Gotta love the Chicago area. In the same week that a major news story involves a 15-year-old with cerebral palsy found dead from malnutrition (and the newspaper describing him as "suffering from 'cerebral palsy' rather than 'starvation'), we have another heartwarming story of a Condo that has a strange idea of what accessiblity means for people with disabilities.
I think the Chicago Trib requires registration - here's the article:
quote:Condo rule biased, suit says Boy in wheelchair told to use back door, parents say
By Matt O'Connor Tribune staff reporter March 16, 2004
A 9-year-old boy who uses a wheelchair because of physical and developmental disabilities has been forced to use a rear service entrance by the board of a suburban condominium complex where he lives, a federal lawsuit filed Monday alleges.
The suit, which says the restriction violates the U.S. Fair Housing Act, contends the boy was barred from using the front door of Triumvera Towers Condominium in Glenview out of unwarranted concerns that the wheelchair could damage the entrance.
"My son is not a piece of furniture. He is a human," said Claudio Trujillo, whose son, Jaime, cannot walk or speak because of a seizure disorder. "He is entitled to every right."
The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages for "pain, suffering and humiliation" from the 16-story condominium complex's board of directors and its president, identified as Sarah Stollberg.
Stollberg did not return a telephone call seeking comment on the allegations.
In a statement, Access Living, an advocacy group for the disabled that filed the lawsuit on the family's behalf, compared the prohibition on wheelchairs using the front entrance of Triumvera Towers to African-Americans being forced to sit in the back of the bus or drink from "colored-only" water fountains until the 1960s.
Claudio Trujillo and his wife, Luz, both Colombian immigrants who came to the U.S. seven years ago, sought the approval of the complex's governing board to buy a two-bedroom unit last summer, according to the lawsuit. The couple have a second child.
During an interview with the board, Claudio Trujillo mentioned that his son needs a wheelchair, prompting Stollberg to announce that was a "problem," the suit alleges.
Citing concerns of damage to the front entrance, Stollberg said Trujillo's son was prohibited from using it and must use a rear door "otherwise reserved for furniture delivery and garbage disposal," the suit says.
In a telephone interview Monday, Claudio Trujillo said he wanted to oppose the rule, but feared if he did, the board would block his family from buying the condominium.
After the family moved in last September, they attempted to use the rear entrance with Jaime, but the door was barely wide enough for the wheelchair to pass through, the lawsuit says.
So the Trujillos used the front entrance without incident for several months. But in a letter last month, the condominium board reiterated that the rear entrance must be used, the suit alleges.
On March 4, as Jaime waited in the building lobby for his school bus with a nurse, Stollberg announced that he couldn't use the front door, and when the nurse objected, Stollberg "became angry and hostile," the suit says.
Allegedly raising her voice, Stollberg threatened to fine the Trujillos $50 every time Jaime used the front door, according to the suit.
Later that night, Stollberg told the Trujillos that the association's rules required furniture, strollers and wheelchairs be moved through the rear service entrance, the suit says.
"I have never felt so discriminated," said Claudio Trujillo, a front-desk clerk at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Chicago. "You cannot imagine the feeling inside ourselves, especially since it's our son. He is our precious treasure."
[ March 21, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Wait...the front door had a ramp and was wide enough and everything, and they still made him use the rear? Lawsuits are a necessary evil precisely because of such dimwits.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Boy, did they screw up putting that it in writing. Their lawyer should be fired for telling them this was OK.
Idiots.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((sndrake )))
If this is a private institution (hard to tell from reading), then WTF? This lawsuit is groundless. If it's public, then it is worth looking into.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Dag, I had a chance to talk with the lawyer representing the family on Wednesday. He's the same lawyer who has written our organization's briefs in the Terri Schiavo case.
I don't think the lawyers for the Condo association knew anything about this. They're stuck with clients who are both vile and stupid.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Phanto,
Condos are subject to fair housing regulations. The lack of a right to discriminate based on disability has already been litigated.
The condo association is in deep doo-doo.
In this layperson's opinion.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Whether or not there is a legal basis for an attack, I don't care. This is a private organization. Hence, I don't care how much they discriminate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I assumed the wheelchair easily goes through the front door without damaging anything. If that's the case, they're screwed. If a lawyer had been involved, there would have been a letter saying, "there was a misunderstanding, of course he can use the front door. We are taking the following steps to protect the entrance."
As it is, I'd bet a lot of money this violates Chicago fair housing laws, and it may violate the ADA. What surprises me is that condo associations are controlled by the owners. I can see one or a few overzealous condo board members wanting this (I've met some you wouldn't believe), but do the owners in the building really care?
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Phanto,
What matters here is the law. They're in violation of it. It really doesn't matter if you don't care about the discrimination, because in this case, the law DOES.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Dag,
I don't think Condos mean what they used to mean. This place sounds more like an apartment complex with the apartments being individually owned. So I think it's probably set up differently than the residential Condos out in the burbs where everyone has their own little house or townhouse and a little yard.
I still live in an apartment, and haven't had much reason to check up on any of this. Housing issues don't come up much in the bioethics, euthanasia and "end of life" debates I get involved in. Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Sheesh. Even the Navy takes into consideration any visitors to the ships that are disabled. They make every accomodation they can to help the person. Including a hydraulic lift so they don't need a ramp to get to the main deck.
I do believe there is a federal law that could be invoked on this too. I'm not to be quoted on that tho. I know in MI, thermostats (temperature control) are mandatory to be at a max of 4 feet high off the floor. This is to accomodate the disabled.
I hope the company has to pay out their yin yang for this one.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((sndrake )))
Unfortunatly, yes, the law does. I'm merely expressing my opinion that I wish it didn't.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Why the hell not? Are you a white potestant male with no disabilities and in good shape?
If so, perhaps you can use a little thing known as empathy?
Are you from the south?
Do you wish we still had Jim Crow laws?
