ROFLMAO!!!!

If they know, it is intentional.

It's a good thing there has never been an example of someone who is allergic to tobacco smoke.
If someone asks me not to smoke in their presence I do not.
Fuck off you shit-head. If you want to just sling names you little dickhead, fine, since you cannot string together a coherent argument clearly that is what you need to do to continue this you fucking unfinished lump of wasted chromosomes.

No, the difference is whether they went out of their way to make sure you are accommodated or whether they went out of their way to make sure you cannot gain entry. They did neither. Therefore they didn't "intentionally" do anything.

I'm sorry that this is the level you choose to communicate on, rkz.

I don't think you're a bad person, but your behavior is really poor at the moment.

Oh, and I'm sorry that you didn't catch my edit:
I found that wording to be more appropriate, as it gives you the option of admitting your error.

Are you being intentionally excluded from the hot dog shop? It sounds to me like they'd be happy to serve you if you came in in an IBOT, or had someone lift your chair up the stairs.

Of course, I think they should follow the Disabilities Act, and become wheelchair accessible but then I also think they should follow zoning restrictions and smoking laws.

You chose to drag the argument down to that level. I figured it was what you wanted, so I gave it to you.
We communicate how we wish to be communicated with. We treat others how we wish others to treat us.

Yes, I, and everyone in a wheelchair, is intentionally being excluded. They KNOW they are excluding disabled patrons. Every day they are doing so it is intentional, premeditated and wanted.
Edit:
Remember, they remodeled in violation of the ADA. It was intentional.

[cough]bullshit[/cough]

Am I correct, rk, in reading your posts to say that if a businesses is open to the public, then they must make sure to do everything they possibly can to ensure that all members of the public can enjoy their services equally?

You're jumping my point.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I deleted it.

As opposed to those people who own establishments where smoking is allowed who of course don't know that someone with chronic asthma or emphysema would be excluded from their premises?

Unfortunately, though, there are all too many examples of people for whom tobacco smoke is a guaranteed asthma trigger. What's your point? You are not allergic to the steps in a shop, you do however have difficulty in walking up them.

True story: a friend of mine who died earlier this year, suffered for his last few years with a dreadful lung disease. I used to go for a drink with him from time to time. Unfortunately at the time pubs were generally smoky places. There was a section that was 'non smoking' in the pub we drank at, but when the place was full, the smoke from the main area drifted across.

One Friday we went for a drink, me Al, J and Linda. We spent less than an hour in the pub. It was near empty when we entered, but over that hour it began to fill up and the pub began to get smoky. Eventually Al said he had to go. He'd had to use his inhaler and was starting to get very short of breath. He and Linda left and went home. I could tell Al was gutted, not just because he felt rough, but because he was disappointed. It was the first time he'd ventured out to a pub in weeks, having recently had a spell in intensive care, followed by a slow recovery. It was a foolish thing to do, going in the pub, but we'd gone early like we usually did, to avoid the crowd and then got caught up in a heated political conversation and hadn't noticed the place filling up around us.

He ended up back in hospital that night. Another 4am ambulance ride, revived en route. It's possible that the smoke had no bearing on the situation...possible but unlikely. All he wanted, was to go for a drink with his friends, like everybody else does. It was a foolish thing to do...but an understandable one for a man whose social circle was to be found mainly at the local pub. .

So now, you tell me, should a man have to choose between entering a building and risking potentially life threatening symptoms, and excluding himself from places healthy people access with ease?

Perhaps the fact that you have a penchant for interesting tobaccoes is steering your opinion in this instance.

Five Guys Burgers serves peanuts in the shell, free, at every table. They have a sign on the door warning people that peanuts are in use.

1% of children are allergic to peanuts. Some people are so incredibly allergic that merely being in the presence of a peanut will trigger it. Being in the presence of so many peanuts would be fatal for someone who was peanut-allergic. 125 people die each year due to peanut allergy.

Five Guys Burgers knows this, but their answer is not to stop serving peanuts. Their answer is to put a warning sign on the door. This is notice that peanut-allergic people are not welcome. They know they are excluding the peanut-allergic. They could serve a different snack, even a cheaper snack. Every day they are serving peanuts it is intentional, premeditated and wanted.

The difference is only one of numbers. Peanut-allergic people are a minority. But they're too small of a minority to have their civil rights violated. I'm not sure I understand it but I'm guessing there is some sort of notion in the law that works out the difference.

