![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyThe article prioritizes the viewpoint of the put-upon business owner, and many of the comments reflect that framing.
Which is ridiculous. If you knew going into this business that you had to follow the law to the letter, why the hell didn't you? If you're so scared of being sued, the easy way to avoid it is to be in compliance from the start!
In the comments we've got somebody whining about a business that was sued because a sign was six inches too short and what difference does that make. I don't know what difference that makes, but I know that if you keep your fridge six degrees too warm the health inspector is gonna have some words with you. If you know the sign has to be at a certain height, why isn't it at that height?
"They locked the door by accident, not out of malice and nobody got hurt!" Well, if they locked their emergency exit by accident, not out of malice, and nobody got hurt that night then they'd still be in trouble if the fire marshal happened to see it. But nobody would be too sympathetic then.
"Why doesn't he just tell them how to fix the problem without suing?" What, were you born yesterday? If it doesn't cost them, they won't fix it. They'll say "too bad, so sad, go visit one of our competitors, we'll get around to it someday".
"This isn't the way to change hearts and minds!" Maybe, maybe not, but happily, that doesn't seem to be his goal. He seems more concerned with changing infrastructure (and, yes, his balance.) But I gotta say, every civil rights fight has somebody saying that this isn't the way, where "the way" seems to be "suck it up, keep your head down, and let your quiet downtrodden dignity speak for itself".
"You don't have a right to go everywhere! If 50% of the businesses are accessible, isn't that enough?" First of all, 50%? Don't make me laugh. Secondly, replace your mental framing with "black people" or "gays" and see how that works for you. "That comparison is wrong!" Yeah, buddy, I know you are but what am I?
Ugh, people. There are special bonus points to the ones who went to the comments to rage that he didn't simply report to the appropriate agency that enforces ADA violations, despite the fact that the article correctly notes that there is no such thing. The law was designed to make disabled people and their lawyers the enforcement. Which sucks on so many levels.
Edit: To be clear, while the focus is on one particular lawsuit with one particular business owner, he seems to have filed 180 suits against 180 businesses. All of whom could've avoided this by following the law.
Which is ridiculous. If you knew going into this business that you had to follow the law to the letter, why the hell didn't you? If you're so scared of being sued, the easy way to avoid it is to be in compliance from the start!
In the comments we've got somebody whining about a business that was sued because a sign was six inches too short and what difference does that make. I don't know what difference that makes, but I know that if you keep your fridge six degrees too warm the health inspector is gonna have some words with you. If you know the sign has to be at a certain height, why isn't it at that height?
"They locked the door by accident, not out of malice and nobody got hurt!" Well, if they locked their emergency exit by accident, not out of malice, and nobody got hurt that night then they'd still be in trouble if the fire marshal happened to see it. But nobody would be too sympathetic then.
"Why doesn't he just tell them how to fix the problem without suing?" What, were you born yesterday? If it doesn't cost them, they won't fix it. They'll say "too bad, so sad, go visit one of our competitors, we'll get around to it someday".
"This isn't the way to change hearts and minds!" Maybe, maybe not, but happily, that doesn't seem to be his goal. He seems more concerned with changing infrastructure (and, yes, his balance.) But I gotta say, every civil rights fight has somebody saying that this isn't the way, where "the way" seems to be "suck it up, keep your head down, and let your quiet downtrodden dignity speak for itself".
"You don't have a right to go everywhere! If 50% of the businesses are accessible, isn't that enough?" First of all, 50%? Don't make me laugh. Secondly, replace your mental framing with "black people" or "gays" and see how that works for you. "That comparison is wrong!" Yeah, buddy, I know you are but what am I?
Ugh, people. There are special bonus points to the ones who went to the comments to rage that he didn't simply report to the appropriate agency that enforces ADA violations, despite the fact that the article correctly notes that there is no such thing. The law was designed to make disabled people and their lawyers the enforcement. Which sucks on so many levels.
Edit: To be clear, while the focus is on one particular lawsuit with one particular business owner, he seems to have filed 180 suits against 180 businesses. All of whom could've avoided this by following the law.
no subject
Date: 2021-08-01 03:10 pm (UTC)But yeah in my plumbing class the instructor talked about inspections and making sure you pass or fix issues, including ADA issues, promptly. Otherwise you get a reputation for non-compliance or poor workmanship and they will be on your ass every time. How is it different for other businesses?
no subject
Date: 2021-08-01 03:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-08-01 03:18 pm (UTC)But nonetheless, it is still the business's job to be in compliance so they don't get sued? So they don't get to be all shocked pikachu when someone actually sues them.
no subject
Date: 2021-08-01 03:25 pm (UTC)It seems like common sense to me. And the cited violations (at least in the example we're given here) aren't actually trivial things that definitely don't matter. There is NO reason they should have locked the disabled access door, especially given that he had a reservation in which he specifically noted he had a disability. There is NO reason they should not have responded to him calling them about that, pretty much immediately. There is NO reason they should've given away his reservation under his specific wheelchair-friendly table to a random non-wheelchair-user, nor that his compromise seat should've been sufficiently jutting into the aisle that multiple people could jostle his wheelchair. That last makes me think the venue was overcrowded.