>> Sandra Bullock is not a public accomodation…
My point exactly. She should be more “accommodating” if you get my drift…
By the way, I almost forgot to add to my list of grievances, I am also near sighted and it is totally unfair that I have to pay for my own eyeglasses. The people who are lucky enough to have good eyesight should pay for them… the better to see you my dear Sandra 
come hither…
(sorry, I’m a newbie and have not figured out the smileys yet)
The USSC has ruled that the ADA does not require accomodation for “disabilities” which can be corrected. The specific case dealt with an airline pilot who was dismissed after failing a vision test despite being able to pass the test with corrective lenses and a trucker who was dismissed for high blood pressure which was controlled through medication.
Is it just me, or is all this pretty much grounded in fantasy? You cannot provide equal access to a movie to a deaf person, for the simple fact that EQUAL ACCESS would involve them hearing it.
That’s just splitting hairs, though. To say that a movie theater is a public accommodation is to imply that it is provided by the public. It is not. It is privately owned.
Yes, it benefits from public streets and such, but then so does your house. Are you prepared to accommodate every imaginable handicap, including, apparently, drug addiction, in your house?
Is it different because the theater is offering something for sale to the public? I would say no. If I own something, I should be reasonaly free to use it, sell it, rent it, or profit from it as I see fit.
If you are saying that, as a theater owner, which I am not, I SHOULD provide accommodations for the handicapped–not only can I not argue with you, I tend to agree with you.
If you are saying that I should be legally required to make my theater, which I don’t have, accessible to the handicapped, then I think you are impinging on my freedom, hypothetical though it may be.
How far, exactly, do you intend to go in your campaign to force me to do what you think is right or fair?
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
sailor, stop arguing! I’m with you on the Sandra Bullock thing!
Umm… Yup. It’s fantasy. What’s your point? Nowhere does the phrase “equal access” appear in the text of ADA. “Reasonable accommodation,” on the other hand, appears many times.
And I’m still trying to get my head around the phrase “grounded in fantasy.”
This is not true.
The issue here is, “Whose rights take precedence?” Does a corporation’s rights to unrestricted profits supercede a U.S. citizen’s right to participate in public life? I say no.
I couldn’t agree more.
On the other hand, if you are saying that I should be legally required to make my theater, which I don’t have, accessible to Korean people, then I think you are impinging on my freedom.
How far, exactly, do you intend to go in your campaign to force me to do what you think is right or fair?
First and foremost:
Having spent Friday evening in Amsterdam’s Red Light district, I definitely don’t like the idea of making Sandra Bullock a public accommodation, if that’s what you’re implying.
I am not convinced that attending movies is “participation in public life”. You’re going to have to define what you mean by that.
Also, your phrase, “rights to unrestricted profits”, implies that there is something a little seedy about profits.
To be honest, I don’t think that profit, or lack thereof, is even an issue. The issue is my right to use my property as I see fit (within reason, of course). I think we may be disagreeing on the “within reason” bit. For me, “within reason” means that I am not violating your fundamental rights with it. It does not mean that I make it accessible, or even desirable, to you. You’re saying that I have to let you in my theater, which I still don’t have, and have to present entertainment that you will appreciate.
I am most definitely not saying that, and I agree with you. Any particular reason you brought that up? When I was in high school, I had a friend who was Korean…but if you knew that, then I’m, like, really scared of you.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
Sorry about the Korean remark, smartass. Didn’t know about your history, just dumb luck. It seems like black people are always used as examples in debates like this; I just thought I’d try to be different. I’m still learning this whole message board thing. No need to be scared.
I think you’ve hit most of the important issues in your post. I’ll try to answer them one at a time as well as I can.
Of course you’re not. Your right to attend movies is so well-established and so well-protected that you don’t even think of it as a right. You think of it as a leisure activity. That’s the goal.
A movie theater is a public gathering place. Attending movies is a cultural, and sometimes a political, activity. It is also an important avenue for social learning in children.
When you were young, you went to movies with your friends and learned what kinds of things people support, oppose, laugh at, care about, get angry about, etc. Not from the movie itself, but from the reaction of the audience. How can you do that if you can’t hear the dialogue?
Congenitally deaf people are systematically excluded from this common cultural and political activity. Why? Do we not have adequate technology? No, we have the technology. Money, then? Nope, operas can afford it, for crying out loud. Not exactly a high-margin business.
