i think a post like that should always lead to ban for life! nothing less... and why should/could/would a post be funny??? i don;t get it???
Good thing you're not in charge.
To the handicapped out there on the interwebs:
if my humor offends you, don't read it.
Nothing I say is ever in violation of the terms here at AI. Taste is up to personal discretion, and if you were offended by something this ridiculous, then grow thicker skin.
I don't think any business should have to cater to the disabled or any other group for that matter. It is a business, and it should be a business decision. If they determine it is a good business decision to accomodate disabled people then they should, if it is not economically feasible then they shouldn't. When I say feasible I mean profitable. Meaning if they make these changes will they recoup the cost by doing so.
Why didnt these people just go online and order what they needed or call, it would seem alot easier than traveling from oakland into the city to get to the store.
I don't think any business should have to cater to the disabled or any other group for that matter. It is a business, and it should be a business decision. If they determine it is a good business decision to accomodate disabled people then they should, if it is not economically feasible then they shouldn't. When I say feasible I mean profitable. Meaning if they make these changes will they recoup the cost by doing so.
Why didnt these people just go online and order what they needed or call, it would seem alot easier than traveling from oakland into the city to get to the store.
... so you'd apply this same theory on how to deal with the handicapped to all businesses? Like for example restaurants and grocery stores? They can always send out for a Pizza I guess ... right?
It's tempting to hope you wake up paralyzed from the neck down but I won't.
Yes, they are a business. Businesses often have the right to serve who they want. They are there to make money, not serve the public. So government buildings should be accessible.
If i woke up paralyzed would it I wouldnt be happy, but a business shouldnt then cater to me because my feelings are hurt. Would I feel bad about not being able to go to my favorite restaurant anymore, sure. Should a business then cater to my emotions, no. Perhaps you dont understand what a business really is for.
However, I am starting to see it your way as my favorite restaurant is expensive but my wallet is disabled now that I am laid off, so I think the business should just give me the food for free because I cant afford it now. Heck, you are right, this is a great way of looking at things !!
Where can I find a lawyer so I can bully a company for my needs ?
having been to the Stockton street store myself WITH a pram (aka as stroller), I can not understand where the complaints of the handicapped people stem from.
When you move about with a pram you have approx. the same mobility as a wheelchair and when my toddler is capable of pushing the buttons in the elevator, then an adult in a wheelchair should be able to do so too.
I found the staff of the store quite helpful guidiong me to the elevator and all. Yes the store is crammed and slightly small but Macy's was no joy either just before x-mas.
IMHO we have a clear case of some ambulance chasing lawyer representing someone who obviously has a chip on their shoulder
Wow! You're toddler's pram requires 39" / 1 metre width (size requirement for a wheelchair)? Wheels the size of bicycle's and total occupied weight of 80-100Kg? Assuming it isn't electric, of course. They are bulkier and more difficult to maneuver.
That is one big pram and baby! And did your lovely child have to reach to the top of the shelves to get a box? Have to chat at the Genius bar? Maneuver within the theatre? Use the kid's area from within his pram? It is very different being in a wheelchair and being pushed around in a pram in a store.
The ADA in the US, and in particular the laws in San Francisco, say equal access. Not similar, not adequate, not nice-if-I'm-in-a-pram. but equal. I don't get any direct benefit from the laws but I'm happy that these laws are in place. They make life a bit better for people that may have different levels of difficulty with getting around (that in itself is a benefit to everyone).
Don't assume it is "obviously ... a chip on their shoulder" unless you walk in their shoes. Or, better yet, have to push yourself around in a chair while people go on about being PC-madness and ignore the fact that they get to participate in our society too.
Apple is supposed to 'think different' (horrible grammar Apple!). They agreed to make the store better and that is a great thing. We should be applauding Apple's decision - even if a bit late - and not beating up on people that pushed for their legal right to equality.
ex-resident of San Francisco and very much an Apple supporter.
Yes, they are a business. Businesses often have the right to serve who they want. They are there to make money, not serve the public. So government buildings should be accessible.
