how do they get away with this?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Cjleger337

Edit: As much as I didnt want to address some of the comments on here... private businesses arent private businesses as you think they are when they cater to the public. Ill just leave it at that because Im sure there are many hard felt opinions about how DA GUBMIT shouldnt be able to regulate "private" businesses but the fact is that businesses who deal with the public are held to a different set of standards. Just like you cant discriminate on who you serve based on their religion, race, nationality and other things, there are certain laws that are made to accommodate handicap patrons should they decide to frequent the establishment. Im sure many would feel different if they had a member of their family who was handicap.

Not really. My wife's dad was in a wheelchair for over 40 years. Working his wheelchair up and down stairs was a frequent occurance for family members. I don't recall any family members ever saying that every business needed to spend thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars on ADA compliant handicapped ramps in cases where they would seldom be used.

I've spent a lot of time at Bridgeside Marina and Bobby Lynns Marina. Both went through the expense and effort of installing ramps. I've never seen a single handicapped person using those ramps. It does not make sense to me for the government to force business owners to accomodate potential customers when the expected usage is a relatively rare event. This is even more true when other federal regulations (flood insurance and loan regulations) require the bottom floor of buildings to be 15-20 ft above grade. Requiring a 4 ft ramp so handicapped patrons can get into a restaurant is one thing, requiring 20 ft ramps so they can get into most businesses in a place like Grand Isle is absurd.

[duckman1911]

BTW you and yours is used in general and not a personal attack on anyone.
Things to ponder.
A gay person can refuse to do business with a Christian baker and nothing happens. Flip the coin and it's a lawsuit.
A muslim can refuse to do business with a Christian store and nothing happens. Flip the coin and it's a lawsuit.
Walmart won't let me carry my gun even though I am breaking no laws. Is it their right? Yes. Should it be their right? Yes. By exercising their right they also insure that Krogers gets my money not Walmart.
My question is when or where does it stop? If you are traveling and break down at our shop at closing time on Friday should I be required to stay after work and fix your car so your family doesn't have to sleep in it all weekend? If I don't fix your car and something happens to you should I be held liable?
Everyone on here can say Duckman is an azzhole and he won't get my money and I think that is perfect but shouldn't a business be able to do the same?

[Cjleger337]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

BTW you and yours is used in general and not a personal attack on anyone.
Things to ponder.
A gay person can refuse to do business with a Christian baker and nothing happens. Flip the coin and it's a lawsuit.
A muslim can refuse to do business with a Christian store and nothing happens. Flip the coin and it's a lawsuit.
Walmart won't let me carry my gun even though I am breaking no laws. Is it their right? Yes. Should it be their right? Yes. By exercising their right they also insure that Krogers gets my money not Walmart.
My question is when or where does it stop? If you are traveling and break down at our shop at closing time on Friday should I be required to stay after work and fix your car so your family doesn't have to sleep in it all weekend? If I don't fix your car and something happens to you should I be held liable?
Everyone on here can say Duckman is an azzhole and he won't get my money and I think that is perfect but shouldn't a business be able to do the same?

Those examples you cited are a personal entity choosing not to do business with a business. You as a Christian are free to choose not to do business with a gay, Muslim, or any other store that doesnt line up with your beliefs. Turn that around (business not choosing to do business with an individual, and its grounds for discrimination based on the US Constitution.

As far as having to fix someones car... I feel like youre grasping for straws at that one. As long as you chose not to fix their car because of the religion they practice, color, or nationality, then its completely your choice because your company has made their own business hours.

Businesses are not afforded the same rights as individuals.. because their sole purpose is to serve the general public. No exclusions thereof, the general public is the general public. In your example, you are in business to fix cars. Fixing cars for anyone except a certain color or religion etc of people is unconstitutional. Do you get where Im going with this?

