I'll try and find the link latter but I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard a news blimp about a man who is sueing McDonald's for discrimination. This particular suit is by a blind man who is arguing that mcdonalds only having their drive thru open late is discriminating against blind people and other people who can't drive and have access to their drive thru during late hours. Now before we all ridicule the man he has a point, he is being denied access to a product based on his disability. Anyone that has any business experience understands why mcdonalds would limit access during later hours for safety and cost control but in doing so they are discriminating or excluding some people access.
I just thought this really illustrates the problem with discrimination laws, heres a company attempting to provide extended services but because they can't provide them to everyone they are technically commiting discrimination.
No it's not the same as the discrimination problems we had in the 60s but why is one form of discrimination legal or ok and another not? Is the minority being discriminated against so small that it should be ignored? Or should we accept that private business has the right to select who they will serve and when they will serve?
Ultimately the question is who controls how businesses is conducted the owners or the state?
I guess you have to draw the line somewhere.
Technically speaking I could sue McDonald's if I don't have a license or car and can't utilize their late night drive thru like the man above.
I think the ultimate question is:
Are they being denied access/service because of a disability/race/sexual orientation OR are they reasonably accommodated?
For example a blind person could reasonably get a ride in a taxi or from a friend, in order to go through the drive thru. There's also Uber I think.
I am not sure of the specific reason but I assume McDonalds does not service "walk up" orders for safety reasons.
McDonald's is inadvertently doing the blind man a favor.
You answered your own question. No, it's not the same. People just need to use their brain and logic to understand that this is not ACTUAL discrimination.
This is similar to the argument that "no shoes, no service" is discrimination and is allowed, therefore if somebody wants to serve only white people, it should also be allowed.
A solution would be to add a walk-up window for after-hours service, but the demand is likely not there to justify the expense. I experienced first hand the inconvenience of poor access to many establishments prior to the ADA, but if it was discrimination I always found it to be passive, and never encountered a situation where service was outright refused. I just rode up to a drive-in window in my chair if the entrance was inaccessible, and if I met resistance asked them to show me where it specifically restricts it to cars.
Nobody welcomed the ADA more than me, but I recognize the hardship it placed on small businesses, especially when they perceive it to be for the benefit of so few potential new customers.
Quote:You answered your own question. No, it's not the same. People just need to use their brain and logic to understand that this is not ACTUAL discrimination.
This is similar to the argument that "no shoes, no service" is discrimination and is allowed, therefore if somebody wants to serve only white people, it should also be allowed.
So who defines what's actual discrimination, you, me, the state?
If the purpose of discrimination laws is to make sure everyone has equally access why is this not actual discrimination?
Quote:I guess you have to draw the line somewhere.
Technically speaking I could sue McDonald's if I don't have a license or car and can't utilize their late night drive thru like the man above.
Agreed only having a late night drive thru discrinates against anyone not driving a vehicle for whatever reason, does the make it wrong?
Almost everyone would agree that discriminating on race or gender or even sexual orientation is wrong, but I'm trying to illustrate the problem with having the state deciede these matters.
Quote:A solution would be to add a walk-up window for after-hours service, but the demand is likely not there to justify the expense. I experienced first hand the inconvenience of poor access to many establishments prior to the ADA, but if it was discrimination I always found it to be passive, and never encountered a situation where service was outright refused. I just rode up to a drive-in window in my chair if the entrance was inaccessible, and if I met resistance asked them to show me where it specifically restricts it to cars.
Nobody welcomed the ADA more than me, but I recognize the hardship it placed on small businesses, especially when they perceive it to be for the benefit of so few potential new customers.
Like you said the demand probably isn't there for a walk up window but should we force McDonald's to build these walk up windows at their own cost in order to prevent discrimination?
Quote:I think the ultimate question is:
Are they being denied access/service because of a disability/race/sexual orientation OR are they reasonably accommodated?
For example a blind person could reasonably get a ride in a taxi or from a friend, in order to go through the drive thru. There's also Uber I think.
Fair point on the reasonably accommodated but it's subjective for sure. Perhaps the blind man has no friends to take him, why should he have to pay a higher cost than me or you for the same service?