Why, then? Corporate property rights? Are you sure that’s where you want to make your stand?
I’m saying nothing about the kind of hypothetical entertainment you present. That’s First Amendment. I’m saying that in a democratic society, your nonexistent entertainment should be reasonably accessible to everyone.
And on this point, you agree with ADA, which says explicitly, “reasonable accommodation.” Further, private personal property is specifically exempted.
I think you’re exactly right. I think that, for the most part, this is what all the disagreement boils down to. ADA specifies that I cannot place an “undue burden” on you or your business. Does that sound reasonable to you?
I won’t try to argue legal precedent, because I can’t. We’re treading new ground here. ADA modifies the idea of individual rights. I think it’s a mistake to argue (as I may have done in the past) that ADA’s “reasonable accommodation,” is just a codification of already existing civil rights.
ADA changes what you can do with commercial property. I don’t dispute that. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did the same thing. So did the Emancipation Proclamation. We are a better, more democratic nation because of these changes.
If anyone’s interested, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “public accomodation” as “generally a business establishment, affecting interstate commerce or supported in its activities by State action, which provides lodging, food, entertainment or other services and is open to the public.”
Dumb Ox:
Sorry to be so slow in replying. This is going to take a little typing–and, due to hardware problems, it is difficult for me to use the letters ‘n’ and ‘b’ on the weekend.
First the conversational part:
Cultural, I’ll accept.
Political is pushing it, but still acceptable.
An important avenue for social learning in children–not buying it. How many hours do you intend for your children to spend in movie theaters? Let’s put it another way, how much social learning do you suppose that children will miss out on if they never attend a movie?
To be honest, I think this last bit is a blatant attempt to appeal to sentimentality by bringing children into a debate that isn’t about them.
Actually, I usually went to movies with my family and learned how people felt about them by talking about them later. In fact, I learned some of these things during discussions of movies I didn’t even see.
btw, how much can you learn from the reaction of fellow audience members if you can’t hear them? Particularly if you’re already trying to watch a movie and, possibly, read subtitles?
Deaf people, congenital or otherwise, are not systematically excluded. No effort is being spent on keeping them from seeing or appreciating movies. If I post a note on my, still non-existent, theater saying “No Deaf People Allowed”, that is exclusion. If I get together with other theater owners-without-theaters and we put the sign on all our nonexistent theaters, that is systematic exclusion. If I show a movie that you do not understand because you cannot hear it, then I have not excluded you any more than I have excluded you by showing a movie in another language. There are US citizens who speak very little English. However, you have not argued that we are excluding them by failing to show movies in their native languages.
This is an extremely dangerous way to argue this case. You may think it makes sense in this case, but think how many other instances where this argument can be used to abridge your rights.
No, I do not agree with the ADA. I define “within reason” as not interfering with anyone else’s fundamental rights (see below). The ADA is a violation of fundamental rights in order to protect, at best, smaller rights, and, at worst, nonexistent ones.
No, it does not. If we are talking about how I make use of my property, the issue should be whether I am placing an undue burden on you, with “undue burden” being a violation of your fundamental rights.
How do you feel about comparing laws that directly protect Liberty, with a big ‘L’, with laws that protect “right to participate in public life”, as defined by “right to have a movied translated for you in a privately owned theater” (to pose an example)? I think it is dishonest and inflammatory.
By your definition of “better”, maybe. More democratic? Hardly. Having the rights of the many impinged upon by the wants of the few is the opposite of democratic, if there is such a thing.
Now, to what I think of as the “academic” argument:
“Fundamental rights” are the rights to life,
Egad! Clarence Darrow, stand aside!
I am impressed. And, quite possibly, beaten. I see now that you were just toying with me in your earlier posts.
I thank you for your respectful reply. Reading my own posts, I realize I didn’t always accord you the same courtesy. My sincere apologies.
Since I am about to concede defeat, please allow me at least the dignity of sniping at the very few weaknesses in your post. Don’t worry, this will be mostly educational, it won’t materially affect the outcome.
The paragraph about children was not in any way written sentimentally. It was an attempt to broaden your understanding (and that of others reading this board) of the very real social deficits of deaf children.