If i woke up paralyzed would it I wouldnt be happy, but a business shouldnt then cater to me because my feelings are hurt. Would I feel bad about not being able to go to my favorite restaurant anymore, sure. Should a business then cater to my emotions, no. Perhaps you dont understand what a business really is for.
However, I am starting to see it your way as my favorite restaurant is expensive but my wallet is disabled now that I am laid off, so I think the business should just give me the food for free because I cant afford it now. Heck, you are right, this is a great way of looking at things !!
Where can I find a lawyer so I can bully a company for my needs ?
What a load of ...
OK… let me get this straight:
Totally paralysed == hurt feelings.
Empty wallet == hurt feelings.
So...
Empty wallet == totally paralysed
Somewhere I think there is a flaw in your 'hurt feelings' analogy.
Hummm, I think we've lost track that in current times, with well established laws/regulations, that business, contractors, inspectors, etc., ensure that whatever establishment, government or not, meets the applicable codes - for everyone, disabled or not. Someone, or more, missed meeting those requirements in this case it seems. Sometimes it takes a squeaky wheel to get the grease. The nice thing is that the girls appear to have done this for a greater good. As for the lawyers, without their help the girls would have a lot more work to do on their own. I have a couple of friends that are lawyers - both are incredibly honourable people.
As for some of the comments posted here by various members, some, I feel, definitely need to be much, much, more tactful. A lack of awareness and/or limited perspective has been shown, I feel in some, as in the case of the restaurant analogy.
I have a permanent spinal cord injury - so I use a wheelchair. I don't want to stay at home. I am not confined to my chair. I am disAbled, not disabled. When I hear handicap, I think of golf. I would want to go to a Mac store where are those shiny and fast and slick macs are. Like practically most others, we all (including the abled) want to get outside. That is when we're not playing on our macs that is. Wouldn't anyone in this forum not want to go to one of those fancy mac stores??
Granted, there are some angry "crips" out there. I'm not. Any of "us" that have been injured, or know of someone that is, knows how expensive and time consuming it is to make someplace fully accessible. Speaking for myself, and for my other "crip" friends, we don't want the small business to break the bank just so we can be served. But we do expect little things to be thought of and for any new establishment to be created so all, including "abled", can be thought of. I really don't think that is too much to ask nor a financial burden when done correctly. More often then not... inaccessible to accessible, means adding a few bags of concrete or a bit of lumber, some beer, a few hours, and a step or two has been ramped.
And just to mention. I find business owners are generally very helpful when they can be. Everyone of them has served me even if it meant they had to come outside to do the transaction when the building is totally inaccessible. There are a lot more of "us" than people realize at times. We're educated, passionate mac addicts, outgoing, people that want to live active and dynamic lives. Staying at home is boring.
And I also want to point out that all of my crip friends aren't at all angry or "hurt". It's not all roses, but we just expect a little thoughtfulness and some common sense, dialog... and I'll even bring the beer for the ramp. And I'll toast apple and the two girls that have made the world a bit of a better place and well wishes to Jobs' health. And hopefully, maybe some day, I'll meet one of you at this store.
Yes, they are a business. Businesses often have the right to serve who they want. They are there to make money, not serve the public. So government buildings should be accessible.
If i woke up paralyzed would it I wouldnt be happy, but a business shouldnt then cater to me because my feelings are hurt. Would I feel bad about not being able to go to my favorite restaurant anymore, sure. Should a business then cater to my emotions, no. Perhaps you dont understand what a business really is for.
However, I am starting to see it your way as my favorite restaurant is expensive but my wallet is disabled now that I am laid off, so I think the business should just give me the food for free because I cant afford it now. Heck, you are right, this is a great way of looking at things !!
Where can I find a lawyer so I can bully a company for my needs ?
You are being facetious in your summary but this is not a point about 'business' per se. I defy you to list a single business who made itself unavailable to people with disabilities based on a 'business decision'. On that note, how do you personally define 'disabled'? By far most businesses would like to be 'accessible'. Why on earth wouldn't they? A customer with money is a good customer. It also sends positive signals, and believe it or not, businesses are run by people, most of whom have a strong sense of 'serving the customer' is always 'right'. They usually are also nice people. So I think you are the one who doesn't understand business. I run my own so I think I know. Retro fitting an existing property can be expensive, granted, but there is little excuse for a contemporary business not to be accessible.
