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 think we are focusing on two different things. This disability settlement is relevant to meeting minimum accessibility requirements as outlined by regulations, acts, building codes, etc. If contractors, business break them, they're breaking the law. This has nothing to do, as you know, with what business offer as a service but on how they deliver it. Restaurants are not required by law to offer certain dishes.
But I agree with you. Businesses can sell whatever they want. And if restaurants do not choose to offer choices to customers that come through their doors, then that is up to them and their business model. I bet there are a lot of people out there that have certain dietary needs and having a few things extra on the menu could in places have a very positive impact.
The two girls involved in this lawsuit sued, however, b/c not of what Apple was selling (or not selling), but that the store was not meeting the legal building code requirements making it very difficult for them to get even into the store. It would be like for your sister to have her favourite gluten positive restaurant that she knows of being very difficult, if not impossible without assistance, for her to even get inside of it to order her favourite gluten free dish that I imagine contains apples.
I think we are focusing on two different things. This disability settlement is relevant to meeting minimum accessibility requirements as outlined by regulations, acts, building codes, etc. If contractors, business break them, they're breaking the law. This has nothing to do, as you know, with what business offer as a service but on how they deliver it. Restaurants are not required by law to offer certain dishes.
But I agree with you. Businesses can sell whatever they want. And if restaurants do not choose to offer choices to customers that come through their doors, then that is up to them and their business model. I bet there are a lot of people out there that have certain dietary needs and having a few things extra on the menu could in places have a very positive impact.
The two girls involved in this lawsuit sued, however, b/c not of what Apple was selling (or not selling), but that the store was not meeting the legal building code requirements making it very difficult for them to get even into the store. It would be like for your sister to have her favourite gluten positive restaurant that she knows of being very difficult, if not impossible without assistance, for her to even get inside of it to order her favourite gluten free dish that I imagine contains apples.
You are correct and seem to have a good grasp of the situation. However I see now I should have clarified that I object to the law in the first place that requires ada building code for every business. There is no essential reason for someone to have to go into an apple store so I dont think we should mandate into law for a business to have to accommodate disabled people. I think people misconstrue the purpose of a business and thus think there is some entitlement to having access to it.
I remember a video game store a while ago that was only open during my friends work hours so she could never go into it because they were never open when she was off work. So I think what everyone is saying is that she should have sued them or tried to enact legislation to force all stores to be open when she was off work because she was never able to go into the game store even if it is non essential store ? But I dont agree. I just dont think that every business should be forced to spend money to have to cater to access to everyone. I think this stems from an inappropriate sense of entitlement in this country.
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.
Chiming in again - You make an interesting comparison, perhaps not from a legal standpoint but nonetheless. Celeritas' post is right however, there is a difference between limiting your clientele because of the type of food you serve and denying access to that food. I sympathize with your sister but it would be unfair to force all restaurants to cater to every different type of allergy for exactly the reasons you point out. But you should also note that accessibility legislation was never put in place to nail small companies that cannot afford to make required changes. I don't think there has ever been a case where a small eatery on an upstairs floor in an old building has been closed down because they didn't offer wheelchair access. Legislation can seem heavy handed at times but in order to educate people and fuel a cultural shift it can be necessary. I am assuming that the problems in the SF Apple store were and oversight rather than based on any type of business requirement. And so I personally feel that any wheelchair user, or blind person or person with any kind of disability should not be chastised for speaking up. You have pretty strong views and you are not afraid to speak up. Would you accept the world as is if you became disabled in some way? I think not. What is your view on web standards? Should the web be accessible or not. It can be very easily. The main reasons it isn't are ignorance, and various proprietary technologies such as Flash (business). But a lot of people use assistive technologies, or rely on the inherent accessibility features of HTML and CSS to help them navigate and access the web. One day you might join them, not because of an accident, but because of the most common 'disability' of all - old age. When your hand eye co-ordination falters, and your eyesight becomes weak, should you be excluded from the web? Or should we legislate that the web must be accessible to all?
