Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal

[9th Engineer]

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.

[monster]

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...

[monster]

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

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

snip~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?

:

[Flint]

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?

[Flint]

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.

[Flint]

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.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

The peanut allergy thing is rediculous... they just don't eat the food with the peanuts in it, good lord!

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.

[Shawnee123]

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.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

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.

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.

[Flint]

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.