Well frankly fuck those peanut-allergic people. What kind of crap is that, that these people would have us not eat peanuts at Five Guys? Fuck them, man, if I saw a peanut-allergic person right now, I would wave my peanut right at 'em. I would not hire a peanut-allergic person -- because what else are they gonna be allergic to? I wouldn't want my sister to marry one -- because what, are you not going to have celery with peanut butter at Thanksgiving? Just because old nut-rasher, Mister PB&Sneeze has an issue with it?

I'm curious as well, rkz. Is that what you're saying? If not, what are you saying?

Yup, but you are reading things into it, I am not.
Again, for those who say that smoking in shops should be illegal for those with lung issues there are dozens of businesses that are just as bad and/or are worse that you are going to have to make illegal. I listed them earlier... you just chose not to read that.
Can if they choose to.
What I am against is removing that choice.

Then your answer is yes. I asked a single question and frankly I'm not interested in joining your tirade about smoking bans. If you think that public businesses should be made open to everyone then say so plainly. If you think there are exceptions where businesses don't need to accommodate everyone then list them. Saying that you'd need to close other businesses as well doesn't say anything about whether the point is valid, it's only a side shot saying "it doesn't matter what's right here, I'll bet you won't go through with it either way". Maybe someone should call your bluff.

rkz, people don't choose to be asthmatic, peanut-allergic or blind any more than they choose to be in a wheelchair.

OK, so the law has ruled in favor of those in a wheelchair. It has also ruled in favor or those with asthma. what's the difference? Please explain to me without ridiculing me. I really don't see the difference. Maybe that's due to my pesonal bias because I'm asthmatic?

Why do you think the law has not ruled in favor of the blind and peanut-allergic? Do you think they should?

What do you think about nightclubs who have different admission rates and drinks tariffs for males and females?

I'm not trying to trap you, I'm asking because I'm having a really hard time understanding the logic of your differentiation, but I know there must be some because I believe you're not stupid (for want of a better, more PC term).

I understand that you believe that this hotdog shop and other places who violate the code are willfully excluding would-be patrons in wheelchairs, but I'm curious as to what you think their reason for this might be? Surely it can't just be cost? if you're already doing a major rennovation, a ramp is not that big of a deal. There must be something else...

(sorry, I realize I sort of melded two thread together there, but they seem fused in my mind now)

:notworthy: :lol:

I think the confusion is this: rkz insists that asthmatic people could CHOOSE to enter a smoking establishment. I propose that their health condition would prevent them from doing so, therefore this is not a valid choice. It's not a valid distinction.

The only difference I see is that it would be physically possible for them to enter, as opposed to a non-wheelchair-accessible business. However, they could only enter at great peril to their own health. I would therefore count them as "excluded" from that business. Just like the peanut-allergy people are "excluded" from the burger joint. They could walk in there, but they might die. It's not a real choice.

So, you feel that all BBQ joints should be outlawed?
The peanut allergy thing is rediculous... they just don't eat the food with the peanuts in it, good lord!
It is a valid distinction.
A roller coaster could kill me, I could choose to get on one though, if I were stupid.
Open to and catering to are not REMOTELY the same things.
I am allergic to most perfumes (formaldehyde). I would never suggest that the fragrance department change for me, I just use a different entrance and exit. I am not a selfish asshole... or is it prick?

It all boils down to you being the one complaining about your exclusion. Therefore you should equally consider the exclusion of others. Not just yourself. That's selfish. And I'm not hurling an insult to say that; that is actually the definition of selfish. It's also hypocritical, by definition.

You can't read.

You aren't doing a good job of explaining your point. In fact, you aren't explaining your point at all. I would welcome an explanation. I would read it.

You don't know anything about peanut allergies. Many people are so allergic that simply breathing airborne particles are enough to send them into anaphylactic shock. Almost all airlines have stopped serving peanuts because the recirculated air made it 100% impossible for someone with this allergy to ride in their planes. The only difference is they did it voluntarily, because peanut allergies are not covered under the ADA.

My family got to make a trip to the ER over Christmas, because my stepson ate a chocolate-chip cookie which had been removed from the tray with the same spatula that had earlier been used to pull up some peanut-butter cookies.

Plus, they were really jealous of those who could eat the peanuts. There have been numerous studies of the effects of Peanuts Envy.