I remember a video game store a while ago that was only open during my friends work hours so she could never go into it because they were never open when she was off work. So I think what everyone is saying is that she should have sued them or tried to enact legislation to force all stores to be open when she was off work because she was never able to go into the game store even if it is non essential store ? But I dont agree. I just dont think that every business should be forced to spend money to have to cater to access to everyone. I think this stems from an inappropriate sense of entitlement in this country.
To expect a video game store to be open the exact hours that suits you and then to suing them if it was not, would indeed be an example of 'an inappropriate sense of entitlement'. But if that store could, and did not, try to make itself accessible to everyone, on equal terms, then 'entitlement' doesn't even enter into it. The requirement naturally increases as the business grows. Your local video game store is one thing, a MAJOR (national chain) computer store that prides itself on thinking different, great usability design and great design period, is quite another.
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.
Totally agree. This sense that it is an 'entitlement societal view' to act as you describe is a sad comment on those that feel that way and emblematic of the last eight years in the USA in general. It's ok to be mean, selfish and uncaring is presumably an un-entitlement view. It is also a typical ploy to use extreme and ludicrous examples to prove a point such as suing a store as it is not open when you want it to be. Common sense is all that is needed and yes some good karma.
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.
I have never mentioned suing (even though the article originally was about that, I kind of got of topic, sorry). I am not sure where that got into our discussion. However a mandated rule that states the content of meals in restaurants should be available upon request would sure as heck be a good idea in your sister's case.
I have never mentioned suing (even though the article originally was about that, I kind of got of topic, sorry). I am not sure where that got into our discussion. However a mandated rule that states the content of meals in restaurants should be available upon request would sure as heck be a good idea in your sister's case.
They are starting to do this at many chains already, but making it a law to force companies to do it is I think going too far. Companies are starting to see the value in doing it for their customers and it in turn makes the customers happy and those restaurants will and should do more business. But to mandate all restaurants to do it by law I think is going over the line, that is not the purpose of legislation for business. Hopefully the restaurants that do offer ingredient lists on their meals will go out of business and perhaps people could organize against the restaurants that dont do it. That is fine, but to force companies by law is not congruent with the spirit of free enterprise and business to let the market decide.
Totally agree. This sense that it is an 'entitlement societal view' to act as you describe is a sad comment on those that feel that way and emblematic of the last eight years in the USA in general. It's ok to be mean, selfish and uncaring is presumably an un-entitlement view. It is also a typical ploy to use extreme and ludicrous examples to prove a point such as suing a store as it is not open when you want it to be. Common sense is all that is needed and yes some good karma.
I am not sure how you got to the place where you think I am mean selfish or uncaring. I am quite the opposite. I personally think the stores and businesses should have access for the disabled. But it is irrelevant what I think, I dont own these businesses. Private individuals and stockholders own companies not me and not the public. It is not my money to spend, it is a companies decision how to spend their money. It is completely inappropriate to cross the boundary of forcing someone else to do something that will make things easier for me. Now that is slefish and uncaring. But I guess that is the crux. Liberal thinking seems to revolve around inappropriate boundaries of spending other peoples money.
I personally think the stores and businesses should have access for the disabled. But it is irrelevant what I think, I dont own these businesses. Private individuals and stockholders own companies not me and not the public. It is not my money to spend, it is a companies decision how to spend their money. It is completely inappropriate to cross the boundary of forcing someone else to do something that will make things easier for me. Now that is slefish and uncaring. But I guess that is the crux. Liberal thinking seems to revolve around inappropriate boundaries of spending other peoples money.
It appears you do not understand how the system generally works. Every state, province, etc., has different codes that, I believe, generally follow the same framework.
If a business moves into an old store/building, and does not drastically change the existing interior or rebuild, I would imagine that it would not be a requirement to bring all the original codes up to current standards, especially if it would cause undue financial hardship. So, if a new firm moved into a building on the second floor in an older building, they would not be required to put in an elevator or lift and not to mention that the company has also (hopefully) thought that by being on a second floor will prevent a certain clientele from coming (disabled, elderly...). Business autonomy is being achieved.
