak minded. Verdict Guilty
You say you never saw the sign that advised you of a school zone. Verdict Guilty
Basically, you don't have a defense.
Thanks
quote:StringerBell nailed it. It's because of opinions like yours, and others expressed in this thread against the disabled woman and her actions, that such laws exist.
it's your opinion that it's a bad law. i dont think it's a bad law at all.
Once again, literally no one has said the restaurant was right, or that the law shouldn't exist (except for maybe Edmond). No one is attacking disabled people, nor saying guide dogs should not be allowed.
quote:and no one is saying that people are saying that other than a direct response to edmond.
Once again, literally no one has said the restaurant was right, or that the law shouldn't exist (except for maybe Edmond). No one is attacking disabled people, nor saying guide dogs should not be allowed.
Incorrect application of Lex iniusta non est lex ..
""An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.
This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to
follow itself. This is sameness made legal." - MLK
And I agree with Stringer the 'just law" topic is better addressed on the Politics Board.
""An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.
This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to
follow itself. This is sameness made legal." - MLK
And I agree with Stringer the 'just law" topic is better addressed on the Politics Board.
I go there for garden stuff regularly and hope this doesn't end up with them closing. There's already a severe shortage of decent nurseries in this area.
As a follow up on the story posted 5/27. Apparently Dyson the service dog will get his day in court. Charges Filed
I suspect we have all learned a bit from this incident.
I suspect we have all learned a bit from this incident.
Good.
You DO realize it was a Republican president who signed ADA into law? The fact you bring party politics into it tells me you're trolling.
He did, indeed, despite his opposition during his stint under Reagan. Originally, they (Reagan and Bush) wanted to 'deregulate' requirements seen as onerous to businesses. It was the combination of bipartisan effort and the grassroots movement of disabled citizens nationwide that culminated in the famous 'crawling up the steps' of the Capitol building that drove the point home that the ADA was not about entitlement but about removing obstacles so that veterans, children and other citizens with disabilities are not 'out of sight, out of mind.'
In hindsight, I am thankful he did so, no matter to which political party he belonged.
In hindsight, I am thankful he did so, no matter to which political party he belonged.
I think what Slocum was trying to convey was that self-professed Republican types tend to agree with less government regulation and laws unless it affects them personally. amirite?
Secondly, don't you think this woman would trade all this hullabaloo to be a "normal" person. I can't imagine what she has been through in her life much less that day. The stigma, the stares, the whispers. Maybe she had enough that day. No matter how the situation was handled or proceeds, it seems like her reaction has prompted a lot of people to familiarize themselves with the law. I think that is what she wanted.
Secondly, don't you think this woman would trade all this hullabaloo to be a "normal" person. I can't imagine what she has been through in her life much less that day. The stigma, the stares, the whispers. Maybe she had enough that day. No matter how the situation was handled or proceeds, it seems like her reaction has prompted a lot of people to familiarize themselves with the law. I think that is what she wanted.
Ate lunch there yesterday and it was packed with people waiting for table. I'm sure they have learned from their mistake and it was a big one. Let's all move on!
They'll be able to move on after the charges are settled.
quote:
Ate lunch there yesterday and it was packed with people waiting for table. I'm sure they have learned from their mistake and it was a big one. Let's all move on!
Just as expected, she and her lawyers want a payday.
quote:If anybody deserves one, it's her. But I think these are just legal charges filed for the law violation, not a civil suit seeking damages.
Just as expected, she and her lawyers want a payday.