logic does not seem to be one of your strong suits. Your arguments are a combination of muddled thinking and mischaracterization.

My positions are strong and consistents. 1. We should end discrimination by businesses (intentional or historical) against the disabled. 2) there need to be rules establishing what is discrimination. 3) there needs to be enforcement of the rules.

I have said nothing about discrimination by entities that are not open for business to the public. Just as I would not force people to invite white people to their house, when they do not want to, I would not force people to make their houses comply with ADA regulations.

I have part ownership in two businesses, both of which are subject to being accessible to the disabled. I am very sensitive to costs of accessibility. However, that does not change my position that we should not discriminate against the disabled. It also does not change my position that there should be rules and that they should be enforced. What the rules are and how they are enforced should entail a cost-benefit analysis.

By the way, by some definitions, having a mirror 1/2 inch too low or too high IS discrimination. I don’t think I have ever stated that it SHOULD be discrimination.

This is hopefully my last response on this.

You have said having a mirror 1/2″ too low is “discrimination.” To quote Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Secondly, allowing Code Enforcement to handle ADA complaints would not add another layer to government, it would eliminate a layer. Code Enforcement is already involved on these types of complaints. The layer that gets eliminated is the layer that tracks the bounty and lawyer fees.

Third, the house question and your answer shows that you are not really trying to end “discrimination,” but rather “discrimination” in other places. You have legitimate concerns about costs to you and your home, but have no concerns to the same costs for businesses. The idea that you support a system that adds more bureaucracy and costs to the public, fines businesses who cannot keep up with changing standards, and which is more interested in generating bounties and fees rather than addressing what you claim is “discrimination” on other property rather than your own says to me that while you say that you are against what you claim is “discrimination,” you are only against it in others and when it doesn’t cost you any money directly.

And with that, I am done.

As I have stated, there are three questions to be considered: should there be a law prohibiting discrimination against the disabled? if so, how should the law define discrimination? and how should the law be enforced?

My position is that businesses that are open to the public should not discriminate against the disabled. I have not taken a position on what it means to discriminate against the disabled. I have not taken a position on how enforcement should be handled.

I do welcome the arguments, but you seem to be arguing that having mirrors 1/2 inch too low is not discrimination. It is. Because that is what the law provides. I have never stated that, were I drafting the rules, I would make mirrors 1/2 inch to low unlawful. Nor have I stated that I think suing businesses for violating such a law is the right enforcement method.

I wonder. Gitar and DD, do you think that there should be laws prohibiting discrimination against the disabled? I had not thought the question was open to debate, but perhaps it is.

As for enforcement… Many libertarians are against code enforcement in general. Gitar’s solution would simply add another layer of government. I do not disagree with the suggestion of local code enforcement or the suggestion that it might be more efficient.

Finally. My house is not compliant. It would cost me a fortune to have it meet the ADA code (for example, I would need to install an elevator). If society decided that this was unacceptable, I would be in a heap of trouble financially. But it has not…. yet. I would think that, were my goverment considering such laws, I would oppose them.

You are the one who said that these violations are “discrimination.” Don’t put your accusations and false assertions on “the law.

(By the way, did you accidentally miss the question of whether your house could meet the same code required for businesses? Or did you deliberately skip that question and in doing so, basically lay claim to the idea that you “discriminate” against people? (based on your definition of “discrimination.)

Secondly, clearly you don’t understand the current system. If a complaint is made concerning non-compliance, the government gets involved on two levels. The first level is adjudicating and collecting any fine assessed by the municipality. In addition the government gets involved in collecting the “bounty” for the reporter of the alleged infraction as well as lawyer fees.

Once the infraction is reported, Code Enforcement still has to verify the infraction. After that, they have to verify that the infraction is fixed.

Compare that to the way every other code issue goes, in handling ADA complaints, the government does more work and has to be larger doing it the way that you like, advocate and believe in.

I believe that people – even business owners – have the right to due process and challenge a violation if they feel they have been wrongly accused. I am not sure why you don’t believe in a system where people can protect their rights and their property.

Despite your claim, handling these violations in a manner similar to that of other code violations would be cheaper, more effective and better off for everyone in the long run.

As the Quacker implied, you are wedded to the law to the point where no dissent is allowed. It doesn’t matter to you whether that allegiance tramples people’s rights. It doesn’t matter whether it harms people and businesses. You want to cling to “the law.”

All hail “the law.”

So the law is the law and the law is right because the law is right because the law is right?

Nixon never died; he’s posting here under the handle “Allan”.

1. if the law says having a mirror 1/2 inch too low is discrimination, it is discrimination. It might not meet your definition, but there are a lot of laws that exist which make conclusions I do not agree with.

2. Code enforcement? Make government bigger is your solution. Not a very libertarian solution, IMHO. If businesses do not comply, they might get a citation and they can sue. So, government will have to pay litigation costs. Your taxes will go up.

With all due respect, your premise is flawed. Having a mirror not be at a certain height is not discrimination. I have said that before, you seemed to agree and yet are now trotting out the same argument.

Discrimination against the disabled would be not allowing them in the place of business. That is not what is happening here.

Please let me know if you can come up with a better system to identify deficiencies and ensure accommodations are made.

Why not handle these “deficiencies” like any other code enforcement issue? If there is a violation, report the violation to a Code Enforcement division, they notify the business owner who can then address it, fix it and move on.

If the business owner chooses not to correct the situation, there are remedies there as well such as hearings on the issue to dispute whether there actually was a violation, etc and even fines if the owner does not correct the violation.

That system works well in cases where there is a potential for real harm (ie danger to people) so why not have the same system when the infraction does not physically anyone?

I submit that everyone agrees that we should not discriminate against the disabled. I further submit that there is a disparity regarding what accommodations are proper. But the real problem is how to enforce the requirement that businesses make accommodations.

It is in the enforcement that private attorneys come into the picture. Please let me know if you can come up with a better system to identify deficiencies and ensure accommodations are made.

As for the accommodations themselves, I don’t know what to do. It seems as though EEO offices are “captive regulators,” with the disable having captured them, much in the way that the telecom industry has captured its regulators.

The operative word here is accommodation, not discrimination. You might make a case for discrimination if owner of Che Fro Fro announced they would not longer serve fat people because he could no longer tolerate watching fat people gorge on his gastro-molecular cuisine. An accommodation is seeing that the “now-to-fat-to-walk” can get their wheel chair into the bathroom to obsess over the mirror being 1/2″ too high, cutting off the sight of 1/2″ of their triple chins.

And given no chance to repair the problem, he is hit with a fine for not knowing the nuances of every law that protects fat people from having their feeling hurt. Because, contrary to your solution, the legislatures of most states and congress have a predominance of lawyers, who aren’t about to endanger the livelihood of their brethren.

Possibly giving credence to the title of this blog. Go figure!