However, in the case of the Apple store, when you gut a place, start from scratch, it should be built to the current building codes of the day - fire/safety/accessibly/environmental/electrical/pluming/heating/bylaws, etc...
In a perfect world, all companies would be 100% up to speed before setting up their store so to do their best to meet the basics and to get as much revenue out of their investments, and offer a safe and friendly store to visit.
I personally don't like the idea of having the need for government/codes/these two girls to hold other companies' "hands", but it would be immature of us to believe that companies inadvertently or deliberately cut corners to ensure either they get off the ground or simply try to survive/thrive. Running a company is a tough proposition. Governments want them to be successful, and not just for the tax revenue.
What wheelchair users/blind/etc. face are naturally ignorant people. I'm sure we can agree that a large percentage of people & companies out there do not fully understand the needs of others (dietary, disabled, elderly,...), as well as the environmental impacts companies have, microbiology and food safe/handling, electrical/plumbing/building codes, etc...
Like it or not, I'm sure governments generally play a very large positive role in making the daily interactions we have in our lives a lot safer with a lot less "bumps" along the road.
More importantly, and I think this is the most important point that I am trying to get at, is that codes, regulations, etc... allow for things to get up to speed sooner rather than later. Change occurs faster, there is a lot less frustration for everyone involved and that lessons are learned sooner... not just in cities but all over the country. Just imagine how inconsistent and sporadic things would be. I encourage you to start looking for curbs, how hard was it to open the door, was the washroom accessible, what was the height of the counter you made the transaction at, at what level were the products reachable, how wide was the isle...
I think a far majority of companies support most codes and that they realize that everyone, including them, benefit from standards. If they cannot see that, I suggest they open up some dialog and learn why they are there rather than just complaining. If they are not doing that, then I imagine that the company (aka people) are just in it for the money, which to me is not what life is all about. I encourage you to watch the documentary "The Coorporation". It's just one side of things but it really is amazing.
However a mandated rule that states the content of meals in restaurants should be available upon request would sure as heck be a good idea in your sister's case.
Comments
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 think we are focusing on two different things. This disability settlement is relevant to meeting minimum accessibility requirements as outlined by regulations, acts, building codes, etc. If contractors, business break them, they're breaking the law. This has nothing to do, as you know, with what business offer as a service but on how they deliver it. Restaurants are not required by law to offer certain dishes.
But I agree with you. Businesses can sell whatever they want. And if restaurants do not choose to offer choices to customers that come through their doors, then that is up to them and their business model. I bet there are a lot of people out there that have certain dietary needs and having a few things extra on the menu could in places have a very positive impact.
The two girls involved in this lawsuit sued, however, b/c not of what Apple was selling (or not selling), but that the store was not meeting the legal building code requirements making it very difficult for them to get even into the store. It would be like for your sister to have her favourite gluten positive restaurant that she knows of being very difficult, if not impossible without assistance, for her to even get inside of it to order her favourite gluten free dish that I imagine contains apples.
I think we are focusing on two different things. This disability settlement is relevant to meeting minimum accessibility requirements as outlined by regulations, acts, building codes, etc. If contractors, business break them, they're breaking the law. This has nothing to do, as you know, with what business offer as a service but on how they deliver it. Restaurants are not required by law to offer certain dishes.
But I agree with you. Businesses can sell whatever they want. And if restaurants do not choose to offer choices to customers that come through their doors, then that is up to them and their business model. I bet there are a lot of people out there that have certain dietary needs and having a few things extra on the menu could in places have a very positive impact.
The two girls involved in this lawsuit sued, however, b/c not of what Apple was selling (or not selling), but that the store was not meeting the legal building code requirements making it very difficult for them to get even into the store. It would be like for your sister to have her favourite gluten positive restaurant that she knows of being very difficult, if not impossible without assistance, for her to even get inside of it to order her favourite gluten free dish that I imagine contains apples.
You are correct and seem to have a good grasp of the situation. However I see now I should have clarified that I object to the law in the first place that requires ada building code for every business. There is no essential reason for someone to have to go into an apple store so I dont think we should mandate into law for a business to have to accommodate disabled people. I think people misconstrue the purpose of a business and thus think there is some entitlement to having access to it.