This particular case is about 'design'. For Apple it makes complete sense to be as accessible as they can and it looks like they have taken this aboard and are willing to make the changes. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Apple embraces accessibility generally. But 'accessibility' is also a cultural and social issue (not to be confused with socialist). Its a goal all affluent societies should strive towards for the good of all its citizens, don't you agree?
You are being facetious in your summary but this is not a point about 'business' per se. I defy you to list a single business who made itself unavailable to people with disabilities based on a 'business decision'. On that note, how do you personally define 'disabled'? By far most businesses would like to be 'accessible'. Why on earth wouldn't they? A customer with money is a good customer. It also sends positive signals, and believe it or not, businesses are run by people, most of whom have a strong sense of 'serving the customer' is always 'right'. They usually are also nice people. So I think you are the one who doesn't understand business. I run my own so I think I know. Retro fitting an existing property can be expensive, granted, but there is little excuse for a contemporary business not to be accessible.
This particular case is about 'design'. For Apple it makes complete sense to be as accessible as they can and it looks like they have taken this aboard and are willing to make the changes. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Apple embraces accessibility generally. But 'accessibility' is also a cultural and social issue (not to be confused with socialist). Its a goal all affluent societies should strive towards for the good of all its citizens, don't you agree?
Well explained. I suspect you are wasting your time though. I think this guy is posting under several user names on this topic and is deliberately being outrageous as he can for some weird reason.
Well explained. I suspect you are wasting your time though. I think this guy is posting under several user names on this topic and is deliberately being outrageous as he can for some weird reason.
I guess. Some subjects get me going, I'm afraid, and nothing gets my goat more than arrogance mixed with ignorance. I should know better - arguing with stupid is like pissing against the wind. You know, just stupid \
San Fran is completely different than where I currently reside, Pittsburgh. I don't think any stores around here come close to that level of ADA enthusiasm.
One things for sure, the topic elicits strong feelings!
You are being facetious in your summary but this is not a point about 'business' per se. I defy you to list a single business who made itself unavailable to people with disabilities based on a 'business decision'. On that note, how do you personally define 'disabled'? By far most businesses would like to be 'accessible'. Why on earth wouldn't they? A customer with money is a good customer. It also sends positive signals, and believe it or not, businesses are run by people, most of whom have a strong sense of 'serving the customer' is always 'right'. They usually are also nice people. So I think you are the one who doesn't understand business. I run my own so I think I know. Retro fitting an existing property can be expensive, granted, but there is little excuse for a contemporary business not to be accessible.
This particular case is about 'design'. For Apple it makes complete sense to be as accessible as they can and it looks like they have taken this aboard and are willing to make the changes. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Apple embraces accessibility generally. But 'accessibility' is also a cultural and social issue (not to be confused with socialist). Its a goal all affluent societies should strive towards for the good of all its citizens, don't you agree?
You are missing my point entirely. I am not against having businesses retrofit or accommodate. I am only saying it should be up to the business to decide whether they want to or not, not mandate it or force it by law. If they would like to make it accessible and choose to spend money then they should, it would be their decision. Businesses should be free to make their own decisions to compete in a free market environment and if they decide to send a positive signal then great. So I am actually in agreement with some of what you are saying.
My point is that it should be up to the business, not mandated by law. I am not sure why this is causing so much confusion. The purpose of legislation for businesses should revolve around reaching the goal of maintaining free market and competition. Things like safeguarding against unfair competition or monopoly.
Well explained. I suspect you are wasting your time though. I think this guy is posting under several user names on this topic and is deliberately being outrageous as he can for some weird reason.
wrong. I am not posting under any other name for any other purpose other than to explain it shouldnt be forced legally. It should be voluntary compliance.
wrong. I am not posting under any other name for any other purpose other than to explain it shouldnt be forced legally. It should be voluntary compliance.
