dont forget the lawyers
Denial of Service
45,936 Views |
282 Replies |
Last: 9 yr ago by Slocum on a mobile
Discrimination isn't always purposeful
And we judge ourselves on intent. Others judge us based on action
They broke the law. It's pretty black and white.
And we judge ourselves on intent. Others judge us based on action
They broke the law. It's pretty black and white.
Has a lawsuit been filed? I believe right now they're only dealing with the criminal charges of violating part of the ADA.
quote:Really? People on this very thread have been running that woman through the ringer for... posting it on Facebook.
This should not have gotten past the file a complaint with the manager, a social media posting, and choosing to take her money elsewhere. It should have never been escalated to the point it did.
So, crimes committed shouldn't be followed up on? If you just choose to ignore what happens, then how does the business learn from their illegal mistakes? The manager didn't do the right thing. The hostess (given the leeway of newness) didn't do the right thing. The other two waitresses didn't do the right thing. Hell, Navasota PD didn't do the right thing.
quote:
There was no criminal intent involved in this and the fact that a business is being sued over this tells me all I need to know about the woman.
Not for nothing, but then it tells you wrong. She hasn't sued the business. This is simply the machinations of the criminal system (which is about equivalent to a parking ticket) for the (like it or not) crimes that were committed. She stands to gain absolutely nothing from it, personally.
I was brought up to understand that "ignorance of the law is no defense to breaking the law". In addition to that, criminal intent isn't necessarily required under the law to be prosecuted for a crime. It can be a factor to the prosecutor, and it can certainly be a factor in sentencing, but criminal intent certainly isn't required.
quote:Did I ever say that? No, I was just giving my opinion. And my opinion is this thing has been overblown and the victim mentality of this country is fueling it.
Really? People on this very thread have been running that woman through the ringer for... posting it on Facebook.
This law was designed to benefit true victims. Denying a blind woman the use of her seeing eye dog is contemptible. The restaurant deserves what they're getting.
The fact that techno disagrees with me makes me know I'm right. Y'all have fun. I'm going back to real life now.
quote:I didn't claim you specifically said that. I noted that "people in this thread" have been lambasting the woman for doing exactly that; posting it to Facebook.quote:Did I ever say that? No, I was just giving my opinion. And my opinion is this thing has been overblown and the victim mentality of this country is fueling it.
Really? People on this very thread have been running that woman through the ringer for... posting it on Facebook.
My personal opinion is that a crime, however small, has been committed and should be seen through, and it's not "victim mentality" that's fueling this. This is a real person, with a very real handicap that has been discriminated against. This isn't a person who fell down on a sidewalk and is suing the city for $35 million, claiming loss of happiness and loss of consortium because her baby-daddy don't do chicks with band-aids on.
I do understand the propensity to treat any victim of any perceived slight with a grain of salt given how society reacts these days, but I'm truly finding it hard to blame the victim for overblowing this one. She got problems with the hostess, hostess called more waitresses over. No resolution, called the manager. No resolution, even after presenting information showing the specific ADA law that was being broken. Called the police, as they are the appropriate responding agency to a problem like this. No resolution, leave and post the problem on Facebook. For a place that's breaking the law and discriminating against handicapped patrons, that's a pretty damned reasonable chain of events, IMHO.
quote:I've found on a few things I either *really* agree with him, or *really* disagree with him. Not much of a middle ground I've seen
The fact that techno disagrees with me makes me know I'm right. Y'all have fun. I'm going back to real life now.
quote:Try that one next time you get pulled over for running a red light.
The fact that techno disagrees with me makes me know I'm right. Y'all have fun. I'm going back to real life now.
"Well Techno is on the side of the law, so you Mr. Officer are obviously wrong!"
Well sometimes you've been really wrong.
The use of victim mentality is ridiculous.
They denied her service based on her disability. She complained to the cops and the cops did nothing. So she voiced her concerns on social media.
Yet she has a "victim mentality". They flat out denied her service. She was the victim here.
The fact that so many of you are willing to excuse the fact that a law was blatantly broken is beyond me.
They denied her service based on her disability. She complained to the cops and the cops did nothing. So she voiced her concerns on social media.
Yet she has a "victim mentality". They flat out denied her service. She was the victim here.
The fact that so many of you are willing to excuse the fact that a law was blatantly broken is beyond me.
quote:
The use of victim mentality is ridiculous.
They denied her service based on her disability. She complained to the cops and the cops did nothing. So she voiced her concerns on social media.
Yet she has a "victim mentality". They flat out denied her service. She was the victim here.
The fact that so many of you are willing to excuse the fact that a law was blatantly broken is beyond me.
It wasn't discrimination. They objected to the guide dog, which was a violation of state law. There's a difference.
The OP's opening statement has a link and it seems like the State of Texas disagrees with you. Sec. 121.003. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED. (a) Persons with disabilities, etc.
The guide dog is her only way of navigating through the restaurant.
By saying no to the guide dog they are saying that she, as a blind person, is unwelcome there
That's discriminatory and illegal.
By saying no to the guide dog they are saying that she, as a blind person, is unwelcome there
That's discriminatory and illegal.
quote:I could certainly say the same!