Just like my 78 year old grandpa. Hes a JOP. He was elected by the people to confirm that two people are eligible by the federal definition of marriage and the federal definition of marriage only otherwise interjecting his own personal beliefs would be a violation of separation of church and state which we have in a secular society. He had to marry a gay couple... he called us and he had a major issue with it and he considered resigning, but he loves his job its what keeps him busy in retirement so he had to recognize that the legal definition of a state sponsored marriage was defined by the Supreme Court by way of the Constitution so he sucked it up and did the ceremony based on the states definition of marriage.. if my 78 year old grandpa gets it I am having a hard time wondering why so many others dont. Its not the right of the business owner or any public official to interject their own beliefs in their job description. Im not saying this in a spiteful way, Im simply stating that no one is asking anyone to agree with someone elses lifestyle or even support it! all thats being asked is to perform the job you promised to do for the people. If you opened a business to fix cars, fix cars. Their personal lives and moral codes shouldnt concern you if youre in business to fix cars.


Most importantly Im glad we can have a civil back and forth on differing opinions, its not often you find that anymore.

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Cjleger337

Those examples you cited are a personal entity choosing not to do business with a business. You as a Christian are free to choose not to do business with a gay, Muslim, or any other store that doesnt line up with your beliefs. Turn that around (business not choosing to do business with an individual, and its grounds for discrimination based on the US Constitution.

As far as having to fix someones car... I feel like youre grasping for straws at that one. As long as you chose not to fix their car because of the religion they practice, color, or nationality, then its completely your choice because your company has made their own business hours.

Businesses are not afforded the same rights as individuals.. because their sole purpose is to serve the general public. No exclusions thereof, the general public is the general public. In your example, you are in business to fix cars. Fixing cars for anyone except a certain color or religion etc of people is unconstitutional. Do you get where Im going with this?

Just like my 78 year old grandpa. Hes a JOP. He was elected by the people to confirm that two people are eligible by the federal definition of marriage and the federal definition of marriage only otherwise interjecting his own personal beliefs would be a violation of separation of church and state which we have in a secular society. He had to marry a gay couple... he called us and he had a major issue with it and he considered resigning, but he loves his job its what keeps him busy in retirement so he had to recognize that the legal definition of a state sponsored marriage was defined by the Supreme Court by way of the Constitution so he sucked it up and did the ceremony based on the states definition of marriage.. if my 78 year old grandpa gets it I am having a hard time wondering why so many others dont. Its not the right of the business owner or any public official to interject their own beliefs in their job description. Im not saying this in a spiteful way, Im simply stating that no one is asking anyone to agree with someone elses lifestyle or even support it! all thats being asked is to perform the job you promised to do for the people. If you opened a business to fix cars, fix cars. Their personal lives and moral codes shouldnt concern you if youre in business to fix cars.


Most importantly Im glad we can have a civil back and forth on differing opinions, its not often you find that anymore.

I understand what you are saying I just disagree. I made no promises to serve the public. I work on people's cars but only if I choose to do so. The choice should be mine to make. I should be able to refuse service for any reason I want. Again I'm not saying it's a good business decision but it should be my decision to make. I don't need the government to dictate what I work on. It's no different than the government dictating what days we have to work. I'll be closed any day I want to be. You have the right to think I'm an azzhole and not do business with me and I think a business should have the exact same right. BTW we do have several gay customers and some handicapped customers. I don't think turning people away is a good business choice but it should be the owners choice to make.

[duckman1911]

Unless you're a regular customer we work by appointment only. Sometimes we just happen to be too backed up to fit someone in in a reasonable time frame

[Cjleger337]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

Unless you're a regular customer we work by appointment only. Sometimes we just happen to be too backed up to fit someone in in a reasonable time frame

ha i was waiting for that!

[MathGeek]

I hate to see evil statists like Cjleger pervert the Constitution.

The framers did not intend individual rights to be forfeited as soon as the individual is asking for payment for their services.