Your stance boggles my mind.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
WTF did White, Protestant, or Male have to do with this?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I'm guessing it would be a catagoration or generalization. Too bad I meet two of them (not protestant). I am somewhat miffed that all white males are thought of that way.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Xavier )))
The vehemence of your reply is annoying.
I don't care about private people discriminating because it's none of my concern. They can be ba----s all they want. It isn't my job to police private activites. If I own a club it should be my right to let only those I like into it.
I'll quote something for you.
quote: Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
That's what we call the Bill of Rights.
What do you have against the south, btw?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Oh please Dag and Stan. I simply picked the only group who have never been discriminated against by vast numbers of people. I myself qualify for most of them.
And I have never been discriminated against.
But I still have enough empathy to realize that millions of people ARE discriminated against, and can't imagine someone who doesn't think thats something that should be against the law.
I certainly can't imagine someone who falls into any minority whatsoever having that stance.
[ March 21, 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Where in there does it say you can discriminate against disabled people?
Oh and I have nothing against the south, just thought maybe it would explain your stance.
I'll ask again, do you think that the Jim Crow laws were a good thing?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
So uh, where does the BOR say anything about discrimination? No one said anything against the south.
EDIT: Xavier beat me to it. And I do know and WORK with a black male who is racist. If you want to go further. A couple years ago in the NHL a black player was suspended for making racist comments to a Native American player.
[ March 21, 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Xavier )))
Okay.
Then you have socialist tendencies.
Let's say I call you a racial slur in my own house. What right does the government have to persecute me?
-
Let's say I throw a party. I don't let any blacks come. What right does the government have to persecute me? Don't I have the right to only let certain people into my house?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
No they don't. It's your house. That is not, in fact, against the law.
If you have a business though and don't let blacks inside, then yes, the government does have the right to arrest you.
Thats one law I have never actually heard anyone oppose. This is actually quite enlightening.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Just because you don't invite any blacks to your house does not make you racist. Maybe you don't know any black people (hypothetically, 'cause I don't know you). For BUSINESS equal rights is a huge issue. This is a lot different than your own house.
EDIT: Xavier for being able to type faster. Maybe I'll go to jinx mode....
[ March 21, 2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Xavier
You should visit Boston, New York, or Chicago sometime if you think racism is restricted to the south. Obviously, the south has a much more potent history with racism, but don't pretend it's somehow unique there.
No matter how you slice this situation, a law prohibiting what they're doing is an infringement on the property rights of the condo owners. I happen to think it's a justified intrusion on their property rights. Phantos evidently disagrees. But his position is still based on his interpretation of an important individual right and it's relative weight compared to other important rights.
Discussion like these would be a lot more productive if people would at least try to acknowledge that people on the other side aren't ogres.
Dagonee
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Xavier )))
The right?
It's my business. I own it. It's my product I'm selling.
Since it's my property, I should have control over it and who is allowed onto it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you have a business though and don't let blacks inside, then yes, the government does have the right to arrest you.
At least get your facts right. This would be a civil case and involve civil penalties, not criminal. It does make a difference.
And a condo is not a business. It is an association of individual property owners who own the common areas of a shared building for maintenance, liability, etc.
Again, to be clear, I totally oppose the condo association in this and hope they get theirs in court. But understanding the underlying situation is important whenever the coercive power of the state is brought to bear.
Dagonee
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: You should visit Boston, New York, or Chicago sometime if you think racism is restricted to the south. Obviously, the south has a much more potent history with racism, but don't pretend it's somehow unique there.
Did I ever say that?
No, I just have lived in NY, and now California, and I know that while there are plenty of racists. A lot of people in the south however, feel their racism is perfectly socially acceptable. The ones I know in NY though seem to realize that it isn't considered okay to be that way in modern society. And NONE of them have admitted to wanting to go back to segregation.
And yeah, duh, not arrested. I made a mistake .
Why the hostility?
[ March 21, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
So if private institutions are allowed to discriminate in your view, does that mean that you favor the government providing housing for everyone? Or what do you think Equal Opportunity Housing means? P.S. By "you" I guess I'm addressing Phanto
[ March 21, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Discussion like these would be a lot more productive if people would at least try to acknowledge that people on the other side aren't ogres.
It might also help to refrain from using "hugs" in a way that comes across as sarcastic.
I'm not in a good position to look at the history of the Fair Housing Act and how this got to be law (with disability being a late addition).
I do know it doesn't apply to every bit of housing. For example, best as I recall, you can discriminate as much as you want if you're renting out an apartment in a small building you own that you also live in. But I don't remember what the cut-off for the number of units was.
[ March 21, 2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Trisha the Severe Hottie )))
Thank you, Dagonee.
quote: So if private institutions are allowed to discriminate in your view, does that mean that you favor the government providing housing for everyone? Or what do you think Equal Opportunity Housing means? P.S. By "you" I guess I'm addressing Phanto
This does make a little sense, I'll admit. But it doesn't make enough sense.
Explain, please.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
sndrake, I just don't notice Phantos's hugs anymore, so that didn't even occur to me.
Forgetting the law for a minute, this is just an affront to common decency. I'd hope this never gets to court, but I'm not hopeful.
Dagonee
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Dagonee )))
And, everyone, please remember my legal views are not my personal views. I agree it's indecent and rude.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Despite (or perhaps because of) my post above, count me in with the defenders of private property. Someday* I'd like to own a brewpub where no blondes are allowed, and I will object highly to any attempted government intervention. If you don't like it, feel free to take out ads bashing my institution for being hairist -- in other words, exercise your freedom of speech instead of restricting my freedom of association and enterprise.
*tongue, meet cheek
Besides, if anyone thinks that laws can eradicate [identifier]ist tendencies, you've clearly never studied demographics. There's a reason politicians are able to manufacture results by micromanaging which side of the street they draw from.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Xavier,
If I seem hostile it's because you injected a lot of stereotypical, offensive remarks into the discussion.
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Dag,
I hope this doesn't get to court, either. When I talked to Max (the lawyer), I didn't even bother to ask him about the idea of settling - it's none of my business until it's public.
