Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Um, it's required sweetie, it's called the Americans With Disabilities Act, you might want to look it over.
Um...We're all pretty much aware of the Americans With Disabilities Act, thanks so much. Even that Act, however, has limitations on what is and is not considered a "disability". NOBODY is disputing the law; we're talking about practicalities. NOBODY has suggested barring the handicapped from beaches, or making access to them impossible or difficult. The example given, if you read it, was that of a facility with a specific use, which was all but inaccessible to most people (particularly those with no reason to be there) whether they were disabled or not.
There are such things as Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQs) which legitimately bar people who are physically or otherwise impaired, from holding those jobs. So you wouldn't have a blind, deaf, quadriplegic neurosurgeon or jet pilot, not because anyone is trying to be mean to the handicapped, but because their disabilities effectively hampered them from performing the tasks involved. BFOQs are pretty well defined and are not blanket reasons for excluding people; the burden of proof lies with the employer.
Both BFOQs and the ADA make it clear that an employer's essential business must not be destroyed or nullified by undue hardship that would result from accommodating designated employees.
Last edited by FlourChild; 06-20-2008 at 11:55 AM..
Reason: Cutting and pasting screwed up one of the sentences; fixed it to be clearer.
Um...We're all pretty much aware of the Americans With Disabilities Act, thanks so much. Even that Act, however, has limitations on what is and is not considered a "disability". NOBODY is disputing the law; we're talking about practicalities. NOBODY has suggested barring the handicapped from beaches, or making access to them impossible or difficult. The example given, if you read it, was that of a facility with a specific use, which was all but inaccessible to most people (particularly those with no reason to be there) whether they were disabled or not.
There are such things as Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQs) which legitimately bar people who are physically or otherwise capable of performing a job, to hold those jobs. So you wouldn't have a blind, deaf, quadriplegic neurosurgeon or jet pilot, not because anyone is trying to be mean to the handicapped, but because their disabilities effectively hampered them from performing the tasks involved. BFOQs are pretty well defined and are not blanket reasons for excluding people; the burden of proof lies with the employer.
Both BFOQs and the ADA make it clear that an employer's essential business must not be destroyed or nullified by undue hardship that would result from accommodating designated employees.
Well Flourchild, you couldn't be any more clear then that. Let's see if it has any effect on the conversation. I'm betting NO...
Um...We're all pretty much aware of the Americans With Disabilities Act, thanks so much. Even that Act, however, has limitations on what is and is not considered a "disability". NOBODY is disputing the law; we're talking about practicalities. NOBODY has suggested barring the handicapped from beaches, or making access to them impossible or difficult. The example given, if you read it, was that of a facility with a specific use, which was all but inaccessible to most people (particularly those with no reason to be there) whether they were disabled or not.
There are such things as Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQs) which legitimately bar people who are physically or otherwise capable of performing a job, to hold those jobs. So you wouldn't have a blind, deaf, quadriplegic neurosurgeon or jet pilot, not because anyone is trying to be mean to the handicapped, but because their disabilities effectively hampered them from performing the tasks involved. BFOQs are pretty well defined and are not blanket reasons for excluding people; the burden of proof lies with the employer.
Both BFOQs and the ADA make it clear that an employer's essential business must not be destroyed or nullified by undue hardship that would result from accommodating designated employees.
Hmm, thanks for the unneeded details. However, if you remember 123's earlier post, he had a problem w/bowing down to people w/disabilities, you know, he thought it was a hardship that businesses should have to provide accessible entrances & whatnot for them. I guess you think that's acceptable?
Hmm, thanks for the unneeded details. However, if you remember 123's earlier post, he had a problem w/bowing down to people w/disabilities, you know, he thought it was a hardship that businesses should have to provide accessible entrances & whatnot for them. I guess you think that's acceptable?
Oh, so if they contradict you, they're "unneeded details". I pretty much knew you'd come up with THAT. You'd rather throw around terms like "Americans With Disabilities Act", snottily suggest we need to look into it, and then brush it aside when we DO? Debate team captain, were we?
Oh, so if they contradict you, they're "unneeded details". I pretty much knew you'd come up with THAT. You'd rather throw around terms like "Americans With Disabilities Act", snottily suggest we need to look into it, and then brush it aside when we DO? Debate team captain, were we?
I have zero problems with gays. They are born with it. No one chooses to be gay. It's a tough life to live and I feel sorry for them. But we should embrace it? We should shove it down the throats of our children in Jr. High health class?
People who are handicapped.. it's sad. It's awful. But we should require all building owners to put in million dollar elevators thus putting many businesses out of business. Way way way too many handicapped parking spaces take up valuable land.
I'm all for helping the poor.. the weak.. but my point is we go WAY WAY overboard. We shouldn't glorify homosexuality. Accepting is ok.. Glorifying is going overboard.
We should require buildings to put in ramps for handicapped people who must access the building. We should not put hundreds of thousands of businesses out of business because they can't afford million dollar elevators for handicapped people that probably will never come to the building. Ramps and some elevators for handicapped people who must access the building is ok, requiring everyone to do it and putting thousands of businesses out of business is going overboard.
Giving out scholarships to minority students is a great way for minorities to make up for some of the disadvantages they face. Turning away bright young white kids from masters and doctorate programs to fill a minority quota is just plain wrong.
Again, I'm not evil. I feel incredibly sorry for the weak. We need to help them out. But America is so PC that we go way way overboard in doing so and the majority often suffers.
Hmm. I think he (she?) clarified things pretty well here.
Oh, so if they contradict you, they're "unneeded details". I pretty much knew you'd come up with THAT. You'd rather throw around terms like "Americans With Disabilities Act", snottily suggest we need to look into it, and then brush it aside when we DO? Debate team captain, were we?
Interesting, I do believe I wasn't even speaking to you at all in this thread, or at least not regarding 123's posting about handicap accessibility. And I'm sure you knew I'd come up w/my post, you are ever so smart! Why so defensive?
Re ADA requirements: The requirement to retrofit a building has long since past - so the law is not "forcing" anyone to spend money to "put in" an elevator or ramps.
Multi story buildings, being built new, put in elevators as a normal course of design - and, they are not only for those with disabilities.
Interesting, I do believe I wasn't even speaking to you at all in this thread, or at least not regarding 123's posting about handicap accessibility. And I'm sure you knew I'd come up w/my post, you are ever so smart! Why so defensive?
Not sure where the "defensive" comes in, but the "I'm not talking to you, neener neener" bit is HILARIOUS. My mom came running in here to see what I was laughing about!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