Further, the framers would most assuredly be appalled at the lie that the Constitution demands handicapped ramps be built to access buildings 20 ft high at great expense to the proprietor to serve customers who exist in theory but who very rarely ever show up in person spending money and requiring such accomodations.

[Cjleger337]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I hate to see evil statists like Cjleger pervert the Constitution.

The framers did not intend individual rights to be forfeited as soon as the individual is asking for payment for their services.

Further, the framers would most assuredly be appalled at the lie that the Constitution demands handicapped ramps be built to access buildings 20 ft high at great expense to the proprietor to serve customers who exist in theory but who very rarely ever show up in person spending money and requiring such accommodations.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was passed in the House and Senate and signed by GW Bush Sr.... not once has the Supreme Court ruled that the ADA was unconstitutional. Maybe if someone believes it is, they should file suit in court and work its way up to the Supreme Court for a ruling. Until someone does that, I dont think anyone has room to armchair a bill that legally became law and I think the same is true for anyone who has the belief that something is unconstitutional.

Edit: There are countless cases filed by the Paralyzed Veterans of America on behalf of handicap veterans under the ADA who could not gain access to establishments they wanted to frequent. Should they not have done this? Using your theory, they were selfish individuals who were only out to force businesses to spend more money on these theoretical patrons as you describe them...which I take issue with because there is no concrete evidence that you can provide to the show the amount of handicap people who visit Grand Isle and are otherwise inconvenience by the lack of accessibility.. just because youre handicap doesnt mean your life has ended or that you cant enjoy the same things that other people enjoy.


But you know what, the founding fathers arent around to clarify some of the open ended questions we have regarding the application of the Constitution. So all we have left is to trust in the system that they created because if we dont, then what do we have?

[southern151]

Originally Posted by Cjleger337

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was passed in the House and Senate and signed by GW Bush Sr.... not once has the Supreme Court ruled that the ADA was unconstitutional. Maybe if someone believes it is, they should file suit in court and work its way up to the Supreme Court for a ruling. Until someone does that, I dont think anyone has room to armchair a bill that legally became law and I think the same is true for anyone who has the belief that something is unconstitutional.

Edit: There are countless cases filed by the Paralyzed Veterans of America on behalf of handicap veterans under the ADA who could not gain access to establishments they wanted to frequent. Should they not have done this? Using your theory, they were selfish individuals who were only out to force businesses to spend more money on these theoretical patrons as you describe them...which I take issue with because there is no concrete evidence that you can provide to the show the amount of handicap people who visit Grand Isle and are otherwise inconvenience by the lack of accessibility.. just because youre handicap doesnt mean your life has ended or that you cant enjoy the same things that other people enjoy.


But you know what, the founding fathers arent around to clarify some of the open ended questions we have regarding the application of the Constitution. So all we have left is to trust in the system that they created because if we dont, then what do we have?

My understanding is that if something is not listed specifically in the Constitution, it's meant to be handled at the state level. But, the ADA is a federal racket that is killing a lot of businesses.

Here's what I see when I think of the ADA... http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2...ches-too-high/

[Cjleger337]

Originally Posted by southern151

My understanding is that if something is not listed specifically in the Constitution, it's meant to be handled at the state level. But, the ADA is a federal racket that is killing a lot of businesses.

Here's what I see when I think of the ADA... http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2...ches-too-high/

Yes, left to the states until it is brought before a judge and elevated to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court refers to the Constitution and interprets it way better than you or I can beceause its literally all they do, then decide on a ruling as to whether or not it is Constitutional. Thats a common myth about ADA, there are many references on the Internet that put myths like "its killing a lot of businesses."

Youd rather think of those instances instead of the good that it has brought into peoples lives but thats ok.. its common for humans to only want to see evidence that supports their opinions. Think of this instead though:

I wont detail all cases but if youre interested to know more about them Google it.