But I have a strong hunch the Condo lawyers will be urging their clients to go for an early settlement. I think that would be best for everyone. But I don't have all the information and it's not my call.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, I overlooked this one - I think it was added in the edit.
quote:I certainly can't imagine someone who falls into any minority whatsoever having that stance.
You need to meet more minorities.
Dagonee
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I am going to jump out of this while I can. However, I will leave some links that might help. This stuff is quite large so...... here: ADA lots of other stuff Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Explain... well, this is one of those ideas that I didn't know I had until it came up. One of the benefits of Hatrack.
Okay, if you are a laissez faire type (and here I'm not using a Phanto specific "you", just any conservative who gets nauseated by lawsuits over rights violations) and you don't like government interference, you should do the same. You should not interfere with your tenants by dictating what they can and cannot do on your property. If you are a laissez faire conservative. (apologies if I mis-spelled that, I'm not a french guru).
If they can pay their rent and not damage the place, you don't bother them. If you don't like the type of tenants you are getting, your only recourse is to raise the rent. If damage occurs, you put up a video camera so it's easy to prove who did it, and you charge them for each occurence.
The fear, and the probable reality (edit: from the condo board's messed up point of view), is not that the wheelchair will damage the entrance, but that the apartment building will be perceived as an invalid care center.
By the way, I'm informed that EOH is kind of a joke in Chicago. The work very hard to keep folks with their own kind. I guess all the realtors are in with the city and mafia etc.
[ March 21, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:You need to meet more minorities.
I have to agree strongly with this.
Instead of going into a litany of all the "isms" that different minorities can exhibit against one another, I'll use my own family history as an example.
Most of my father's side of the family is of Irish descent. So his grandparents came to America facing "no Irish need apply" signs in shop windows as well as rampant anti-Catholicism. Over the course of a couple generations, things got better for my father's family.
But...
I had relatives who served in the Fire Department at a time when it had racist hiring policies and they supported them. Other relatives quietly tolerated the fact that the places they worked and the places they shopped had significant barriers to blacks. This wasn't the South. It was Upstate New York. Right up through the mid-1960s.
For many of my relatives, being descendants of a group that had experienced oppression didn't sensitize them one bit to the plight of others in a similar situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I realize I (along with a few others) have derailed your thread somewhat. I think my righteous indignation at the condo board spilled over when I read Xavier's first post.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I guess when folks talk about Irish as minorities I can sort of see where talking about Asians as minorities bugs the "real" minorities. Though what really bugs me (as an Asian) is not that I've been de-minoritized, but that at the same time the minorities of homo/bi-sexual and Hispanic have been created. I'd be happy if there were a general move away from regarding folks as minorities. But it's more like we've been pushed off the lifeboat to let someone else on. Housing, by the way, is one area where I feel Asians and Jews are still targeted.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
*Sigh*
I wrote too fast. Obviously, in most places, Irish-Americans aren't thought of as minorities any more, by ourselves or anyone else. But we were at one time. I was just offering an example of how being from a group that experienced oppression does NOT mean one will be empathetic toward other groups being oppressed or discriminated against.
I feel like I am on solid ground when I use my own family as an example than when I say I have seen (fill in the blank) minority exhibit discrimination against (fill in the blank) minority.
And Dag,
Don't apologize for derailment - it's a natural, unpredictable, uncontrollable and inevitable phenomenon.
[ March 21, 2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yeah, sure.
I'll delete my posts if you guys want. I'm about as miserable right now as I have ever been, and couldn't think of a motivation for phanto that didn't involve him being racist or anti-something.
I realize that was stupid of me.
Whatever, I am no longer involved here. Maybe I will delete my posts anyway.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I want to stand up for the South vis a vis racism. The other parts of the country have never been less racist than the South. What they have had is fewer problems at a time when they had a lot less racial diversity. The civil rights movement in the South basically succeeded. Elsewhere in the country not so well.
Thank goodness Jim Crowe laws were defeated, thanks to Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP legal team, and to direct action campaigns from people like SNCC and the SCLC. Southern blacks were the ones who spearheaded these campaigns.
Every part of the country has well-educated well-brought-up people who are not racist, and every part of the country has some people who are ignorant and don't have the advantages of a good upbringing, too. I've noticed whenever there is a racial incident in the South, people in other parts of the country tend to say "that's the South for you" but when a racial incident happens in their home city, they don't then think "that's the Northeast (West Coast, Midwest, etc.) for you."
Two different black friends who have lived and travelled all over the U.S., when speaking candidly with me about racism, have told me their families experienced far less racism in the Southeast than in any other part of the country. African-Americans make up a substantial part of the population in the South, in both urban and rural areas. In other parts of the country this is much less true. It seems that African-Americans are more urban there.
I myself have seen the worst incidents of racism of my life in Michigan, both in Detroit and in smaller places like Grand Rapids. Second worst was Washington D.C. It definitely strikes me that Yankees are a lot more racist than Southerners. (The word "Yankee" is used in the Southeast to mean anyone from any other part of the country.)
A lady I know from California made comments about racism in the South during the Rodney King trial, for instance. When I mentioned Rodney King, she was quite surprised, as though that did not reflect on the level of racism in California. The Watts riots don't indicate racial problems in that area either, to her. The systematic racism which was shown to pervade the LAPD didn't either.
In a way, the false feeling of superiority that the rest of the country was able to hold toward the South helped a lot for the civil rights movement to succeed. It's much easier to see the true rights and wrongs of a situation which doesn't affect you. If only that same critical eye were then turned back towards home.
Sorry to derail this conversation about the rights of the disabled into talking about the South and racism. The rights of all minority groups in this country were helped tremendously by the civil rights movement, which set all the legal precedents. I see this as being part of the broader movement for human rights worldwide that is going on. For me, it's wider than human, in fact, I see quality of existence for all living beings as the issue at stake, but that's a different story.
