> And that is the problem with the law. The law itself discriminates.

If by the law you mean the DOJ, you would be right. so you are opposed to the civil rights act of 1964? The voting right act?

How about we just enforce it as intended.

> And the hole in your logic is that race and disability are the same thing.

Except I didn’t say that. in fact, I said the opposite.

> That is why I cannot fathom why you advocate a law that demands that people be hired on a basis other than “merit and conduct.”

Because it doesn’t, any more than the civil rights act does.

> You were the one that argued that disabled people are a market force. Store owners should build a ramp because it makes economic sense, not because some law says that they should

We are allowed to set rules for how the market operates. We don’t tell businesses they are allowed to monopolize a market. Or to collude with others to fix prices. One of the rules of the game is that when you open a store, you have to open it for everyone , unless you can show it would be an undue burden—including cost.

It’s a cost of doing business no different from paying the sales tax.

I mean let me ask you a simple question. do you support the Sherman anti-trust act where it says people cannot collude to divide up a market and fix prices. So Walmart and Target agree to charge $100 for an item, that is illegal. Do you support that rule?

> Furthermore, look where the law has gotten us – all sorts of ridiculous lawsuits that are, for the most part, just money grabbing schemes.

And thousands of students getting an education who wouldn’t have before. Thousands of people getting jobs that would have been either suicides or drains on society. the effect of a law is not simply the suits they bring, but what people do to avoid suit. And to avoid suit disabled people have unprecedented opportunities to live a normal life.

God forbid you ever become handicapped and have to drink the medicine you dish out.

> You have never met an “accommodation” that you don’t feel is “reasonable.”

Not true. I have said even here where I thought something was not reasonable.

> “Aren’t we just great?”

Which I didn’t actually say.

> I never said any such thing and you know it.

It’s the natural result of the policies you endorse. I know you don’t think that irrational discrimination against the handicapped is real, but it is.

> If anyone is paternalistic, it is you. You are the one claiming that disabled people can never do anything without the weight of the state behind them.

No, I said they cannot enjoy equal opportunity without the weight of the state behind it. But once again, you are reduced to claiming I am paternalistic… against myself. Proving you don’t even know what the term means.

Indeed, weren’t you the one who said you helped build wheelchair ramps. So isn’t that paternalism, by your definition? You should have told that guy to just mix the cement and pour it himself, right?

You should show that guy this thread and tell him who you are on it. See how he feels about what you said.

> You are the one claiming that you and the state know the needs and workings of a business better than the owners and the people that run it.

And you are too, when the subject is race.

> I am just curious Aaron, how many disabled people have you hired? How many work for you at this moment?

An equal number to non-disabled, actually. 🙂

Benji

> I feel like Aaron’s assuming that everyone is either pro-ADA or anti-disabled people. Can we still argue that there are disabled persons that deserve protection but that the protection created by the ADA is seriously flawed?

Well, then you misunderstand. I have advocated at least one big change. We should simply eliminate all prisoner suits.

As for the rest of it, I won’t say there is no downside. I won’t say there is no abuse.

The question is whether the “horror” of the abuse outweighs the benefit of the law. Of course you should try to calibrate the law to eliminate as much abuse as possible, but if you want to eliminate lawsuit abuse, you need to reform the process by which all lawsuits are screened. For instance, we could require that when you file a suit, you must present affidavits supporting each fact alleged in the suit itself—that this must occur before the other side is even served. You could tighten up the statute of limitations.

Right now today it takes nothing at all to file an employment discrimination case. For instance, it is even easier to allege racial discrimination than disability discrimination. Or to stage a slip and fall. Really the idea that the ADA gives unscrupulous people some kind of unprecedented opportunity to commit fraud is just hysteria. Ask any attorney. ADA suits are harder to pursue than most other discrimination based suits. That might be changing under the new amendments, but there is no reason to think the ADA makes it uniquely easy to get a large payout.

Hell, if you want to look at a crooked area of law, let’s talk class actions. That is a much larger problem than the ADA. This site has worked to stop for instance a class action alleging that people were not sufficiently warned that loud noises make you lose your hearing. The average ADA solo plaintiff gets peanuts compared to the millions raked in these products liability class actions.

I lean toward banning all class actions (yes, including under the ADA), or at least putting in an automatic loser pays rule for it. And honestly in general I like the idea of loser pays as another major way to eliminate frivolous suits. Its not a cure all, but it will reduce it significantly.

Yes there has been. Look at the Justice Department and its irrational attack on discrimination now. Of course, they are only going after discrimination against certain people because others can never be discriminated against, right?

And that is the problem with the law. The law itself discriminates.

But that is the big hole in your logic. Employers can’t be trusted on race, but they can be trusted on disability.

And the hole in your logic is that race and disability are the same thing. They are not. No matter how you try and slice it, they are not.

Some people aren’t actually the same. In fact no two people are alike. The issue is whether the difference is relevant or not. As Stevens said, “no distinction would be tolerated in this purified republic but what arose from merit and conduct.”