I remember a video game store a while ago that was only open during my friends work hours so she could never go into it because they were never open when she was off work. So I think what everyone is saying is that she should have sued them or tried to enact legislation to force all stores to be open when she was off work because she was never able to go into the game store even if it is non essential store ? But I dont agree. I just dont think that every business should be forced to spend money to have to cater to access to everyone. I think this stems from an inappropriate sense of entitlement in this country.
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.
Chiming in again - You make an interesting comparison, perhaps not from a legal standpoint but nonetheless. Celeritas' post is right however, there is a difference between limiting your clientele because of the type of food you serve and denying access to that food. I sympathize with your sister but it would be unfair to force all restaurants to cater to every different type of allergy for exactly the reasons you point out. But you should also note that accessibility legislation was never put in place to nail small companies that cannot afford to make required changes. I don't think there has ever been a case where a small eatery on an upstairs floor in an old building has been closed down because they didn't offer wheelchair access. Legislation can seem heavy handed at times but in order to educate people and fuel a cultural shift it can be necessary. I am assuming that the problems in the SF Apple store were and oversight rather than based on any type of business requirement. And so I personally feel that any wheelchair user, or blind person or person with any kind of disability should not be chastised for speaking up. You have pretty strong views and you are not afraid to speak up. Would you accept the world as is if you became disabled in some way? I think not. What is your view on web standards? Should the web be accessible or not. It can be very easily. The main reasons it isn't are ignorance, and various proprietary technologies such as Flash (business). But a lot of people use assistive technologies, or rely on the inherent accessibility features of HTML and CSS to help them navigate and access the web. One day you might join them, not because of an accident, but because of the most common 'disability' of all - old age. When your hand eye co-ordination falters, and your eyesight becomes weak, should you be excluded from the web? Or should we legislate that the web must be accessible to all?
I remember a video game store a while ago that was only open during my friends work hours so she could never go into it because they were never open when she was off work. So I think what everyone is saying is that she should have sued them or tried to enact legislation to force all stores to be open when she was off work because she was never able to go into the game store even if it is non essential store ? But I dont agree. I just dont think that every business should be forced to spend money to have to cater to access to everyone. I think this stems from an inappropriate sense of entitlement in this country.
To expect a video game store to be open the exact hours that suits you and then to suing them if it was not, would indeed be an example of 'an inappropriate sense of entitlement'. But if that store could, and did not, try to make itself accessible to everyone, on equal terms, then 'entitlement' doesn't even enter into it. The requirement naturally increases as the business grows. Your local video game store is one thing, a MAJOR (national chain) computer store that prides itself on thinking different, great usability design and great design period, is quite another.
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.
Totally agree. This sense that it is an 'entitlement societal view' to act as you describe is a sad comment on those that feel that way and emblematic of the last eight years in the USA in general. It's ok to be mean, selfish and uncaring is presumably an un-entitlement view. It is also a typical ploy to use extreme and ludicrous examples to prove a point such as suing a store as it is not open when you want it to be. Common sense is all that is needed and yes some good karma.
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.
I have never mentioned suing (even though the article originally was about that, I kind of got of topic, sorry). I am not sure where that got into our discussion. However a mandated rule that states the content of meals in restaurants should be available upon request would sure as heck be a good idea in your sister's case.
I have never mentioned suing (even though the article originally was about that, I kind of got of topic, sorry). I am not sure where that got into our discussion. However a mandated rule that states the content of meals in restaurants should be available upon request would sure as heck be a good idea in your sister's case.
They are starting to do this at many chains already, but making it a law to force companies to do it is I think going too far. Companies are starting to see the value in doing it for their customers and it in turn makes the customers happy and those restaurants will and should do more business. But to mandate all restaurants to do it by law I think is going over the line, that is not the purpose of legislation for business. Hopefully the restaurants that do offer ingredient lists on their meals will go out of business and perhaps people could organize against the restaurants that dont do it. That is fine, but to force companies by law is not congruent with the spirit of free enterprise and business to let the market decide.