[ March 21, 2004, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: aka ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:Okay, if you are a laissez faire type (and here I'm not using a Phanto specific "you", just any conservative who gets nauseated by lawsuits over rights violations) and you don't like government interference, you should do the same.
Can I get a "hell yeah?" So-called conservatives who want to dictate private lifestyles disgust me.
Thanks for your report, AK. I've heard similar stories from other well-traveled citizens, and while my own resident time outside the South wasn't too long, it's pretty clear how much more segregated blacks (among others, but especially) are into the worst conditions. Ethnic ghettos are a way of life in its big cities, encompassing both the charm of Little Italy and the hopelessness of Chicago's South Side.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
[rerail]
I've never owned a condo, but I've had many discussions with friends who do, and read the Real Estate section of the paper regularly. It's pretty clear that many (most?) condo associations are no longer dependent on and reporting back to the owners as once was the case. Many are effectively distinct entities, and many owners end up fighting the fines and rules they impose.
I don't have any idea whether it's true in this case, but it is all too possible that the majority of condo owners are against this rule. (Of course, with the Fair Housing Act, even if they're not, tough cookies. )
[/rerail]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Trisha the Severe Hottie )))
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your arguement seems to be the following:
Because government shouldn't interfere, neither should private property owners.
But that's kind of ignoring my entire point, which is private property owners should be free to be racist or hairist or whatever.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Phanto, I think we've decided in this country that businesses are NOT allowed to be overtly racist. I think it's a very good thing we did, too. I remember what this country was like when the laws didn't enforce equal treatment. Even now when they do, there is still a huge amount of racial discrimination in housing, bank loans, and many other areas. When they didn't, this country was a far worse place to live.
If you want to do business in our country, you have to treat people fairly. There's no way the law can enforce total fairness, but it can uphold that principle, and it can punish the worst offenders. I, for one, am quite glad of that. Going back to the bad old days is a very very bad idea.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Phantos, I think she's not necessarily saying private property owners shouldn't be allowed to do those things.
I think she's saying if someone really values the concept of "being left alone" then they should want to respect that right for others.
Dagonee
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Phanto, you've ignored everyone every single time they mention your use of surrounding the name of the person you are replying to in parentheses, but could you answer this one question? You do know that parentheses indicate hugs, right? Do you intend to hug everyone you reply to?
[ March 22, 2004, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Phanto:
(((sndrake )))
If this is a private institution (hard to tell from reading), then WTF? This lawsuit is groundless. If it's public, then it is worth looking into.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Whether or not there is a legal basis for an attack, I don't care. This is a private organization. Hence, I don't care how much they discriminate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(((sndrake )))
Unfortunatly, yes, the law does [require fair housing regulations]. I'm merely expressing my opinion that I wish it didn't.
quote:Xavier:
Why the hell not? Are you a white potestant male with no disabilities and in good shape?
If so, perhaps you can use a little thing known as empathy?
Are you from the south?
Do you wish we still had Jim Crow laws?
Your stance boggles my mind.
Javie's ill at the moment, so I'll try to clarify what I think he was trying to point out. Phanto doesn't believe housing regulations should exist if the apartment complexes, like most, are privately owned -- and he doesn't believe that discrimination against certain types of tenants should be prosecuted.
Javie's annoyed at this, so asks, essentially, if Phanto's ever been the subject of discrimination -- leaping to the probably correct conclusion that Phanto's a white heterosexual Protestant male.
I'm a fairly libertarian dude, so I'm not entirely in disagreement with Phanto -- however, I think raising the question of racism's a fairly valid debate tactic, given history's record of denying, on this related issue alone, equal housing rights to colored people. Phanto, be consistent -- if you think this apartment complex has the right to discriminate against the disabled, support their right to deny housing or equal access to colored people for no other reason than their unwanted appearance at the front door where others can see them. Which, presumably, is the sole reason this apartment complex has for denying the boy the right to enter through the front door, if there's no damage being done by his wheelchair.
Re: racism in the South, from what I've been able to tell, it's a hell of a lot more accepted down there than it is in the Yankee states. Politically speaking, Southern Republicans (and historically, Dixiecrats) are know for their nod-and-wink regarding racial issues, since it's no longer acceptable to be open about racism. Historically speaking, that acceptance has been crammed down the South's throat from the Civil War to the civil rights movement. Culturally speaking, the South's notoriety for being the richest breeding ground for the KKK and related movements isn't exactly a state secret. New York, Chicago, and Boston aren't without their own pet bigotries, but please don't claim the North and South are on anything near equal ground regarding bigotry.
I'm saying this from Los Angeles, where Whitey isn't exactly friendly to minorities, either. But I know of no open KKK cells, and the only open white supremacy I know of is found in neo-Nazi street gangs, which aren't exactly talked of with pride. For better or worse, rightly or wrongly, the South is the homeland of accepted white supremacy -- and denying the notorious white pride sentiment the South is, again, rightly or wrongly known for is to deny centuries of history and political movements affirming exactly that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:leaping to the probably correct conclusion that Phanto's a white heterosexual Protestant male.
Why is this probably the correct conclusion? Further, why should this matter?
Dagonee
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- leaping to the probably correct conclusion that Phanto's a white heterosexual Protestant male. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is this probably the correct conclusion? Further, why should this matter?
That's a probably correct conclusion because this is Hatrack, and I number among the two-and-a-half minority members we have here.
Also, to resort to stereotypes, Phanto's brand of liberatarianism/neo-conservatism is most often found, in my experience, among relatively affluent heterosexual white teenage male Christians. Of course, there are variations -- there's also the middle-aged variety, and I've found that some of the fiercest advocates of that position can be those who've worked their way to affluence from poverty, but Phanto's political views seem to match the general profile fairly well.
