Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal

[DanaC]

I am not talking about protection I am talking about access.
Two entirely separate topics.

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.

[DanaC]

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

[9th Engineer]

Originally Posted by DanaC

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.

Originally Posted by rk

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

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.

Then you think peanuts should be illegal?

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.

[Flint]

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.

[DanaC]

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.

[DanaC]

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.

[DanaC]

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

Have a good weekend!

[Ibby]

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?

[skysidhe]

bye rk..have a good weekend good looking.

Originally Posted by Ibram

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?

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.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

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.

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.