Ok, well let's extrapolate your 'businesses can do what they want' idea. How about restaurants being able to decide if wish to be up to the health codes? Or how about a fair ground, let them decide if they want to follow rules on safety and maintenance it's up to the business if they want to be safe right?
Sorry to be facetious but the argument that business have a right to do what they want is taking it too far.
Mandating standards have more than likely saved your ass on at least one occasion without you even knowing it so making an office or a shop comply with a few standards to allow those less fortunate than ourselves have easy access to shop seems pretty trivial in most cases and the least we should expect from society. I know some old buildings have a problem in certain instances and usually there are waivers in these cases.
Just so you know I was CEO of two large Apple computer stores and had to deal with these issues myself so I am not saying this as a bleeding heart liberal. Although my early years working with the handicapped did make me see both sides.
Ok, well let's extrapolate your 'businesses can do what they want' idea. How about restaurants being able to decide if wish to be up to the health codes? Or how about a fair ground, let them decide if they want to follow rules on safety and maintenance it's up to the business if they want to be safe right?
Sorry to be facetious but the argument that business have a right to do what they want is taking it too far.
Mandating standards have more than likely saved your ass on at least one occasion without you even knowing it so making an office or a shop comply with a few standards to allow those less fortunate than ourselves have easy access to shop seems pretty trivial in most cases and the least we should expect from society. I know some old buildings have a problem in certain instances and usually there are waivers in these cases.
Just so you know I was CEO of two large Apple computer stores and had to deal with these issues myself so I am not saying this as a bleeding heart liberal. Although my early years working with the handicapped did make me see both sides.
Excellent points. Just to add to them, a large part of what I face as a wheelchair user is simply innocent ignorance. I was injured fighting forest fires when I was 25. So, I too used to be virtually oblivious to all the little things that make a big impact to chair users. Talking, discussing and learning why and how things can benefit others I think is important.
What I am really trying to say is the codes/regulations that are set by governing agencies (for health, safety & also accessibility, etc.) ultimately help remove the energy, time and research for new business from unintentionally (or deliberately) cut corners which could negatively affect everyone involved. Your work with the disabled taught you more than what most people I meet will ever know (and appreciate).
These "forced" (aka common sense) standards, I feel, both protect and open doors for everyone, making this world a better place. I sure know how much I appreciate the little things we all do for everyone. I think it's simply good Karma after all isn't it.
Ok, well let's extrapolate your 'businesses can do what they want' idea. How about restaurants being able to decide if wish to be up to the health codes? Or how about a fair ground, let them decide if they want to follow rules on safety and maintenance it's up to the business if they want to be safe right?
Sorry to be facetious but the argument that business have a right to do what they want is taking it too far.
Mandating standards have more than likely saved your ass on at least one occasion without you even knowing it so making an office or a shop comply with a few standards to allow those less fortunate than ourselves have easy access to shop seems pretty trivial in most cases and the least we should expect from society. I know some old buildings have a problem in certain instances and usually there are waivers in these cases.
Just so you know I was CEO of two large Apple computer stores and had to deal with these issues myself so I am not saying this as a bleeding heart liberal. Although my early years working with the handicapped did make me see both sides.
I never said "businesses can do what they want" I am talking about what they offer or who they want to market to or cater to. I dont know how you interpreted this as "whatever they want to do" and to ignore safety. I am not sure why this is so complicated for some to understand. But I find your statement "the least we should expect from society" the most disturbing on so many levels. We are not talking about society, it is a business.
Let me ask you this. My sister has an allergy to gluten, she can't eat at many restaurants as there is nothing on the menu that is gluten free. There are some comparisons to this and being disabled. (she cant help it, and it is extremely limiting in restaurants she can visit etc.) Now, restaurants are able to make gluten free variations of foods that she could then eat if they wanted to, just like businesses could make their stores ada. So IT IS possible restaurants can do something to accommodate her and some restaurants are starting to offer a gluten free menu. So, should we enact legislation to force all restaurants to do so ? Does she think businesses should be forced change to accommodate gluten allergy people ? NO.