As far as how it matters? If Phanto has never been subject to discrimination, he probably has no understanding of its principles, which renders his dismissal of it to a poorly drawn caricature of a white boy in Utah telling black people to get over themselves. I'd be far more reassured of the validity of Phanto's political views if he were, say, a black woman in Arkansas. Or even, as you pointed out, a black woman anywhere in the country -- the South has no monopoly on bigotry.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Lalo)))
Lalo....
quote: Phanto, be consistent -- if you think this apartment complex has the right to discriminate against the disabled, support their right to deny housing or equal access to colored people for no other reason than their unwanted appearance at the front door where others can see them
Where have I been inconsistent? I agree with the part about unwanted apperance.
I don't really get what you're saying. Besides for your Ad Hominem (since you, based on the way you're posting, probably don't know what it means, http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) attack, do you have anything to say?
If so, state or restate it in a calm manner.
[ March 21, 2004, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's a cheap appeal to authority (or, I suppose, a denial of authority). It's not conducive to discussion and amounts to little better than rabble-rousing. There's lots of ways to refute Phantos's position. Name calling isn't the best way.
For that matter, neither are sweeping generalizations about a region of the country. Despite the fact that there's plenty of room for more progress, there have been a lot of changes since Jim Crow rode through the south. Further, if you take an average person who expresses the views Phantos does, I'd bet there's a better than even chance they're not from the South.
Basically it's cheap and mostly irrelevant, since it didn't serve to advance any reason for preferring one side of the argument or another. Unless you think, "He's white" is a valid reason to reject someone's arguments.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
(((Dag)))
And thats really, truly meant to be a hug.
(((aka)))
That one too.
Thanks for saying stuff that I wish I'd said, and saying them better than I could.
Racism is NOT socially accepted in the south. I live in a semi-rural county that votes 99% Republican, and is 98% white.
And racism is not accepted nor tolerated around here.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Lalo, I probably am also affected by the syndrome that bad things that happen in my home are not indicative of a general climate or disposition in the bad direction, yet I am quoting black friends.
The family who lived next door to me had lived in Tennessee, Detroit, Los Angeles, a small town in California, and somewhere in the Northeast, I think. The mom was a doctor, and had been to undergraduate and medical school in different parts of the country, too. They were very sure that the Southeast was the least racist part of the country.
Another friend, an engineer I worked with, who was very candid about race, telling me about his uncle having been lynched and left for dead when he was a child, and so on, grew up in Virginia and had traveled all over the country. His family had been well off for several generations, owners of a funeral home with mostly African American customers. His two brothers had gone to schools in the Northeast, and he had traveled all over because of his job. He also said there was no question that the Southeast was by far the most advanced part of the country as regards to racism.
Our city government is mostly African Americans. We are home of the Civil Rights Institute, a foundation for remembering the civil rights movement and promoting human rights worldwide. Civil rights historical sites in the area are major tourist draws, and local businesses are proud of that and help to promote it. I wish I could say there was no racism here. That's certainly not true. But I do believe it is the least racist part of the country, and for that I am glad. Why not visit before you decide?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I second Belle's kudos to Dagonee and aka.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
The interesting thing about disability discrimination is it there is absolutely no geographical centers - either now or historically.
It cuts across all kinds of political, religious and cultural boundaries as well. Although the forms of the discrimination can vary from group to group.
It's fascinating, actually, the way the Americans with Disabilities Act has played out politically. Some of the architects and promoters were closely tied to the Reagan administration. (One of the many paradoxes of that era)
Makes you wonder if the Gipper knew what his underlings were doing when they started pushing this. (Note - over the years, Republican enthusiasm for the ADA waned, except for some of the people I've alluded to and the task of championing it fell to Democrats. But it really DID start with Reagan's people.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Some observations:
1) The South is not nearly as racist-oriented as people in the North & West think it is.
2) The only people I ever hear using racial epithets when I travel around this fair land of ours seem to come mostly from Upstate NY and Ohio. I don't know why that should be the case, but it is nonetheless true based on my experience. Go figure.
3) Rules for rental units are different from rules for property sales. Discrimination in selling a property (which is what applies to condos) is against the law for the very good reason that such discrimination invariably leads to exclusion of people based on race, religion, disability and a few other things that we as a society have said we will not tolerate. Basically, if someone has the money to buy a place at your asking price, you either sell it to them or take it off the market for a suitably long period of time to avoid the obvious conclusions of biased selling practices. And even then, you might still get sued.
Renting is different because of the clause that Stephen mentioned regarding owner-occupied small buildings. Basically, an owner occupant of such a property can legally decide not to rent to someone and even to kick existing tenants out without running afoul of federal law. It just doesn't apply to small properties. State laws may, however, regulate such things.
4) Now...here's the real question...what's the right thing to do? A condo board does not OWN any more of the building than anyone else. They are simply serving a term as a sort of board of directors of the cooperative that owns the exterior walls (each owner has a share of the structure as well as ownership of their own interior space). These people often go power mad. I call them condo commandoes and not without reason.
But...they do not have the right to violate the law. And they often don't know this, or know the applicable laws.
Many condo boards don't have ongoing access to lawyers for advice. They might have a lawyer they use when necessary, but rarely would they have one on retainer so that they can just run things by them.
So, basically, what we have is a corporation run by amateurs who don't know their @ss from their elbow, but feel empowered to make ANY decision that comes their way. No need to consult the other owners or seek legal counsel.
This is why I hope never to live in a condo again. Being part of a home owner's association is bad enough, sometimes. But a necessary evil in a world where people lack the common sense necessary to maintain the value of their own property (and thus affecting the value of other people's property in the vicinity).
What should happen in this case? The board should be voted out immediately through an impeachment process. An apology should be written to this kid and his family, and they should be begged to drop their lawsuit and to use the front entrance henceforth.
What is likely to happen? The condo association will pay out a huge sum of money as a penalty for this one woman's arrogant behavior and THEN she will be voted out.
Stupid. A waste.
And all because people don't get involved and let others do their talking for them.
Heck, this family could end up owning the building (through a lein) by the time all is said and done.
Ironically, the fine will be paid for through a special assessment on ALL the owners, so the family that started the lawsuit will end up paying into the fund that pays them for this.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Phanto, be consistent -- if you think this apartment complex has the right to discriminate against the disabled, support their right to deny housing or equal access to colored people for no other reason than their unwanted appearance at the front door where others can see them
Where have I been inconsistent? I agree with the part about unwanted apperance.