I have stated clearly that I am allergic to fragrances but do not feel that perfume departments, that exclude me by their activities, should be changed or shut-down. It is my choice not to enter them because I am CAPABLE of entering them.
Establishments that serve peanuts do not exclude those allergic, they should not choose to eat there.
BBQ joints, shoe stores (I am allergic to them as well, shoes are treated with formaldehyde) or establishments like the one I spent three hours in last night smoking my pipe in do not have a sign or bars on the door stating "if you do not smoke or don't like it we don't want your kind here, your money and company are no good here, leave you half-human".
A place that is built with a barrier to a specific group of people is an ENTIRELY different thing... it is not only the SAME as the Jim Crow signs stating "Whites Only" it is worse because a black or Asian could CHOOSE to ignore the sign and enter the establishment anyway, as they did during the civil rights (for able-bodied only) fight.
These barriers are a clear sign that they do not want our kind there, our money and company is not wanted and they CHOOSE not to grant us entry like everyone else, whether we want it or not.
Historic building is bullshit, if they can renovate it and put a restaurant in it they can put a ramp in or get a portable ramp and install a bell for someone to bring the portable ramp.
They do not, they do not want us there.
Choice.
If a store allows smoking that does not mean someone will ALWAYS be smoking there.
Also, if they do and lose business they will then stop allowing it... that way you make your voice heard by not doing business there.
Again CHOICE.

I did not know that.
Are you suggesting peanuts be outlawed or people be allowed special treatment like separation or able to say "I am peanut allergic so I need clean utensils"?
There are people who are allergic to the sun.

I don't see the distinction. You're citing the strong feelings you have, about a situation you have faced personally, as the differentating factor. It isn't. Since I'm not in a wheelchair, I don't have a peanut allergy, and I don't have asthma; I see all these situations equally. Fairly. Without bias.

Nothing I've said recently has mentioned feelings.

Okay, bad choice of words. But now that I've mentioned it, do you have a response?

I really don't have feelings about the smoking issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other as far as being able to shop or eat (I don't smoke in my home or when I eat anyway. I only smoke a pipe or cigar a few times a week and prefer to have my environments smoke free unless it is a bar or smoke shop. The only emotion I have attached to that is that the assault on freedom worries me and makes me defensive... it leads to other things.
I do not see making places open for people who are in wheelchairs (the ibot is a red herring and off-topic, it is not available to 99.999% of those whom are disabled who can afford it and is not covered by any insurance company) is not giving those people a choice to choose to shop there or not.
How does it make me feel, frustrated and marginalized.
Read anything by anyone who lived before Jim Crow laws were removed and the culture of that mind-set changed and that is exactly how it makes me feel.
Once in the store I don't care if all the isles/tables/etc, are chair width apart if they are accommodating.
But, even in accessible stores it is not unusual to be treated like a nuisance before anyone even talks to you, or worse like a child (people will often give people in chairs candy or pat us on the head and talk to us like children then not give us the same service they give any other adult).
How would it make you feel to be told "we don't have time to help you (your kind) you are going to have to go somewhere else" because they choose to exclude you?
It is humiliating and frustrating because there is NO reason for it and NO excuse for it.
Again I don't want to hear the bullshit about subliminal fears of contagion or being faced with one's own mortality because that is a cop-out and bull-shit.

When I was vegan for a long time I developed a bad reaction to animal protean, though it was not deadly it was very sensitive.
I was often lied to about the contents of soup and bread... it is difficult and for those this kind of thing is deadly for (I became vegan because my wife did develop a deadly allergy to animal protean because of pituitary tumor) the guidelines need to be far more stringent.
But, I don't think peanuts need to be banned from public.

Ohhh.....I see...you are more discriminated against than African Americans under Jim Crow laws. Okay.

You are absolutely right there is no excuse for it.


I certainly wouldn't expect any store to stop selling peanut products, nor would I shut down private businesses that chose to allow smoking. I just took issue with the idea that the people who suffer with the life threatening conditions we've spoken of in this thread, are presented with a choice that is in reality no choice and may have a different perspective; one which does not deserve to be dismissed out of hand.

Why is the wheelchair guy the only one whose feelings matter?

No, I'm merely saying that I agree with the analogies others have put forth in this thread: having a severe peanut allergy in a restaurant that serves peanuts all over the table is equivalent to that same restaurant not having a wheelchair ramp.

Is it irritating? Yes. Is it wrong? On a personal level, it isn't the decision I would make if it were my restaurant, but I don't feel it's bad enough to take legislative action against. Like you said, by not going in, you vote with your dollars and the company will in theory make the most economic decision.

I don't agree, again, though it would be stupid, they can choose to eat there.
It is not a comparison on any level.

All out of context.
The smoking issue does not inhibit anyone. They CAN go to the stores.
You are really having a hard time with the difference between can and can't huh?

Wasn't it already established that you could throw yourself forward out of your wheelchair and crawl into the store? It would just be really stupid and dangerous for your health.

