141–150 of 502 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eating peanut butter sandwich isn't protected by law. Having service dogs is.
How the law is written doesn't change the fact that driving on highway with peanut butter allergy is life-threatening, and driving on highway with PTSD to a stimulus in the car is also life-threatening.
> Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals.
I'd like to go out on a limb and say that I don't agree with the ADA. I don't think any private person or organization should be compelled to provide facilities or services for anyone else, regardless of what their need is. I have no animus toward people with disabilities - I'm just saying that no one should be forced to help anyone else. If you want to do something for someone else's benefit, you should be free to d…
> When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act > No good ultimately comes from that which is not freely chosen. > You get feedback about how your acts are impacting his life, which helps you be a better friend. > This ends up hurting more people than you help. What an absolutely mind numblingly self centered and brain-dead take. It's got nothing to d…
You can put wheelchair ramps on every building and have zero impact on the number of people that can walk that will date someone in a wheelchair, or the number of non-hearing-impaired people that will even be friends with a deaf person. This is because people often meet and relate to one another through their experiences and shared interests.
Frankly, the only way those situations can change is through technology. As we come up with ways of repairing spinal cord injuries, restoring hearing and sight, etc., many people will have ways of breaking through the very real barriers I'm speaking of here. Wouldn't it be better to spend more of the money that goes into ramps and the like on research instead?
If people are left free to decide what to do with their own resources, I argue that ultimately more resources will go into advancing science and technology, with the ultimate effect of creating a society where fewer people suffer a second-class existence. Take the existence of Neuralink as a practical example of this: it's a private company whose first users will be paraplegic people, and people suffering from strokes and Parkinson's disease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn't they have the option to reject the ride? What if they're allergic, or deathly afraid of dogs? I have a friend like that. Anything bigger than a chihuahua and she'd probably flee the vehicle before driving it anywhere. Being able to reject work you can't handle seems like the one silver lining of being "independent contractors".
You can’t reject work for reasons that are illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is equivalent to a landlord saying "Sorry, it's to expensive to build wheel chair ramps. So we didn't build any" According to Uber, you need to call up another driver and get them to come take over for you because Uber will not.
If you're building a new building you should be required to have wheelchair ramps. Allergies and PTSD to ramps isn't really a thing, so it's okay to require them. If you have an old building it's on the government to provide the ramps OR cut property taxes so that the landlord has the cash to install the ramps. If you want to hit everyone with insane property taxes they can't be expected to maintain buildings to stan…
Every who signs up to be an Uber driver after the signing of the ADA must be capable of transporting service dogs.
> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go." Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one se…
Then it’s time to get into a different kind of business, really.
> It rejected Uber's claim that the company itself was not liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees. Another example of how rideshare companies attempt to offload risk and liability onto individual drivers who are generally unprepared and unaware that this is happening. Insurance is a more important example (most rideshare drivers are not properly insured), but this…
Are you saying that the drivers didn't know what they were doing to this woman was wrong? Or are you claiming Uber told the drivers to mistreat her?
I'd like to go out on a limb and say that I don't agree with the ADA. I don't think any private person or organization should be compelled to provide facilities or services for anyone else, regardless of what their need is. I have no animus toward people with disabilities - I'm just saying that no one should be forced to help anyone else. If you want to do something for someone else's benefit, you should be free to d…
So far, however, places with these types of regulations are still prosperous and have significantly better lives for those who are disabled. The real-world results speak for themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act > No good ultimately comes from that which is not freely chosen. > You get feedback about how your acts are impacting his life, which helps you be a better friend. > This ends up hurting more people than you help. What an absolutely mind numblingly self centered and brain-dead take. It's got nothing to d…
I have no problem with the government paying for ADA accommodations, and all of us sharing in the tax burden for them. Why should their costs be forced on a narrow group of businesses in unequal ways?
Taxi companies have vehicles equipped for wheelchairs and other disabilities. They tend to be unprofitable to operate - but they have them. The reduction or loss of a profit on those fares is made up for by the taxi company, as a whole, subsidizing it from the increased prices for the rest of the fares.
It isn't necessary for this to be a government thing. It is simply "the company needs to increase the cost of its service so that what it offers is accessible to everyone."
As this applies to everyone in the sector the same (taxis, uber, Lyft, etc...) it isn't impacting a narrow group of businesses in unequal ways. This applies to restaurants, retail businesses, etc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn't they have the option to reject the ride? What if they're allergic, or deathly afraid of dogs? I have a friend like that. Anything bigger than a chihuahua and she'd probably flee the vehicle before driving it anywhere. Being able to reject work you can't handle seems like the one silver lining of being "independent contractors".
> What if they're allergic, or deathly afraid of dogs? If they're afraid of dogs they shouldn't drive unknown people for a living, just like someone who's deathly afraid of blood probably won't be a surgeon. Allergy could be handled by Uber, who should be provided by the driver with a medical certification of the allergy and shouldn't even show that car to the blind customer (if the ADA allows that). I think the driv…
Not everyone has a hundred companies trying to hire them. They have to take any job they can get to pay their food and electricity and mortgage and health insurance and child support and all that bullshit. And some of those people have PTSD from dogs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t someone with a severe allergy to dogs also be covered under ADA?
If a company has fewer than 15 employees, it's exempt from the ADA's requirements. If it has 15 employees or more, then the law assumes that it's reasonable for the company to provide service (e.g. by reassigning a non-allergic employee to work with a customer who has a service dog) except where it would demonstrably create an undue hardship.