Read more carefully, dude. I didn't accuse you of consistency, only asked you to remain consistent by supporting other discriminatory policies the Homeowner's Association may put out.
quote:I don't really get what you're saying. Besides for your Ad Hominem (since you, based on the way you're posting, probably don't know what it means, attack, do you have anything to say?
If so, state or restate it in a calm manner.
While I'm charmed by the hypocrisy in that post, dude, would you mind pointing out an ad hominem attack I made?
quote:It's a cheap appeal to authority (or, I suppose, a denial of authority). It's not conducive to discussion and amounts to little better than rabble-rousing. There's lots of ways to refute Phantos's position. Name calling isn't the best way.
For that matter, neither are sweeping generalizations about a region of the country. Despite the fact that there's plenty of room for more progress, there have been a lot of changes since Jim Crow rode through the south. Further, if you take an average person who expresses the views Phantos does, I'd bet there's a better than even chance they're not from the South.
Basically it's cheap and mostly irrelevant, since it didn't serve to advance any reason for preferring one side of the argument or another. Unless you think, "He's white" is a valid reason to reject someone's arguments.
Dag, methinks you may have misunderstood Javie's point. I don't think he meant to call Phanto names, only point out that Phanto may not understand discrimination, having probably never suffered from it.
What authority did Javie appeal to or deny? While I wouldn't have made it the thrust of my argument to point out Phanto probably has little comprehension of the mechanics of bigotry, it's a legitimate point and worthy of mention -- I fail to see the rabble Javie roused by pointing out Phanto's probable inexperience.
As far as your second paragraph goes, nobody's denying that the South hasn't had some major reform. And with today's largely homogenized America, I wouldn't be too surprised if the racial stereotypes held by today's youth in Georgia aren't very different from the racial stereotypes held by today's youth in New York, given the lack of variety in mass media. No doubt the South is heading toward a brighter future than its long past would suggest, and you'll find no greater celebrant of that than me.
Phanto's views aren't as bigoted as they are free-market, and that's certainly not necessarily a stereotype of the South. You're debating a point I never made.
And again, pointing out Phanto's inexperience with discrimination isn't necessarily a bad point to make, though I'd make it supplementary to the many arguments that you pointed out already exist to refute Phanto's position. And if Phil weren't sick as a dog, I'm sure he would have gone into greater depth -- as it is, I hope I've served to make his point clearer.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Lalo, I probably am also affected by the syndrome that bad things that happen in my home are not indicative of a general climate or disposition in the bad direction, yet I am quoting black friends.
The family who lived next door to me had lived in Tennessee, Detroit, Los Angeles, a small town in California, and somewhere in the Northeast, I think. The mom was a doctor, and had been to undergraduate and medical school in different parts of the country, too. They were very sure that the Southeast was the least racist part of the country.
Another friend, an engineer I worked with, who was very candid about race, telling me about his uncle having been lynched and left for dead when he was a child, and so on, grew up in Virginia and had traveled all over the country. His family had been well off for several generations, owners of a funeral home with mostly African American customers. His two brothers had gone to schools in the Northeast, and he had traveled all over because of his job. He also said there was no question that the Southeast was by far the most advanced part of the country as regards to racism.
Our city government is mostly African Americans. We are home of the Civil Rights Institute, a foundation for remembering the civil rights movement and promoting human rights worldwide. Civil rights historical sites in the area are major tourist draws, and local businesses are proud of that and help to promote it. I wish I could say there was no racism here. That's certainly not true. But I do believe it is the least racist part of the country, and for that I am glad. Why not visit before you decide?
Anne Kate, while I'm sure these are all worthy people, your evidence seems to be anecdotal and circumstantial. I can match you anecdote for anecdote, starting with my own father's experiences in the Deep South, without proving anything. As far as the existence of the Civil Rights Institute in the South, it's based there precisely because that's where the civil rights marches took place -- and the marches took place in the South precisely because the South has no long history of being tolerant of other races, creeds, or sexualities. It's rather as though you're pointing at a war memorial in Korea as evidence of how peaceful the region is.
That said, I have no doubt that great strides have been and are being made in the South toward equality, and that soon nobody will question the validity of interracial or homosexual marriages anywhere in the country. However, I'm not going to pretend the South's dominant white class has ever championed the cause of civil rights for any minority I know of, and I think anyone who tries to paint the South's history as anything else does the region a great disservice.
As far as visiting goes, I may very well do exactly that -- I'm considering an extension of my national bike tour to include the entire nation. Your place is a definite stop, though the extension is pretty indefinite in and of itself. Dag's place can play host to some Coronas and a tired Mexican, too, if he's willing -- where are you in the country, dude?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Lalo )))
I'm surprised at your posting. It's quite vicious. Please be calmer.
quote: Read more carefully, dude. I didn't accuse you of consistency, only asked you to remain consistent by supporting other discriminatory policies the Homeowner's Association may put out.
Oh, I'm sorry. I somehow misread your statement telling me to be consistent as being reproach.
Ad hominem
quote: If Phanto has never been subject to discrimination, he probably has no understanding of its principles, which renders his dismissal of it to a poorly drawn caricature of a white boy in Utah telling black people to get over themselves. I'd be far more reassured of the validity of Phanto's political views if he were, say, a black woman in Arkansas. Or even, as you pointed out, a black woman anywhere in the country -- the South has no monopoly on bigotry.
quote: Javie's annoyed at this, so asks, essentially, if Phanto's ever been the subject of discrimination -- leaping to the probably correct conclusion that Phanto's a white heterosexual Protestant male.
Phanto holds view A. Phanto holding view A means he or she is a white heterosexual Protestant male. Phanto since Phanto is a white heterosexual Protestant male he or she has no right to hold view A. View A is invalid
I'll repeat myself.
I hold view A, which has alreay been explained.
