So THAT’S who that was! Jk. If I were there, you could have leaned on me to get where you needed to go.
I think ADA is important because without it, we’d just absolutely shit all over the differently abled. Seriously. It would be China.
That said, I like this home cooked meal idea. A place not ADA compliant should indicate and providing that information should be a feature of the site. “We have lots of steps.” “We have no close parking.” “We cannot guarantee nut-free cooking.” “Jojo never washes his hands but he cooks like Julia.” Etc. I would be really in favor of this information freely available so that patrons could make informed decisions.
Is that how we discover the truth? By googling opinions that agree with us? I know the ADA is good in many ways, but that’s just not a good way to argue a point.
So was the first Gulf War. And the second one. And the Patriot Act. This is not a rational argument for anything.
The ADA is not perfect. It allows for much abuse, and many small businesses, through no fault of their own, have suffered because of it.
Again, it boils down to a belief that people who have run a business for years should be put out of business because they’re not able to serve all disabled people according to the ADA. Increasing access for disabled people is good. Putting poor and middle-class people out of work because they can’t afford to make their facilities accessible to all human beings is bad.
The ADA is not perfect.
It does not allow for much abuse.
And come on, (anecdata incoming) I can’t name a single small business that has suffered because of the ADA.
But I can list people that have benefitted from it.
I will stop appealling to the fact we all thought this was a good idea in the 90s (which really doesn’t prove anything).
But you honestly think you should be able to pay to eat in a place you can’t shit is okay?
No one has gone after AirBnB for skirting the legal requirements of running a hotel, BnB, etc.
But this could definitely be more dangerous, home kitchens have more diseases floating about and home cooks are not always trained in safe food handling. Not that food poisoning is ever that dangerous (excepting botulism), but still.
Of course, people have been helped by the ADA. But people have been harmed by it, as well.
Both things are true, but that’s not really the point.
I think whatever adults choose to do that doesn’t harm anyone else is okay. You honestly think that people who can’t afford to alter their business facilities so that all humans can patronize it should go out of business and the employees made jobless? Again, that is not liberal, nor is it compassionate.
The point is that when we prohibit adults from being able to eat where they want, and sell what food they want, we should have evidence that allowing it is demonstrably harmful. Otherwise, the law is authoritarian and conservative. And I oppose authoritarian and conservative laws.
It’s not so bad as long as the new offers are strictly in addition to the old ones, but if you create an environment where regulation becomes opt-in, there will be competition between the two and you may very well find yourself cut off from reasonable regulated options.
I think you should visit China, where there is no ADA for accessibility, and behold, for yourself, what a society is like that does not provide for equal access for its disabled. There is disability law in China. I’m not saying the country is devoid. And it’s an amazing place. But as far as public accessibility for the disabled to get around and live normally like everyone else: that does not exist there.
No, you didn’t. Maybe we have to agree on the definition of “harm?” I don’t think a disabled person not being able to eat at one restaurant when there are many other restaurants which are accessible within a square mile is “harm.”
If a disabled person can’t go to half the restaurants in town, what’s the harm?
If an ethnicity can’t rent a couple of apartments, what’s the harm?
If two adults are legally unable to get married, what’s the harm?
The harm is fucking discrimination. And the reason we have laws like the ADA is to prevent asshatsfrom legally being able to discriminate.
We do not guarantee that all people that want to start a business can. That is a feature, not a bug.
But you honestly think you should be able to pay to eat in a place you can’t shit is okay?
The typical hole-in-the-wall converted storefront ethnic restaurants I tend to eat at have no publicly available restrooms, period, ADA accessible or no. I don’t know if there is a rule that if a restaurant is mostly for take-away with a few tables for people dining in means that restrooms are optional or if they are actually breaking a law, though.
I think there’s a big, big difference between forcing a business to serve a minority and forcing a business to close because it can’t afford tens of thousands of dollars in renovations in order to make the restrooms accessible to all disabled people. I hope you can, too.
That would be a strawman. It’s reasonable to suggest that their should be good causes to shut down a business or prevent its opening. I don’t believe that not having enough money to pay for renovations in order to serve all human beings is a reason to shut down a business and put people out of work, especially if there are very many other options in the area that are able to serve all human beings.
But I think we’re repeating ourselves and we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Hope you have a good weekend!