I can physically walk into a room filled with poisonous gas.

Also, you asked me what my feelings were.
They are irrelevant to this discussion.
And I would not be able to open the door, enter and eat.

rk you have argued yourself into a position of presenting your health and disability in competition with other disabling conditions. Is that really what you want?
.


(eta)

You insist that if anybody can walk a short distance, regardless of the effect of that exercise on their health (e.g somebody with severe respiratory problems or very severe rheumatoid arthritis) they shouldn't use the disabled parking spaces, thereby denying the protections you consider fair for someone who uses a wheelchair. You similarly deny people with highly disabling conditions the protections you consider are fair for someone in a wheelchair

I never said short distance. In fact I stated that if they are just walking in to use a chair or cart provided by the store that is not what I am talking about.
I said if they are walking the entire store they can walk the extra spaces to their car. You misquoted me or did not read it, s-ok it is a hobby here.
My main argument is that those without lifts should not be able to use the spaces with loading zones.
I am not talking about protection I am talking about access.
Two entirely separate topics.

Lets go back to the Five Guys example (we have one on campus so I know what the peanut thing is about). We have Peanut Allergy Guy (PAG), and Wheelchair Bound Guy (WBG). The store has steps with no ramp and both patrons and cooks are eating some amount of peanuts. PAG cannot enter the store because of the concentration of airborne peanut contaminants, and can't eat the food even if someone goes in and gets it for him because of the moderate possibility of peanut oil being transfered to some part of his food at some point (cook picking up the bun, etc). WBG cannot enter the building because of the lack of a ramp but could eat something through take-out.

````````````````| WBG | PAG |
-----------------------------------
Can enter building`| no | no |
-----------------------------------
Can eat food`````| yes | no |
-----------------------------------


I'll tell you the truth rk. The case against the restaurant is the same as the case against the perfume department, the only difference is that you are willing to be inconvenienced by one and not the other. You bring me one, I'd use it to slam both with infractions. And absolutely you could take to court a restaurant who's air quality caused someone to go into respiratory arrest or something equivalent. BBQ's will need to maintain a certain level of air cleanliness and the 'smoky' atmosphere will be a thing of the past.

Law 101 man

Then you think peanuts should be illegal?

Legal protection of your right not to be physically prevented from accessing a building, to which any non-disabled person might reasonably expect to be able to gain access.

Wow, that was some semantic gymnastics.
Fine, but not padding the world.

What you don't think the laws governing disabled access are legal protections?

Not semantics at all, that was a much clearer definition of your complaint. You can't define your grievance by what you want done about it. Very good wording on her part.

I could argue that they should not be allowed in any public facility and be as right as someone saying that every building must have a ramp. Not the same as illegal since we're excluding private residences.

The logical conclusion of rkz's argument is that rkz should not be guaranteed access to the hotdog place. Why? Because the peanut guy can't go to the burger joint, and the asthma guy can't go to the barbecue place. So, let's be fair. If wheelchair guy wants to say "fuck peanut guy" and "fuck asthma guy" then, by all means, fuck you too, wheelchair guy.

Should peanuts and smoking be made illegal? No, I don't think so. But if they restrict certain people from entering those businesses, then so be it (according to rkz). If the lack of a wheelchair ramp restricts rkz from entering a business, then so be it. Let's be fair, okay? Let's not be selfish, point-dodging hypocrites.

Again, I am talking about access only not, protection.
An allergy does not restrict access. Good topic for another thread.
We are off-topic and I never stated nor implied fuck anyone.

Access only, not protection? How does that work if that access is not protected by law?

Exactly, I am talking about access being protected by law.
I am not talking about making substances or behavior within establishments illegal. That is off-topic.

Okay. I think I get the distinction.

[eta] Although the distinction reminds me a little of that which can be drawn between de facto and de jure discrimination.

Cool.
Going out of town, see you guys on Monday.

Sorry Rk, I think I edited that as you were posting :P

Have a good weekend!

So I take it you're ignoring your ability to throw yourself forward and drag yourself into the store? Cause I mean, once you're in, you dont expect any kind of protection inside the store. You dont care if they make you eat on the floor, obviously. Right?

bye rk..have a good weekend good looking.

I see you still can't read.
Still unable to understand that we are discussing access & I am not discussing what happens inside.
Unless you are unable to discuss access and this is just another lame attempt at changing the subject, either way...
Pathetic.

And with a wave of my hand, I have now changed the topic. In your opinion, rk, what should happen with regard to dangerous substances and behavior inside establishments? I'd like to broach the topic.