Bates V. UPS
Michigan Paralyzed Veterans V. The University of Michigan
Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Ellerbe Becket
Any lawsuits regarding a service animal and a veteran V. a company

[duckman1911]

Just to pose a question.
If a handicap person can force a business to be handicap accessible would it also be fair to charge a handicap person a higher rate to help offset the cost of building and maintaining a handicap accessible business?

[Cjleger337]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

Just to pose a question.
If a handicap person can force a business to be handicap accessible would it also be fair to charge a handicap person a higher rate to help offset the cost of building and maintaining a handicap accessible business?

No, because there are federal tax incentives that companies can take advantage of to offset the costs of being compliant.

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Cjleger337

No, because there are federal tax incentives that companies can take advantage of to offset the costs of being compliant.

Yeah the government doesn't steal quite as much from you at tax time. Not sure how that is a good thing.

[Cjleger337]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

Yeah the government doesn't steal quite as much from you at tax time. Not sure how that is a good thing.

http://www.ada.gov/taxcred.htm

To be fair you asked if it would be fair to levy a charge against a handicap person for the increased costs of accommodation and I based my "no" off of the fact that the govt covers their half.

Taxes arent bad, they are only bad because we have corrupt politicians who dont reinvest our money into something we can see, but thats an entirely different topic and sure to raise everyones blood pressure.

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Cjleger337

http://www.ada.gov/taxcred.htm

To be fair you asked if it would be fair to levy a charge against a handicap person for the increased costs of accommodation and I based my "no" off of the fact that the govt covers their half.

Taxes arent bad, they are only bad because we have corrupt politicians who dont reinvest our money into something we can see, but thats an entirely different topic and sure to raise everyones blood pressure.

So that makes taxes bad. If politicians handle the taxes and mishandle them then that makes taxes bad.

[duckman1911]

I say we drop all the bs "let's accomodate everyone" regulations. Hear me out.
Without the regulations there will be businesses that will accomodate people no matter their race, religion, sexual preference or physical ability and there will be businesses that won't accomodate. Let the free market work. Spend your money with a place that supports you and your lifestyle instead of a business that is forced to conform under threat of law and may very well in fact despise your very existence.

[Bluechip]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

I say we drop all the bs "let's accomodate everyone" regulations. Hear me out.
Without the regulations there will be businesses that will accomodate people no matter their race, religion, sexual preference or physical ability and there will be businesses that won't accomodate. Let the free market work. Spend your money with a place that supports you and your lifestyle instead of a business that is forced to conform under threat of law and may very well in fact despise your very existence.

I understand your view but what if a person in a wheelchair had to travel 50 plus miles to find a grocery store or drug store that would accommodate their disability. That would suck....

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by Bluechip

I understand your view but what if a person in a wheelchair had to travel 50 plus miles to find a grocery store or drug store that would accommodate their disability. That would suck....

That is a very valid point. Not sure that would be the case unless you already lived that far away from a metropolitan area to begin with. Alexandria isn't big and we have a dozen grocery stores. I'm sure at least one of them would be willing to accomodate just to get the business the others were missing out on. I understand that there is no scenario that will make everyone happy. My thought is that if you own a business it is yours. No differently than you own your home. Your property so you should get to call the shots. As long as you are causing no harm to anyone. By not being handicap accessible you have in no way harmed that person or changed that persons situation.

[Bluechip]

Originally Posted by duckman1911

That is a very valid point. Not sure that would be the case unless you already lived that far away from a metropolitan area to begin with. Alexandria isn't big and we have a dozen grocery stores. I'm sure at least one of them would be willing to accomodate just to get the business the others were missing out on. I understand that there is no scenario that will make everyone happy. My thought is that if you own a business it is yours. No differently than you own your home. Your property so you should get to call the shots. As long as you are causing no harm to anyone. By not being handicap accessible you have in no way harmed that person or changed that persons situation.

Understand.....

[duckman1911]

I truely was not trying to take a shot at anyone with my view point and I hope no one took it that way. Was simply stating that a property owner should have control over who is on their property and why. As long as you are causing no harm to anyone. Physical harm.