Her whole family loves to go to their favorite italian restaurant every week, but there isnt a single thing she can eat, so she is out of luck. Should she sue ? By the way, gluten intolerance is much more common than one would imagine, heck it might even outnumber those who are disabled. So it is not something obscure. So should all restaurants be forced to accommodate ? Or should we leave it up to the restaurant to make the decision themselves if they want to make the change.
Comments
Maybe, if so s/he just needs a good spanking for poor taste and lousy delivery. I see nothing suggesting there is any kind of humor involved, though.
hey Paxman:
HUGS!
i think a post like that should always lead to ban for life! nothing less... and why should/could/would a post be funny??? i don;t get it???
Good thing you're not in charge.
To the handicapped out there on the interwebs:
if my humor offends you, don't read it.
Nothing I say is ever in violation of the terms here at AI. Taste is up to personal discretion, and if you were offended by something this ridiculous, then grow thicker skin.
The world does not kowtow to you.
Why didnt these people just go online and order what they needed or call, it would seem alot easier than traveling from oakland into the city to get to the store.
I don't think any business should have to cater to the disabled or any other group for that matter. It is a business, and it should be a business decision. If they determine it is a good business decision to accomodate disabled people then they should, if it is not economically feasible then they shouldn't. When I say feasible I mean profitable. Meaning if they make these changes will they recoup the cost by doing so.
Why didnt these people just go online and order what they needed or call, it would seem alot easier than traveling from oakland into the city to get to the store.
... so you'd apply this same theory on how to deal with the handicapped to all businesses? Like for example restaurants and grocery stores? They can always send out for a Pizza I guess ... right?
It's tempting to hope you wake up paralyzed from the neck down but I won't.
If i woke up paralyzed would it I wouldnt be happy, but a business shouldnt then cater to me because my feelings are hurt. Would I feel bad about not being able to go to my favorite restaurant anymore, sure. Should a business then cater to my emotions, no. Perhaps you dont understand what a business really is for.
However, I am starting to see it your way as my favorite restaurant is expensive but my wallet is disabled now that I am laid off, so I think the business should just give me the food for free because I cant afford it now. Heck, you are right, this is a great way of looking at things !!
Where can I find a lawyer so I can bully a company for my needs ?
having been to the Stockton street store myself WITH a pram (aka as stroller), I can not understand where the complaints of the handicapped people stem from.
When you move about with a pram you have approx. the same mobility as a wheelchair and when my toddler is capable of pushing the buttons in the elevator, then an adult in a wheelchair should be able to do so too.
I found the staff of the store quite helpful guidiong me to the elevator and all. Yes the store is crammed and slightly small but Macy's was no joy either just before x-mas.
IMHO we have a clear case of some ambulance chasing lawyer representing someone who obviously has a chip on their shoulder
Wow! You're toddler's pram requires 39" / 1 metre width (size requirement for a wheelchair)? Wheels the size of bicycle's and total occupied weight of 80-100Kg? Assuming it isn't electric, of course. They are bulkier and more difficult to maneuver.
That is one big pram and baby! And did your lovely child have to reach to the top of the shelves to get a box? Have to chat at the Genius bar? Maneuver within the theatre? Use the kid's area from within his pram? It is very different being in a wheelchair and being pushed around in a pram in a store.
The ADA in the US, and in particular the laws in San Francisco, say equal access. Not similar, not adequate, not nice-if-I'm-in-a-pram. but equal. I don't get any direct benefit from the laws but I'm happy that these laws are in place. They make life a bit better for people that may have different levels of difficulty with getting around (that in itself is a benefit to everyone).
Don't assume it is "obviously ... a chip on their shoulder" unless you walk in their shoes. Or, better yet, have to push yourself around in a chair while people go on about being PC-madness and ignore the fact that they get to participate in our society too.
Apple is supposed to 'think different' (horrible grammar Apple!). They agreed to make the store better and that is a great thing. We should be applauding Apple's decision - even if a bit late - and not beating up on people that pushed for their legal right to equality.
ex-resident of San Francisco and very much an Apple supporter.
Yes, they are a business. Businesses often have the right to serve who they want. They are there to make money, not serve the public. So government buildings should be accessible.
