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.
A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
51–60 of 65 posts
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Omg dude read about the ADA. You seem to have a deep misunderstand of things in the U.S.
I am not from or in US, I am from and in Europe. We see "equal" as it in the dictionary, not bent backwards.
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1137 The current EU govt. appears to disagree with you. Care to give an example?
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I'd like to know how much Domino's actually did here. Did they actually try but this guy's particular screen reader didn't work or did they do absolutely nothing and throw their hands up? 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".
I honestly don't think it matters since the whole point of this speculation is just to be mad at them for going against a blind man in court
I'm totally fine with it being something as simple as wanting to do a trendy React SPA and then getting sued because it wasn't accessible:
It doesn't matter if it was a software limitation, their own designer's and management's lack of awareness, their devs, or the ADA ambiguity
Its pay this lawsuit or settle with this blind man and the next one, or figure out what the law actually is.
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#54> "It just comes down to the fact that I think it’s disrespectful for someone to be asking questions over a microphone or a speakerphone when individuals are actually taking the time out of their day to come and testify in person," Vos said. I can see going "hey, voice over phone just doesn't work as smoothly" without considering the disability. But of course, that's the point - they get to consider "normal" as not i…
I just don't understand how people so heartless and selfish like this exist and are functional. It speaks poorly to society that one can be this way and not shunned. This person thinks their ego and perceived "respect" matters more than anything and a disabled person using accessibility tools is a slight? There is not a single shred of empathy there. It's just inconceivable to me to think like that.
[deleted]
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#55If 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.
Isn't it a bit off-putting that this duly elected representative of the people can't do his job, presumably basically 'cause he can't easily take a piss?
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#56This 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…
I wouldn't go so far as " Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available. " unless you're a Wisconsin resident monitoring the activity of the legislature and know things that the rest of us don't. 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 seeki…
Well, I know some Wisconsin residents who do monitor the activities of the legislature, and their opinions interpolate between yours and the parent's.
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#57This 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…
I wouldn't go so far as " Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available. " unless you're a Wisconsin resident monitoring the activity of the legislature and know things that the rest of us don't. 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 seeki…
I'm a Wisconsin resident, monitoring the activity of the legislature. The partisan acrimony in WI is actually fairly recent, and there is not in fact a consistent party preference in elections that are statewide, such as governor, the US senators, and the president. Aggressive gerrymandering and winner-take-all policy tactics are trends that I've seen rise exponentially in my 20 years in WI.
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Omg dude read about the ADA. You seem to have a deep misunderstand of things in the U.S.
I am not from or in US, I am from and in Europe. We see "equal" as it in the dictionary, not bent backwards.
Wisconsin is in the US so US laws and regulations are what apply. Moreover it seems Europe also has similar legislation/protections for people with disabilities. This is equality. No bending necessary.
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#59This 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…
I wouldn't go so far as " Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available. " unless you're a Wisconsin resident monitoring the activity of the legislature and know things that the rest of us don't. 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 seeki…
Vos is scum and has a history of behavior to back it up
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I gain a backbone. People with disabilities are a noble cause, but not an argument for inequality of rights. Consider that being equal is not discriminatory against any "arbitrary defined group of people", exactly opposite to your arbitrary rights.
Why can't we reverse your argument and say that "equality of rights is a noble cause"? Sure, we would of course prefer that, but barring that, I would absolutely prefer well-reasoned compromises for disabilities than nihilistic idealism.