I shot a bit of coffee out of my nose when I read this yesterday morning. It hurt!

> I am not saying people should be “locked up” or “have their freedom taken away” to punish them. I’m saying that people as severely mentally ill as some of these people claim to be would simply not be able to function.

Ah, so you want to do it for compassionate reasons. I am sure they will appreciate that. Sorry, but that statement was over the top. There is a middle ground.

> Let me guess. You’re a disability activist, right?

No, just a guy who has disabilities and faced discrimination.

And maybe you didn’t mean to imply that the ADA shouldn’t be in place, but you kind of did, and I get that vibe from a lot of people on this site. The truth is EVERY LAW is abused. But too many people single out the ADA’s abuses, even though there is no evidence that it is uniquely given to abuse, in a clear attempt to say it shouldn’t exist at all. And yeah, that notion offends me to the core.

But that being said, if you didn’t mean to imply that then you didn’t deserve that textual tongue lashing and I apologize.

@David Schwartz-
That the Department of Justice has to have rules about such things shows how massively screwed up our society is.

I don’t think it’s as simple as that. I’d say it’s a combination of a rushed, badly worded law and, perhaps, certain aspects of American culture– e.g. it has already been my observation that either US citizens are considerably more prone to playing the “wooden leg game” than people from elsewhere, or else those who do are more vocal about it. It also seems– to echo what I said above (#8) that such behaviour is given far too much social sanction in America– maybe that’s because Americans are idealistic rather than because they’re screwed up. I don’t know.

Cf. the snake guy (who is about the last person who should be walking around with a boa constrictor coiled around his neck.)

What on Earth are you talking about?

I am not saying people should be “locked up” or “have their freedom taken away” to punish them. I’m saying that people as severely mentally ill as some of these people claim to be would simply not be able to function. I was expressing my scepticism about the existence of devastating, incapacitating psychiatric disorders that can be alleviated by– and only by– the presence of someone’s pet what’s-it. I’d say if that works, so would breathing exercises.

As for the non-emotional support animals– well, yes, some of course have a point, but in other cases their owner is simply kidding himself about what the animal is doing and/or attention-seeking. Cf. the snake guy (who is about the last person who should be walking around

As for the quote– yeah, I agree some allergy sufferers go overboard. The point is that here we have who wants special measures taken to accommodate him being completely unsympathetic to others who want special accommodation that conflicts with his.

It’s called blatant hypocrisy.

I don’t think anyone was talking about throwing out all protection for the disabled– however it is pretty clear that the laws are being abused, and thus need fixing. There must be some weakness in the way they’re worded or interpreted in the first place– i have never heard of this nonsense happening anywhere else.

Guess what? I’m a nice person. I’m a nice, kind, left-leaning person from a country with heaps more social welfare than the US. I have relatives and friends who work with the handicapped. I am highly sympathetic to their plight. I am well aware that real discrimination exists.

See? I think this stuff is crazy. It’s not just American conservatives!

Let me guess. You’re a disability activist, right? If so, I’m not going to argue with you any more, because based on previous experience there’s simply no point. Yes, I’m now guilty of stereotyping and maybe I’m being totally unfair to you– but I’ve been here before, and the way you seem to wilfully misinterpret my previous posts, does not bode well.

Goodbye.

Bob

http://www.equipforequality.org/programs/legaladvocacy/summary_pga.php

Now explain to me how the law is being narrowly interpreted. No reasonable person would begrudge a company making reasonable accommodations to enable someone with a disability to hold a job, but that does not mean that every claim of a disability must be accommodated. That is what we are talking about in this post.

Sorry, your cavalier attitude about taking away a person’s freedom stuck in my craw.

I would just say, “no, you can’t have your companion spider, you are just going to have to figure out how to get by without it.” locking them up seems to go a bit too far.

> it’s just that it’s never occurred to anyone to push it this far.

Well saying that companion spiders goes too far and saying they should be locked up are two different things.

> Yes, this is an actual quote. What can I say?

Well, if you are a blind guy would you tell him he can’t have a seeing eye dog because someone else has an allergy?

I think a lot of people are sick of the ridiculous lengths we go to protect people from peanut allergies. I think the peanut allergic will just have to figure out how to live their lives with occasional peanuts thrown at them.

Richard

> This is what happens when you pass a “well meaning” law that gets interpreted by the lawyers, bureaucrats and the courts.

Jesus H. Christ, you have no idea what the supreme court has been doing to the ADA do you? No, the courts generally hate this law and interpret it to pretty much never protect anyone. Now recently congress slapped them back a little, and we will see how they respond, but to pretend the courts have pushed this interpretation is silly.

Real disability discrimination exists. I know. I have faced it. I was denied my right to an education before the ADA was passed. And there are worse outcomes than a few business owners having to argue about companion spiders. Like thousands of people who could have been productive members of society robbed of the dignity of work because of a few narrow minded fools.

Yes, companion spiders go too far, but the answer isn’t to throw out the entire ADA, but to fine tune it where necessary.

And there is no question that our society has too many crazy suits. This site documents them on a regular basis. But sometimes the suit is about a kid who wants nothing more than to get an education on fair terms, and he has to fight teachers who would refuse to do so, based on the ugliest bigotry. I know it exists. I have seen it my whole life. Indeed more often these days the schools won’t let it go that far because they know the law is there, so the mere threat of suit gives these students opportunities they otherwise would have been denied.

I had a friend for instance who had a complete body disability. He couldn’t turn the pages of a book without help. And as if that wasn’t bad enough he was born poor—food stamp poor. Despite all those strikes against him, he became a lawyer. Do you think that ever could have happened before the ADA? No, before the ADA he would have been a big nothing. And not only is that a moral thing to do, to make sure this young man has a fair chance at making something of himself, but it makes economic sense. He was born on the state’s dole, but through the ADA he was able to become someone who could contribute to our society. he went from food stamps to paying taxes that end up going to other people’s food stamps. Isn’t that the best outcome? Independence rather than dependence?

So when we talk about the excesses of the ADA and other laws, lets by all means correct it, but let’s not throw out the paraplegic with the bathwater.