If i woke up paralyzed would it I wouldnt be happy, but a business shouldnt then cater to me because my feelings are hurt. Would I feel bad about not being able to go to my favorite restaurant anymore, sure. Should a business then cater to my emotions, no. Perhaps you dont understand what a business really is for.
However, I am starting to see it your way as my favorite restaurant is expensive but my wallet is disabled now that I am laid off, so I think the business should just give me the food for free because I cant afford it now. Heck, you are right, this is a great way of looking at things !!
Where can I find a lawyer so I can bully a company for my needs ?
What a load of ...
OK… let me get this straight:
Totally paralysed == hurt feelings.
Empty wallet == hurt feelings.
So...
Empty wallet == totally paralysed
Somewhere I think there is a flaw in your 'hurt feelings' analogy.
As for some of the comments posted here by various members, some, I feel, definitely need to be much, much, more tactful. A lack of awareness and/or limited perspective has been shown, I feel in some, as in the case of the restaurant analogy.
I have a permanent spinal cord injury - so I use a wheelchair. I don't want to stay at home. I am not confined to my chair. I am disAbled, not disabled. When I hear handicap, I think of golf. I would want to go to a Mac store where are those shiny and fast and slick macs are. Like practically most others, we all (including the abled) want to get outside. That is when we're not playing on our macs that is. Wouldn't anyone in this forum not want to go to one of those fancy mac stores??
Granted, there are some angry "crips" out there. I'm not. Any of "us" that have been injured, or know of someone that is, knows how expensive and time consuming it is to make someplace fully accessible. Speaking for myself, and for my other "crip" friends, we don't want the small business to break the bank just so we can be served. But we do expect little things to be thought of and for any new establishment to be created so all, including "abled", can be thought of. I really don't think that is too much to ask nor a financial burden when done correctly. More often then not... inaccessible to accessible, means adding a few bags of concrete or a bit of lumber, some beer, a few hours, and a step or two has been ramped.
And just to mention. I find business owners are generally very helpful when they can be. Everyone of them has served me even if it meant they had to come outside to do the transaction when the building is totally inaccessible. There are a lot more of "us" than people realize at times. We're educated, passionate mac addicts, outgoing, people that want to live active and dynamic lives. Staying at home is boring.
And I also want to point out that all of my crip friends aren't at all angry or "hurt". It's not all roses, but we just expect a little thoughtfulness and some common sense, dialog... and I'll even bring the beer for the ramp. And I'll toast apple and the two girls that have made the world a bit of a better place and well wishes to Jobs' health. And hopefully, maybe some day, I'll meet one of you at this store.
What a load of ...
OK… let me get this straight:
Totally paralysed == hurt feelings.
Empty wallet == hurt feelings.
So...
Empty wallet == totally paralysed
Somewhere I think there is a flaw in your 'hurt feelings' analogy.
The last paragraph was satirical. (but not necessarily facetious)
Yes, they are a business. Businesses often have the right to serve who they want. They are there to make money, not serve the public. So government buildings should be accessible.
If i woke up paralyzed would it I wouldnt be happy, but a business shouldnt then cater to me because my feelings are hurt. Would I feel bad about not being able to go to my favorite restaurant anymore, sure. Should a business then cater to my emotions, no. Perhaps you dont understand what a business really is for.
However, I am starting to see it your way as my favorite restaurant is expensive but my wallet is disabled now that I am laid off, so I think the business should just give me the food for free because I cant afford it now. Heck, you are right, this is a great way of looking at things !!
Where can I find a lawyer so I can bully a company for my needs ?
You are being facetious in your summary but this is not a point about 'business' per se. I defy you to list a single business who made itself unavailable to people with disabilities based on a 'business decision'. On that note, how do you personally define 'disabled'? By far most businesses would like to be 'accessible'. Why on earth wouldn't they? A customer with money is a good customer. It also sends positive signals, and believe it or not, businesses are run by people, most of whom have a strong sense of 'serving the customer' is always 'right'. They usually are also nice people. So I think you are the one who doesn't understand business. I run my own so I think I know. Retro fitting an existing property can be expensive, granted, but there is little excuse for a contemporary business not to be accessible.