Could you in point by point form, the simpler the better as I am an idiotic person, expound on your arguements?
Thank you.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
You know, I find this bizarre:
quote:Later that night, Stollberg told the Trujillos that the association's rules required furniture, strollers and wheelchairs be moved through the rear service entrance, the suit says.
Really? As in, a parent pushing a baby in a stroller would be required to use the rear entrance? Hardly believable.
And "persons in strollers and wheelchairs" does not equal "strollers and wheelchairs."
I'm also puzzled by the lack of foresight, all issues of fairness aside. Any damage to a building which could be done by someone in a wheelchair couldn't compare to the damage that could be done to someone in a wheelchair by going through an entrance obviously not designed or maintained for personal use. From a purely financiolegal standpoint, this makes no sense.
The condo association assumes much more risk with the course that it insisted on.
Could it really be so simple (and so blatant) as that the association -- or at least, certain members of it -- just did not want to have to view someone with a disability?
[ March 21, 2004, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Alright, Lalo - I'll chalk this up to mutual misunderstanding between Xavier and me. I still think the ploy would be more effective by listing and defining the harms of private discrimination and explaining why they warrant an intrusion on the property right. Neither case is hard to make and neither alienates the potential convert.
I'm in Virginia - Charlottesville during the school year and DC suburbs during breaks. Weekends are a tossup. If you make it here, be sure to give me warning so I can be in a specific place at a specific time. First half of August I'll be on my honeymoon, so you're on your own then.
Coronas are on me.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Could it really be so simply (and so blatant) as that the association -- or at least, certain members -- did not want to have to view someone with a diability?
I'm doing everything I can to believe this isn't the case. I'm failing miserably.
I'm consoling myself with the hope that this is a petty official run amok and that the condo association would do something to stop this if they were fully aware.
Dagonee
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Wow, Dag. That's incredible. I mean, really incredible.
(I'm still stuck with the image of this child ripping out chunks of the supporting walls with his bare hands as he enters the doorway. )
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Trying to beleive the best in people is...trying sometimes.
Edit: And the damage is probably scuff marks on the floor or something else that could be solved with a $70 mat.
[ March 21, 2004, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I really, really want to know if the regulation to use the service entrance for strollers was enforced. I bet not.
I'd love to see some videotape of the lack of that enforcement presented at trial, though I suppose the suggestion is now moot.
[ March 21, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yeah. Scuff marks, or a chip off a corner, or handprints on glass is all I can come up with. Surely they would realize that it is not in their best interest to encourage anyone to routinely use a service entrance unnecessarily. I mean, those sites just aren't designed for pedestrian use, and any barriers (spills, snow, whatnot) will not come to the attention of maintenance crews as quickly.
Absofrequinlutely bizzare. I'd expect the young man to be denied the use of the service entrance if he were able to use the front door.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm taking advocacy right now, and we're concentrating mostly on civil cases. I'd love to cross-examine whoever made this decision on the stand.
I'd put a PI with a videocamera on the door and ask her each and every time a stroller comes through, "Did you fine this person $50?"
Repitition. A trial lawyer's friend. As you might be able to glean from my posts in the more lively topics, I'm a bit better at cross-ex than I am at direct...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And the potential liability at a service entrance seems frightening to me.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I know, Dagonee. Of course, there are a thousand reasons why this is a stupid decision, but ... why would you make your association assume so much greater risk?
It is wrong on so many levels. Arrrgh.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Give 'em heck, Dagonee. Be very, very good at what you do, and give 'em heck.)
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I'm betting this is, in fact, against the law - but I definitely don't think it should be.
Private individuals and business should have the right to discriminate against whoever they want for whatever reason they feel like. That's their right, as an individual, or privately owned organization. If I invite Joe over to dinner, but not Steve, I think it would be outrageous if the government told me I was unfairly discriminating against Steve - and forced me to invite everyone to dinner, just to be fair. It's my right to select who I do and do not want to deal with, associate with, and work with, and I don't see why it should be any different for private businesses.
I'm sure it would be nice if we could FORCE everyone to be fair and equal towards everyone else, but in America we have committed ourselves to freedom and individual rights. We believe in the right to be mean, or selfish, or cruel. We believe that people can do all sorts of things privately, ranging from watching porn in one's living room, to being gay, to having whatever religion you want, to painting your house bright orange. We believe that, although it would be nice to force people to be "good", to do so would be tyranny. Don't we?
As much as I'd like to promote fairness and equality, we can only go as far as the government has a RIGHT to go. And it has no right to tell private condo owners what entrance to allow residents to use.
I must add, though, that only an absurdly stupid condo owner cares more about the damage done to its entrance by a wheelchair than it does about the damage done to i's reputation by denying access to the handicapped. The government should not need to step in here. The invisible hand should do well enough by itself.
[ March 21, 2004, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Xas, there's probably a property claim to be made on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case. They own the common areas as much as any other owner. It's not always majority rule in these cases if the rules unfairly burden one owner. Enforcing rules arbitrarily (strollers being allowed in, etc.) would greatly weaken their claim.
There's also a guaranteed entrance/egress argument to be made - if the service entrance can be shown to be dangerous or inappropriate this claim might work as well.
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Dag and Xap,
It's not at all clear the Condo is making a defense right now. I need to check with Max on a couple of things.
One thing he told me about the court arguments is that the lawyers for the condo tried to claim the letter didn't really say that the kid couldn't use the front entrance.
In fact, that is exactly what the letter says. But, as I heard a legal instructor say once (proudly) he had students "who could find ambiguity in a 'no smoking' sign." That's part of what lawyers do.
A good clear sign that they don't have a defense is the refusal to talk to a reporter. No official statement. I think this caught the legal reps of whoever the owners are and they're trying to figure out how to minimize the damage.
I'll let people know how this develops. I don't think this will be one of those cases that takes months or years to come to a conclusion.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Anyone else feel the need to give Phanto a screaming wedgie?
