41–50 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The right and obvious solution is to make special accommodations for people with special needs.
That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious. The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, and I realize this is crazy, legislators could read the full text of what they vote on.
Or maybe the top-line bill is so important that you just swallow the bitter pill of less important riders, because getting a clean bill seems unlikely / out of your own control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of the recent story where Domino's would rather fight a case to the Supreme Court than take rudimentary steps to make their site usable by the blind. (And the reporting site isn't any better.) https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/dominos-asks-supreme-court-t...
> In its filing with the top court, the Chamber of Commerce wrote that the Justice Department has provided only “inconsistent, nonbinding, and unaccountable” rules so this is the correct channel to get this done. the court can force the legislature's and the executive branches' hand on providing specific rules - of course alongside permanently invalidate them, or siding with the lower courts whereas private lawsuits…
There's a big difference between "we tried our best but the law is ambiguous" and "the law is ambiguous so we didn't try".
This is a complete smokescreen. The truth is that Jimmy Anderson is a Democrat, and the speaker, Robin Vos, is a Republican. Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available. Just like Republicans refuse to even consider Democratic justices and constantly try to disenfranchise voters. To a Republican, power is the only thing that matters at any cost. There is no other useful ver…
My knee-jerk reaction is a less-extreme version of yours, more along the lines of Vos not being willing to do anything that would assist a Democrat but (hopefully) not actively seeking to disenfranchise him. I think that's probably supported by the fairly well-known acrimony between the Republican majority and Democratic minority in Wisconsin's legislature and politics in general (e.g. [Dem elected governor? Strip rights from the governor's office before he's seated!])
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious. The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.
Omg dude read about the ADA. You seem to have a deep misunderstand of things in the U.S.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious. The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.
Everyone enjoys the right that if you are unable to fulfill your job due to a disability, and a reasonable accommodation could be provided which would allow you to fulfill your job, you’re entitled to the accommodation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> make special amendments for some people? This one. You make reasonable accommodations for people who can't follow the normal rules. This is how the ADA is worded - employers have to make reasonable accommodations as long as it doesn't prevent the person from doing their job.
How do you define reasonable? How do you justify making accommodations just for some people? Why not for all? Rights should be equal, not based on any discriminatory criteria.
The courts do it. And they’ve been doing it ever since the ADA was passed. It’s a system that seems to work quite well.
If witnesses and legislators are required to be in public for questioning before a committee, doesn't it seem a bit off-putting that one of the participants would be allowed to join from a private location? It could lead to a violation of trust - Anderson is a politician, regardless of how little experience he actually has, and one never trusts a politician to always do the right thing.
If the people find it so objectionable that he can’t attend meetings in person, they have a remedy. They can simply vote him out. It’s not a lifetime appointment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious. The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.
What are you gaining from removing disabled people from "everyone"? You're against protections for these people because it's not fair to you? Ever consider that your way is not fair to them and potentially any other arbitrarily defined group of people?