This particular case is about 'design'. For Apple it makes complete sense to be as accessible as they can and it looks like they have taken this aboard and are willing to make the changes. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Apple embraces accessibility generally. But 'accessibility' is also a cultural and social issue (not to be confused with socialist). Its a goal all affluent societies should strive towards for the good of all its citizens, don't you agree?
You are being facetious in your summary but this is not a point about 'business' per se. I defy you to list a single business who made itself unavailable to people with disabilities based on a 'business decision'. On that note, how do you personally define 'disabled'? By far most businesses would like to be 'accessible'. Why on earth wouldn't they? A customer with money is a good customer. It also sends positive signals, and believe it or not, businesses are run by people, most of whom have a strong sense of 'serving the customer' is always 'right'. They usually are also nice people. So I think you are the one who doesn't understand business. I run my own so I think I know. Retro fitting an existing property can be expensive, granted, but there is little excuse for a contemporary business not to be accessible.
This particular case is about 'design'. For Apple it makes complete sense to be as accessible as they can and it looks like they have taken this aboard and are willing to make the changes. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Apple embraces accessibility generally. But 'accessibility' is also a cultural and social issue (not to be confused with socialist). Its a goal all affluent societies should strive towards for the good of all its citizens, don't you agree?
Well explained. I suspect you are wasting your time though. I think this guy is posting under several user names on this topic and is deliberately being outrageous as he can for some weird reason.
Well explained. I suspect you are wasting your time though. I think this guy is posting under several user names on this topic and is deliberately being outrageous as he can for some weird reason.
I guess. Some subjects get me going, I'm afraid, and nothing gets my goat more than arrogance mixed with ignorance. I should know better - arguing with stupid is like pissing against the wind. You know, just stupid
One things for sure, the topic elicits strong feelings!
You are being facetious in your summary but this is not a point about 'business' per se. I defy you to list a single business who made itself unavailable to people with disabilities based on a 'business decision'. On that note, how do you personally define 'disabled'? By far most businesses would like to be 'accessible'. Why on earth wouldn't they? A customer with money is a good customer. It also sends positive signals, and believe it or not, businesses are run by people, most of whom have a strong sense of 'serving the customer' is always 'right'. They usually are also nice people. So I think you are the one who doesn't understand business. I run my own so I think I know. Retro fitting an existing property can be expensive, granted, but there is little excuse for a contemporary business not to be accessible.
This particular case is about 'design'. For Apple it makes complete sense to be as accessible as they can and it looks like they have taken this aboard and are willing to make the changes. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Apple embraces accessibility generally. But 'accessibility' is also a cultural and social issue (not to be confused with socialist). Its a goal all affluent societies should strive towards for the good of all its citizens, don't you agree?
You are missing my point entirely. I am not against having businesses retrofit or accommodate. I am only saying it should be up to the business to decide whether they want to or not, not mandate it or force it by law. If they would like to make it accessible and choose to spend money then they should, it would be their decision. Businesses should be free to make their own decisions to compete in a free market environment and if they decide to send a positive signal then great. So I am actually in agreement with some of what you are saying.
My point is that it should be up to the business, not mandated by law. I am not sure why this is causing so much confusion. The purpose of legislation for businesses should revolve around reaching the goal of maintaining free market and competition. Things like safeguarding against unfair competition or monopoly.
Well explained. I suspect you are wasting your time though. I think this guy is posting under several user names on this topic and is deliberately being outrageous as he can for some weird reason.
wrong. I am not posting under any other name for any other purpose other than to explain it shouldnt be forced legally. It should be voluntary compliance.
wrong. I am not posting under any other name for any other purpose other than to explain it shouldnt be forced legally. It should be voluntary compliance.
Ok, well let's extrapolate your 'businesses can do what they want' idea. How about restaurants being able to decide if wish to be up to the health codes? Or how about a fair ground, let them decide if they want to follow rules on safety and maintenance it's up to the business if they want to be safe right?
Sorry to be facetious but the argument that business have a right to do what they want is taking it too far.