Maybe he'll try to hug me now and it'll put me prime wedgie-distributing position.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
A few things I'd wonder about: 1- Many commercial mortgage loans to businesses have some kind of equal opportunity clause. It may be worth a look to see if the mortgage of the condo complex owners contains such a clause.
2- If they're worried about damage to the entrance, are they also limiting the tenents footwear to soft,white-soled shoes?
3- Is there a homeowners association and what is their stance on wheelchairs and strollers? Typically, it's the homeowners association that negotiates with the property managers to decide what is common area maintenance to be divided equally between all tenents and what is an expense that will be paid by other means.
[ March 22, 2004, 04:53 AM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
So, if a black doctor walked into your mini-mart with a wallet full of credit cards that could buy your business 16 times over to buy some twinkies, and you don't sell them to him because you think that all black people are out to rob you or something, that's okay simply because you own your store? If it is, I'm effing moving to Canada.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So, if a black doctor walked into your mini-mart with a wallet full of credit cards that could buy your business 16 times over to buy some twinkies, and you don't sell them to him because you think that all black people are out to rob you or something, that's okay simply because you own your store?
Yes, or at least it should be. Why should the owner not have the right to refuse to do business with whoever he wants?
It's no different from trying to fine or punish Joe Smo for being a racist jerk. It'd be helpful to everyone if he did not act racist, but he's entitled to act as he wishes in his private life. That's freedom.
[ March 22, 2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Hey, Primal, welcome to Canada.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
You'll have trouble competing for women with the natives, dude. I hear they're all hung like Canadians.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
((Phanto)) Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Mack!!!
LOL
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not to derail the thread more than is socially acceptable, but everything I would say has been said, and I'm fascinated by the following comment:
quote: I number among the two-and-a-half minority members we have here.
Two and a half? Who are they? Does that mean being Jewish, being gay, and being Mormon don't count as minority? Is it all about context? If it refers to physial disability, I'll bet there's more here than we know. This also means you can't count Asians as a minority, because I KNOW there are more than two and a half here.
So, how are you counting? I'm not arguing with you on it - I want to know your methodology. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Is it similarly ok for the Black Doctor to refuse to cure the racist owner, just because he's white?
Of course, there are plenty of ways to make this Condo COmpany retract their stupid policy.
1) Sue for breach of contract. The condo contract says that the wheel chair bound boy must travel in and out via the back door. HOwever, the back door is not serviceable for this, since it is too small. The Condo owners are in breach of their contract, and since they continue to accept payments from this family, they are guilty of fraud.
2) Advertise all over the place that this condo is anti-disabled, and dangerous to sick children.
3) If all wheeled traffic must go through the back entrance, then medical gurneys must as well. This is dangerous if there is an emergency in the building. As such, it does not meet health codes.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Does that mean being Jewish, being gay, and being Mormon don't count as minority?
I'd contend that I'm in the minority in this thread - in the way that most matters here.
quote:Is it similarly ok for the Black Doctor to refuse to cure the racist owner, just because he's white?
Yes, why not? If it's his private practice, he can treat who he wants to treat.
[ March 22, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In these arguments, terminology is very important. "OK" can imply "morally right" or "legally acceptable," which are very different statements.
I assume Xas means "legally acceptable" in his post.
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Unfortuantely Tres, in real life it doesn't work that way. People, here in the US have bled to death on the street while onlookers simply stood by and watched because it wasn't "their problem". Now if you have any sort of emergency medical training, and are in the crowd watching, and they find out about it, you can be prosecuted if you didn't help the victim.
White doctors did stuff like this in ERs for years, to black patients. It isn't pretty but it happens. Even if a patient is brought to a private practice in distress rather than an ER the doctor still has a duty to save life, regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation etc.
Maybe it is different when someone you know and love could be directly affected by such things. But I have occasionally seen the odd looks that Steve and I are given when walking into predominately white establishments. Steve isn't even obviously black, a lot of people actually guess he is Arabic, which means that he occasionally recieves anti-Arab discrimination instead. It doesn't matter which kind of discrimination it is, it is just plain wrong. (Wrong morally speaking, I mean, but I'm certainly glad it is mostly legally wrong as well.)
AJ
[ March 22, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Unfortuantely Tres, in real life it doesn't work that way. People, here in the US have bled to death on the street while onlookers simply stood by and watched because it wasn't "their problem". Now if you have any sort of emergency medical training, and are in the crowd watching, and they find out about it, you can be prosecuted if you didn't help the victim.
I am aware that in real life we have a lot of laws that aren't fair. Freedom is easily infringed upon by governments - it always has been to the best of my knowledge, because people consistently want to legally enforce their morals on others without regard for their rights.
Having said that, are you talking about an emergency life-threatening situation or a doctor just treating someone in the normal course of business? They are very different. A doctor is much more entitled to refuse treatment of someone in the case of an everyday check-up than they are in a sudden emergency.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tres, someone who refuses a patient for racial reasons under normal circumstances, isn't likely to treat them in an emergency either. It's human nature, unfortunately.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I realized that I have an internal paradox here.
Because in general I'm not for the government "legislating morality". Yet, at the same time if people aren't willing to behave decently and fairly on their own, what option do you have? Sometimes the stick is the only option if any sort of carrot of a good or clear conscience is ignored.
AJ
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Sheesh.
Take a simple issue like discrimination and y'all run wild with it.
Was thinking of posting this on the "what is a minority?" thread, but decided it fits better here.
Dag and others wanting to dig into something thoughtful from a legal scholar on these matters, I really recommend Making all the Difference - Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law by Martha Minow.
In the introduction to the book, she shares this from Holly Near and Adrian Torf:
quote: "Unity" One man fights the KKK But he hates the queers One woman fights for ecology It's equal rights she fears; Some folks know that war is hell But they put down the blind. I think there must be a common ground But it's mighty hard to find.
(Have undoubtedly unmasked myself as a fan of "A Mighty Wind.")
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Xavier for being able to type faster. Maybe I'll go to jinx mode....![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)