https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/magazine/americans-with-d...
Small hole in the wall restaurants couldn't afford renovations and had to just close, resulting in more Mc-chain restaurants moving in that can afford to play ball.
Disabled people need access, but I (perhaps controversially) don't think they need access to 100% of the things. I'm reminded of that article from a few years ago "hiking has an able-ist problem" because hiking trails weren't wheelchair accessible. We can't fix all the things for people in wheelchairs (paved trails up half-dome?) or people who are blind (should the trails have megaphones every 10 feet saying "watch your step here because there's rocks"?).
Only one party here is purposeful in their actions
Or, perhaps more specifically the guarantee from Article 19, barring segregation from the community at large?
Expecting the declarations on human rights to be followed is not unreasonable.
Nobody "deserves" to go to a resturant.
Regarding nuts, I don't know about the rest of the world but in my country, restaurants are required to disclose allergens in their foods, if asked.
Should all restaurants also be required to serve food for whatever combination of allergies one might have?
My mother has several food allergies, there are restaurants where she can't eat any meal. Would you welcome a law mandating each and every restaurant to start serving meals she can eat?
Suing every hole in the wall out of business is hardly in line with reasonable accommodation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_Pe...
Suing is the enforcement mechanism chosen by the Israelis and the US, not the reasoning behind the requirement. The reasoning is: The disabled should have equal access to dining and it's not an undue burden to expect ramps outside of businesses. Most of the developed world is like this.
You might disagree with that reasoning but clearly a political majority in the US didn't and doesn't.
I agree we want the world to be fair. I recently went through a difficult situation, during which my partner was unable to visit restaurants, even if they were wheelchair accessible. Was that fair?
What about people who can't financially afford going to a restaurant? Is it more fair to exclude someone on the basis of their financial situation rather than based on their physical disability?
Btw, I love hiking. If I were to become disabled and not be able to go hiking, I'd miss it more than going to restaurants. Is that fair?
Are you arguing we shouldn't have such laws because they don't reach 100% of people? That's letting perfect be the enemy of good.
> I recently went through a difficult situation, during which my partner was unable to visit restaurants, even if they were wheelchair accessible. Was that fair?
It is more fair than if restaurants weren't wheelchair accessible.
> Is it more fair to exclude someone on the basis of their financial situation rather than based on their physical disability?
It is more fair than if they were also excluded based on their physical disability.
>If I were to become disabled and not be able to go hiking, I'd miss it more than going to restaurants. Is that fair?
It is more fair than if you were also not able to go to restaurants.
You see? These are all still better. It is not perfect, but arguing that we should do away with these laws because they are not perfect doesn't help it become better, just worse.
Generally, that's the role of a legislature. We could, for instance, exempt restaurants unable to afford renovations from that burden. Unfortunately, there are sticklers like you that would rather those restaurant not exist.
Not only would this be an insane job for the legislature, they aren't equipped to handle the volume.
> If the restaurant owners, none. If the disabled, all. And there isn't really an in-between is there?
Are you sure there's no in-between? I gave this grand total of few seconds of thought. Could perhaps the government or the city step in and provide wheelchair accessibility to select restaurants, based on feasibility, cost, location, and perhaps some other criteria?
Restaurant owners suffer because of these laws. Are you 100% sure the suffering of the restaurant owners under these laws is lesser than the suffering of the disabled without these laws?
I think this is why some laws state “reasonable accommodations”. If a ramp is impossible or unaffordable with the restaurants margins, what should be the course of action? Should the restaurant close? If so, that doesn’t actually improve accessibility.
The current law may already use this barometer and the horror story examples may be overblown, but at least this seems like a reasonable way to approach things.
2. I don't know what your situation was so I don't know but I think your point was that the world isn't fair so why. We strive to do our best within reason. Just because not every situation is fair isn't an argument against making more situations unfair.
3. On poor people not being able go:
A.No restaurant could afford to pay for all the meals if they were required to cover the cost for any person who can't afford it.
B. Most people can afford to go to almost restaurant at least once in their life. When does it become unfair? 2 times a year, 5 a week.
C. How would you determine who could afford it? how would the restaurant verify it?
D. If I spend all my money gambling then want to eat is that fair? If no. How would you determine what a person spent and catalog what's acceptable
E. Come on, this like one of those "they deserved it" remarks from the "being selfish is now socially acceptable " right wing crowd.
If the restaurant is in a Historic District, and the board/commission/whatever in charge of that is generally opposed to pro-accessibility changes - who (other than the lawyers) benefits when the restaurant ends up as a de-facto abandoned building?