Mandating standards have more than likely saved your ass on at least one occasion without you even knowing it so making an office or a shop comply with a few standards to allow those less fortunate than ourselves have easy access to shop seems pretty trivial in most cases and the least we should expect from society. I know some old buildings have a problem in certain instances and usually there are waivers in these cases.
Just so you know I was CEO of two large Apple computer stores and had to deal with these issues myself so I am not saying this as a bleeding heart liberal. Although my early years working with the handicapped did make me see both sides.
Ok, well let's extrapolate your 'businesses can do what they want' idea. How about restaurants being able to decide if wish to be up to the health codes? Or how about a fair ground, let them decide if they want to follow rules on safety and maintenance it's up to the business if they want to be safe right?
Sorry to be facetious but the argument that business have a right to do what they want is taking it too far.
Mandating standards have more than likely saved your ass on at least one occasion without you even knowing it so making an office or a shop comply with a few standards to allow those less fortunate than ourselves have easy access to shop seems pretty trivial in most cases and the least we should expect from society. I know some old buildings have a problem in certain instances and usually there are waivers in these cases.
Just so you know I was CEO of two large Apple computer stores and had to deal with these issues myself so I am not saying this as a bleeding heart liberal. Although my early years working with the handicapped did make me see both sides.
Excellent points. Just to add to them, a large part of what I face as a wheelchair user is simply innocent ignorance. I was injured fighting forest fires when I was 25. So, I too used to be virtually oblivious to all the little things that make a big impact to chair users. Talking, discussing and learning why and how things can benefit others I think is important.
What I am really trying to say is the codes/regulations that are set by governing agencies (for health, safety & also accessibility, etc.) ultimately help remove the energy, time and research for new business from unintentionally (or deliberately) cut corners which could negatively affect everyone involved. Your work with the disabled taught you more than what most people I meet will ever know (and appreciate).
These "forced" (aka common sense) standards, I feel, both protect and open doors for everyone, making this world a better place. I sure know how much I appreciate the little things we all do for everyone. I think it's simply good Karma after all isn't it.
Ok, well let's extrapolate your 'businesses can do what they want' idea. How about restaurants being able to decide if wish to be up to the health codes? Or how about a fair ground, let them decide if they want to follow rules on safety and maintenance it's up to the business if they want to be safe right?
Sorry to be facetious but the argument that business have a right to do what they want is taking it too far.
Mandating standards have more than likely saved your ass on at least one occasion without you even knowing it so making an office or a shop comply with a few standards to allow those less fortunate than ourselves have easy access to shop seems pretty trivial in most cases and the least we should expect from society. I know some old buildings have a problem in certain instances and usually there are waivers in these cases.
Just so you know I was CEO of two large Apple computer stores and had to deal with these issues myself so I am not saying this as a bleeding heart liberal. Although my early years working with the handicapped did make me see both sides.
I never said "businesses can do what they want" I am talking about what they offer or who they want to market to or cater to. I dont know how you interpreted this as "whatever they want to do" and to ignore safety. I am not sure why this is so complicated for some to understand. But I find your statement "the least we should expect from society" the most disturbing on so many levels. We are not talking about society, it is a business.
Let me ask you this. My sister has an allergy to gluten, she can't eat at many restaurants as there is nothing on the menu that is gluten free. There are some comparisons to this and being disabled. (she cant help it, and it is extremely limiting in restaurants she can visit etc.) Now, restaurants are able to make gluten free variations of foods that she could then eat if they wanted to, just like businesses could make their stores ada. So IT IS possible restaurants can do something to accommodate her and some restaurants are starting to offer a gluten free menu. So, should we enact legislation to force all restaurants to do so ? Does she think businesses should be forced change to accommodate gluten allergy people ? NO.
Her whole family loves to go to their favorite italian restaurant every week, but there isnt a single thing she can eat, so she is out of luck. Should she sue ? By the way, gluten intolerance is much more common than one would imagine, heck it might even outnumber those who are disabled. So it is not something obscure. So should all restaurants be forced to accommodate ? Or should we leave it up to the restaurant to make the decision themselves if they want to make the change.