Well sometimes you've been really wrong.
techno-ag
Joined:
Mar 12, 2010
Posts:
46,626
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
It wasn't discrimination. They objected to the guide dog, which was a violation of state law. There's a difference.
Laavispa is right. It was discrimination as far as the law is concerned.
quote:
121.003. Discrimination Prohibited
(a) Persons with disabilities have the same right as the able-bodied to the full use and enjoyment of any public facility in the state.
(b) No common carrier, airplane, railroad train, motor bus, streetcar, boat, or other public conveyance or mode of transportation operating within the state may refuse to accept as a passenger a person with a disability because of the person's disability, nor may a person with a disability be required to pay an additional fare because of his or her use of a service animal, wheelchair, crutches, or other device used to assist a person with a disability in travel.
(c) No person with a disability may be denied admittance to any public facility in the state because of the person's disability. No person with a disability may be denied the use of a white cane, assistance animal, wheelchair, crutches, or other device of assistance.
(d) The discrimination prohibited by this section includes a refusal to allow a person with a disability to use or be admitted to any public facility, a ruse or subterfuge calculated to prevent or discourage a person with a disability from using or being admitted to a public facility, and a failure to:
...
What's the latest with this story?
quote:quote:
It wasn't discrimination. They objected to the guide dog, which was a violation of state law. There's a difference.
Laavispa is right. It was discrimination as far as the law is concerned.quote:
121.003. Discrimination Prohibited
(a) Persons with disabilities have the same right as the able-bodied to the full use and enjoyment of any public facility in the state.
(b) No common carrier, airplane, railroad train, motor bus, streetcar, boat, or other public conveyance or mode of transportation operating within the state may refuse to accept as a passenger a person with a disability because of the person's disability, nor may a person with a disability be required to pay an additional fare because of his or her use of a service animal, wheelchair, crutches, or other device used to assist a person with a disability in travel.
(c) No person with a disability may be denied admittance to any public facility in the state because of the person's disability. No person with a disability may be denied the use of a white cane, assistance animal, wheelchair, crutches, or other device of assistance.
(d) The discrimination prohibited by this section includes a refusal to allow a person with a disability to use or be admitted to any public facility, a ruse or subterfuge calculated to prevent or discourage a person with a disability from using or being admitted to a public facility, and a failure to:
...
Is a private business a "public facility"?
Restaurant is not a public facility. This is where you have to look at Federal ADA NOT TAS. Or there are Texas human rights laws that apply.
Texas Health Code:
CHAPTER 437. REGULATION OF FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, RETAIL FOOD STORES, MOBILE FOOD UNITS, AND ROADSIDE FOOD VENDORS
Sec. 437.023. SERVICE ANIMALS. (a) A food service establishment, retail food store, or other entity regulated under this chapter may not deny a service animal admittance into an area of the establishment or store or of the physical space occupied by the entity that is open to customers and is not used to prepare food if:
(1) the service animal is accompanied and controlled by a person with a disability; or etc.
CHAPTER 437. REGULATION OF FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, RETAIL FOOD STORES, MOBILE FOOD UNITS, AND ROADSIDE FOOD VENDORS
Sec. 437.023. SERVICE ANIMALS. (a) A food service establishment, retail food store, or other entity regulated under this chapter may not deny a service animal admittance into an area of the establishment or store or of the physical space occupied by the entity that is open to customers and is not used to prepare food if:
(1) the service animal is accompanied and controlled by a person with a disability; or etc.
There you go but that's not TAS or ADA law.
Agree not a part of TAS. As I understand it, TAS deals with architectural accessibility standards (under ADA) while the Texas citations I have provided deal with those regulations specific to 'service dogs'. AGAIN, as I understand it, the Texas statutes provides a definition of 'Reasonable Accommodation' that is sought by ADA pertaining exclusively to the issue of 'service dog'.
Edit:
However Texas updated statute was effective 2014, this in response to ADA changes effective 2011. Texas essentially 'me too'd" the federal wording.
Edit:
However Texas updated statute was effective 2014, this in response to ADA changes effective 2011. Texas essentially 'me too'd" the federal wording.
quote:
Has a lawsuit been filed? I believe right now they're only dealing with the criminal charges of violating part of the ADA.
Why would SHE need a lawyer then?
One thing everyone can agree on, is that this was a victimless crime.
quote:
There was no criminal intent involved in this and the fact that a business is being sued over this tells me all I need to know about the woman.
And the fact that the business made up some BS story about hearing "guard" dog instead of "guide" dog, throwing a "new" hostess under the bus even though a waitress and manager were involved as well, and still not apologizing to the blind woman tells me all I need to know about MB too.
And lets face it the business name was "stupid" to begin with.
In all the excitement, has the expert reviewed this on Yelp?
quote:
Businesses make mistakes ALL THE TIME. Literally every single day. Businesses are not perfect. Humans are not perfect. Blue Bell screwed up and people DIED, yet here you are wishing for the demise of this business and insulting an entire town for a relatively minor, yet obvious mistake.
Would be curious to know how many people out there calling for a boycott of Martha's Bloomers are also part of the group saying prayers for the return of Blue Bell Ice Cream.
Had MB simply admitted that they had made a mistake and apologized to the woman, this thread probably would be less than a page long.