If my "handicap" is a severe peanut allergy, should I be able to demand that every restaurant have a separate, peanut-free kitchen - with only certified peanut-free ingredients, etc.? (One can repeat this argument for other allergies, people whose personal beliefs require kosher/halal/vegan/etc. food, and so on.)
If there are (say) 100 restaurants in a city, what is the marginal value for handicapped people of forcing a 101th restaurant to spend $$$$ to qualify as handicap-accessible?
Why stop there? There also needs to be a separate nut-free section of the restaurant for dining. Inaccessibility is frustrating but nuts are deadly!
If you wanted to rent an office, an apartment, or even a '5 x 10' self-storage unit, would you find it reasonable for Step 1 to be "hire a team of property lawyers and inspectors, to find out if the place I want to rent is in compliance with all current Federal, State, County, City, and Historical District laws, standards, rules, regulations..."? I'm thinking "no". "Accessibility" is one of many legal requirements for a restaurant, and very few of the people who might want to open a restaurant are property lawyers.
Penalizing the landlord is the only way to ensure that the lawsuit leads to curative action to the property rather than a tenant change without action.
In the other two states (California and New York) there are cottage industries where people look for subtle infractions (even at businesses that have made good faith efforts to comply with the ADA), then file shake down suits.
Two of the lawsuits against Kwan and the cafe were filed by serial ADA litigants
https://padailypost.com/2019/05/01/cafe-closes-after-third-a...
It in no way excuses the frankly bullshit lawsuits the parent is referencing but in general I think everything should be accessible. Like in all things there needs to be an element of good faith. There’s a world of difference between painted lines being slightly faded and “I genuinely can’t get into your business.”
We’re talking about privately owned establishments. No one deserves to be able to go to these places. It’s a privilege to go, not a right. The disabled should have access to any public spaces, but extending that to private spaces is asinine.
Sorry no, I haven’t been to the ramen place, the state mandated they add a wheelchair ramp and they couldn’t afford it. Now it’s a Starbucks.
Who is actually winning here, again?
Weren't they going to pave the sky to sea trail at one point? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline-to-the-Sea_Trail
This is one of many choices around enforcement that's available - and it seems to be much more generally palatable to Americans than increased government enforcement resources (like the government employing accessibility agents to review websites for compliance).
If you're small and everybody likes you this system often lets you get away with lots of violations - but when you grow in size or if someone is purposefully targeting you it does mean that they can shine an "unfair" amount of light on the particulars of your practice to make sure you're compliant. At the end of the day the good news is that judges have a very central role in mediating these disputes and if complaints are clearly irrational and made in bad faith they'll usually be thrown out - the bad news is that it takes a fair amount of money to get the gears on this process turning and there's no guarantee you'll ever get any of it back.
No it isn't. It's just evidence that the world isn't perfect. Those "scummy" lawyers are performing an important function, and if not for them things probably wouldn't be anywhere near as accessible for disabled people as they are now.
It's kind of ironic that the libertarian-types who are often the loudest ones condemning stuff like this are also the first to defend people similarly motivated by greed as performing important functions, such as price gougers and the like.
I've read court transcripts of attorneys who march into court wanting to measure the incline of a ramp with a 3 inch ruler (because a 6 inch ruler doesn't prove what they're after). Furthermore, they also want to measure a part of the ramp right under the railing where a handicapped person isn't even able to walk, because that's the only place they could find a violation. This is the type of behavior you get from some of these folks. The way the ADA is written encourages this type of behavior (which doesn't serve anyone but the attorney), because the laws are written so very poorly.
> It's kind of ironic that the libertarian-types who are often the loudest ones condemning stuff like this are also the first to defend people similarly motivated by greed as performing important functions, such as price gougers and the like.
There is no irony. There is a world of difference in acknowledging that someone has the right to do something as opposed to deciding whether that act is morale. For example, just because someone (e.g. the attorney) has the right to do something (e.g. practice law), I can also at the same time think their behavior (e.g. in the courtroom) is unethical. Furthermore like someone might sell a very poorly made product, they're allowed to do such things, but one could also still find that behavior terribly unethical. With these sorts of attorneys, any small good they may incidentally create, is drowned out by the splash damage they create. The pursuit of you and your family's interests is a moral ideal, that can be corrupted by people who do so without ethics nor regard for the damage they create.
Why "unfortunately"? It seems to me this is the intended outcome. It's how these laws actually get enforced.