Quote:Fair point on the reasonably accommodated but it's subjective for sure. Perhaps the blind man has no friends to take him, why should he have to pay a higher cost than me or you for the same service?
He's not paying a higher cost for the same service. He's paying for a different service altogether. If I live 5 miles from the nearest McDonalds my trip costs more than the guy who lives 3 miles from the nearest McDonalds.
Quote:Like you said the demand probably isn't there for a walk up window but should we force McDonald's to build these walk up windows at their own cost in order to prevent discrimination?
I don't think so, but then I've benefited from modifications forced upon businesses so I feel hypocritical without knowledge of the blind person's experience.
if true, sounds like he's just looking for a payday and has a half [BLEEP] excuse. Piss poor excuse in my opinion. No rational person, blind or not, should get that all up in arms about something so stupid and petty. You can't drive so you sue over being a jack [BLEEP] and wondering why the drive thru won't serve a walk up? Why stop there? Sue Ford next for not providing you an option for a self driving car.
Quote:Agreed only having a late night drive thru discrinates against anyone not driving a vehicle for whatever reason, does the make it wrong?
Almost everyone would agree that discriminating on race or gender or even sexual orientation is wrong, but I'm trying to illustrate the problem with having the state deciede these matters.
I totally understand and get what you are saying. Another question to ask is "what is the definition of so-called 'hate speech'"? Is it because it "offends" someone?
Quote:So who defines what's actual discrimination, you, me, the state?
If the purpose of discrimination laws is to make sure everyone has equally access why is this not actual discrimination?
So this isn't different? I'm confused. You said this is obviously different than discriminating based on race, but then ask me why it's different. You tell me since you agree it's clearly different.
The question should not be: what's the problem with discrimination laws? The question should be: why do we have discrimination laws? There is a reason.
Quote:So this isn't different? I'm confused. You said this is obviously different than discriminating based on race, but then ask me why it's different. You tell me since you agree it's clearly different.
The question should not be: what's the problem with discrimination laws? The question should be: why do we have discrimination laws? There is a reason.
You said it wasn't ACTUAL discrimination. I'm saying it is discrimination the man can't put on a pair of eyes and all of the sudden have access to the drive-thru. On the surface it's absolutely ridiculous he's suing McDonald's over this I agree, but when we've established as a society that inclusion is going to be mandatory then why do we all find it ridiculous this man wants inclusion?
someone early said this is like the no shirt, no shoes situation where he can still be reasonably accommodated, but I thought about it more and the no shirt no shoes isn't the same. Anyone can put on a pair of shoes or a shirt and get service, this man can't put on a pair of eyes. Because of his disability he's excluded, that's discrimination.
My point isn't to argue that McDonald's should be forced to do something about this, my point is that attempting to correct discrimination at the state level leads to all kinds of problems. It's just an illustration of why I'm against "discrimination laws" not because I support discrimination, but because it's a private property rights issue.
Quote:I don't think so, but then I've benefited from modifications forced upon businesses so I feel hypocritical without knowledge of the blind person's experience.
No reason to feel hypocritical, we've all benefited from various laws that we might or might not agree with. Heck I benefit every day from the use of eminent domain to build our highway system doesn't mean I can't argue against using it in the future.
Quote:You said it wasn't ACTUAL discrimination. I'm saying it is discrimination the man can't put on a pair of eyes and all of the sudden have access to the drive-thru. On the surface it's absolutely ridiculous he's suing McDonald's over this I agree, but when we've established as a society that inclusion is going to be mandatory then why do we all find it ridiculous this man wants inclusion?
someone early said this is like the no shirt, no shoes situation where he can still be reasonably accommodated, but I thought about it more and the no shirt no shoes isn't the same. Anyone can put on a pair of shoes or a shirt and get service, this man can't put on a pair of eyes. Because of his disability he's excluded, that's discrimination.
My point isn't to argue that McDonald's should be forced to do something about this, my point is that attempting to correct discrimination at the state level leads to all kinds of problems. It's just an illustration of why I'm against "discrimination laws" not because I support discrimination, but because it's a private property rights issue.
Once the Crusades begin there's always another one just over the horizon.