I agree. That is why I cannot fathom why you advocate a law that demands that people be hired on a basis other than “merit and conduct.”

So building a wheelchair ramp is paternalism, now? Letting a blind man bring his seeing eye dog on a bus is paternalism? And discrimination too boot?

You were the one that argued that disabled people are a market force. Store owners should build a ramp because it makes economic sense, not because some law says that they should. Furthermore, look where the law has gotten us – all sorts of ridiculous lawsuits that are, for the most part, just money grabbing schemes. You have never met an “accommodation” that you don’t feel is “reasonable.” It doesn’t matter if a building has to be torn down. It doesn’t matter to you if a business has to close its doors. You then turn around and say “see how great the law is! We managed to hurt a business so now no one can go there. No disabled person can shop there. No disabled person can work there! Aren’t we just great?”

You want handicapped people to be a charity case or a ward on the state, and you would call that anti-paternalism, instead of ensuring they have the chance to work for a living and live by the sweat of their own brows.

I never said any such thing and you know it. If anyone is paternalistic, it is you. You are the one claiming that disabled people can never do anything without the weight of the state behind them. You are the one that claims that no accommodation can ever be “unreasonable.” You are the one claiming that you and the state know the needs and workings of a business better than the owners and the people that run it.

I am just curious Aaron, how many disabled people have you hired? How many work for you at this moment?

As I said, there is great discrimination in this thread, and all of it is coming from you.

All your claims that the free market will never discriminate irrationally against the disabled sound all well and nice in isolation.

Until you remember that you agree that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be in place, or at least its rules against racial discrimination. And no one can deny that there has been irrational racial discrimination for decades.

So you agree that people irrationally discriminate based on something as silly as a difference in pigmentation. But you think that when a person has a real difference they will approach the problem with rationality. If they can’t get the easy stuff right, what chance do they have with the complicated crud?

Seriously, go back and read Richard Current’s book about Thaddeus Stevens. Count the numerous references to hellfire, brimstone (aka sulfur) and so on. Why does this historian keep doing that? Because Stevens was clubfooted and there is a superstition that people with clubbed feet were the children of the devil, their deformed limb being called a “cloven foot.” Does that qualify as irrational prejudice in your mind?

And you know what stevens did? He was the father of the fourteenth amendment and probably the most successful advocate of equality of opportunity this country has ever seen.

But that is the big hole in your logic. Employers can’t be trusted on race, but they can be trusted on disability.

> any one that has ever turned you down must be a discriminating bigot of some type

Given that they actually said bigoted things, yeah, I think so. Seriously, you weren’t there, but you presume to judge the situation?

The truth is that you don’t want to admit that my claims of facing discrimination are plausible because it would utterly undermine your argument. If I have faced that level of discrimination, then gee, maybe we do need a law, right?

> but you fail to realize that it is you who look at people and say “they aren’t the same.”

Some people aren’t actually the same. In fact no two people are alike. The issue is whether the difference is relevant or not. As Stevens said, “no distinction would be tolerated in this purified republic but what arose from merit and conduct.”

> It is you who look at people and say “you see, they can’t be treated the same and we must help them and treat them like little lost puppies.”

So building a wheelchair ramp is paternalism, now? Letting a blind man bring his seeing eye dog on a bus is paternalism? And discrimination too boot?

You know, as opposed to making it so they can’t enter a store and buy things for themselves, or travel on public transportation. You want handicapped people to be a charity case or a ward on the state, and you would call that anti-paternalism, instead of ensuring they have the chance to work for a living and live by the sweat of their own brows. And to think otherwise is paternalistic, toward the handicapped. Amazing.

Doubly amazing, because then you are claiming I am being paternalistic… toward myself.

Obviously you don’t understand what is being said in conversations like this. All I have said is that I want the ability to hire those people that I know will benefit my company. You talk a great game about “competing” and how any one that has ever turned you down must be a discriminating bigot of some type, but you fail to realize that it is you who look at people and say “they aren’t the same.” It is you who look at people and say “you see, they can’t be treated the same and we must help them and treat them like little lost puppies.”

There is discrimination in this thread, and you believe in it.

But you apparently concede you can’t be trusted not to discriminate against black people.

Apparently you can’t look at a person without seeing a disability, their gender or their skin color. The only concession to discrimination here is that your views are more bigoted than anyone else.

And then what happens to those handicapped people who can’t find gainful employment? Some kill themselves and other remain as a burden on society, either a charity case for family or on the public dole. Only a lunatic would think that is the ideal outcome.

Broken glass theory.

You see Aaron, what you refuse to accept is that for the most part (there are always exceptions) employers will hire people that are best for their company. It allows the company to stay profitable, expand, pay better salaries, taxes, etc. You believe that a business should be forced to hire people that will hurt their company.

I look at people and see what they bring to the party. You look at them and see labels.

If there is discrimination against people, it is ideas like yours that not only allow it, but force it upon people.

‘Jim Crow’ laws which require racial discrimination are now prohibited by federal law.

Sure, Jack, remember when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated that you MUST sleep with people of another race? /sarcasm

What a complete non-sequitur.