Totally agree. This sense that it is an 'entitlement societal view' to act as you describe is a sad comment on those that feel that way and emblematic of the last eight years in the USA in general. It's ok to be mean, selfish and uncaring is presumably an un-entitlement view. It is also a typical ploy to use extreme and ludicrous examples to prove a point such as suing a store as it is not open when you want it to be. Common sense is all that is needed and yes some good karma.
I am not sure how you got to the place where you think I am mean selfish or uncaring. I am quite the opposite. I personally think the stores and businesses should have access for the disabled. But it is irrelevant what I think, I dont own these businesses. Private individuals and stockholders own companies not me and not the public. It is not my money to spend, it is a companies decision how to spend their money. It is completely inappropriate to cross the boundary of forcing someone else to do something that will make things easier for me. Now that is slefish and uncaring. But I guess that is the crux. Liberal thinking seems to revolve around inappropriate boundaries of spending other peoples money.
I personally think the stores and businesses should have access for the disabled. But it is irrelevant what I think, I dont own these businesses. Private individuals and stockholders own companies not me and not the public. It is not my money to spend, it is a companies decision how to spend their money. It is completely inappropriate to cross the boundary of forcing someone else to do something that will make things easier for me. Now that is slefish and uncaring. But I guess that is the crux. Liberal thinking seems to revolve around inappropriate boundaries of spending other peoples money.
It appears you do not understand how the system generally works. Every state, province, etc., has different codes that, I believe, generally follow the same framework.
If a business moves into an old store/building, and does not drastically change the existing interior or rebuild, I would imagine that it would not be a requirement to bring all the original codes up to current standards, especially if it would cause undue financial hardship. So, if a new firm moved into a building on the second floor in an older building, they would not be required to put in an elevator or lift and not to mention that the company has also (hopefully) thought that by being on a second floor will prevent a certain clientele from coming (disabled, elderly...). Business autonomy is being achieved.
However, in the case of the Apple store, when you gut a place, start from scratch, it should be built to the current building codes of the day - fire/safety/accessibly/environmental/electrical/pluming/heating/bylaws, etc...
In a perfect world, all companies would be 100% up to speed before setting up their store so to do their best to meet the basics and to get as much revenue out of their investments, and offer a safe and friendly store to visit.
I personally don't like the idea of having the need for government/codes/these two girls to hold other companies' "hands", but it would be immature of us to believe that companies inadvertently or deliberately cut corners to ensure either they get off the ground or simply try to survive/thrive. Running a company is a tough proposition. Governments want them to be successful, and not just for the tax revenue.
What wheelchair users/blind/etc. face are naturally ignorant people. I'm sure we can agree that a large percentage of people & companies out there do not fully understand the needs of others (dietary, disabled, elderly,...), as well as the environmental impacts companies have, microbiology and food safe/handling, electrical/plumbing/building codes, etc...
Like it or not, I'm sure governments generally play a very large positive role in making the daily interactions we have in our lives a lot safer with a lot less "bumps" along the road.
More importantly, and I think this is the most important point that I am trying to get at, is that codes, regulations, etc... allow for things to get up to speed sooner rather than later. Change occurs faster, there is a lot less frustration for everyone involved and that lessons are learned sooner... not just in cities but all over the country. Just imagine how inconsistent and sporadic things would be. I encourage you to start looking for curbs, how hard was it to open the door, was the washroom accessible, what was the height of the counter you made the transaction at, at what level were the products reachable, how wide was the isle...
I think a far majority of companies support most codes and that they realize that everyone, including them, benefit from standards. If they cannot see that, I suggest they open up some dialog and learn why they are there rather than just complaining. If they are not doing that, then I imagine that the company (aka people) are just in it for the money, which to me is not what life is all about. I encourage you to watch the documentary "The Coorporation". It's just one side of things but it really is amazing.
However a mandated rule that states the content of meals in restaurants should be available upon request would sure as heck be a good idea in your sister's case.
I agree.