Children who are deaf from birth face isolation in virtually every social situation they encounter. For this reason, their social development is delayed compared to hearing peers. Some psychologists attribute their significantly higher rate of psychopathology to precisely this problem.
As a result, any opportunity for social learning takes on more urgency. It isn’t a question of going to the movies for fun. It’s education, pure and simple. (And don’t worry about deaf kids not understanding the reaction of the audience. They are far more visually savvy than you or I will ever be.) So this court case is absolutely about children. In real life, the decision will have far more impact on them than on adults.
You’ve suggested, and I agree, that the “liberty” part of “life, liberty, and property” is the only place left for me to go. I don’t suppose you’d allow me the distinction between de jure and de facto discrimination at this point. 
Even if you did, I am unable to take my arguments further, owing to time constraints. And I suspect that it’s just as well for me.
And so, I concede. Thank you for a well-reasoned debate.
Rich
Well…okay, then.
For the record, I am willing to concede your points wrt children. I imagine you know more on this subject than I do. Credit it to a sensitivity I’ve developed to debates that involve children. It seems lately every politician can spin their latest project in such a way that it is “for the children”.
To be honest, I’m pretty much with you in all this, right up to the part where you want to make the debated improvements into a legal requirement.
As for de facto discrimination, that’s probably a whole separate debate. I think that the argument has been used to some good ends, but that doesn’t take away the fact that I think it is a bad argument. I cannot think of too many activites, engaged in by everyone, that aren’t de facto discrimination of someone, if you get my drift.
“Then it’s a bad law. You still haven’t answered the question. Why should I have to pay
for your friend’s handicap?”
Cause handicapped people have been paying for your severly-ableness for 2000 years.
Most of the handicapped people [like around 80%] & I agree with them, believe that the ADA has made things harder for them, not easier…sigh
Really? How exactly?
Ladies! Gentlemen! What should frighten all of us is that there needed to be an ADA!! Whatever happened to common courtesy? Whatever happened to giving someone the kind of kindness you’d like to receive if you were in their place? Sigh. Perhaps I’m just naive, but I don’t think it would kill anyone to give just a tiny bit away - heck, how many deaf folk go to movies at all, let alone often enough to bite into that beloved profit margin? I think the subtitles are a great idea. How about braille books with dialogue?
I am equally dismayed by the “It’s not my fault she’s blind/the disabled pay for your ability every day” arguments. Let’s all just try to be decent to each other. Gosh. We’re a clever lot, and I think we could come up with solutions that require compromise from all parties involved (including less $ for lawyers filing such suits - and I say that as a future legal professional), but are reasonable.
Umm… do lots of deaf folks know braille? I thought that was for the blind (who should normally be able to hear the dialogue).
I really don’t know - I don’t even know if Braille is used much by blind folk anymore, except on ATMs. Just seemed to me that being able to read without having to look away from the screen might be helpful. From what I remember reading about it many years ago, it’s fairly easy to learn, and it might be a good substitute for the non-hearing - I can’t imagine a signing interpreter would be easy to follow if you’re trying to watch something else.
What is the difference between “closed captioning” and “open captioning?”
wrt to TV shows:
Open captioning is visible to everyone who is watching the show.
Closed captioning is visible only to those who have either an add-on box or a newer TV that “decodes” the captioning and makes it visible when the option is turned on.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
sailor, I didn’t know you needed Viagra. Well, bear in mind that the Supreme Court of the USA ruled that if your condition can be corrected with a pill, it’s not a disability,
thus they won’t pay for it.
GB, handicapped [boy that word sucks] people pay taxes & that money, if you didn’t notice, goes to pay for all the neat stuff severely able people use. Too much is taken for granted, I know. sigh.
Ah, how they can make laws, but they CAN’T make people’s attitudes!
If any of you think that handicap people are getting something ‘special’ that you’d like, remember that if you’d like, you can get that stuff too! Just make yourself handicapped. Stick a knife in your ears & you can get deafie benefits. Ah, but none of you would dare do so. cluck.
“‘How do you know I’m mad’ said Alice.
'You must be, ’ said the Cat, ‘or you wouldn’t have come here.’”
Handy:
You say this as if it were a bad thing.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
The gov says handicapped people now have to work to get their money. Businesses say they don’t have to make their business accessible. So, how are handicapped people supposed to make their money?
“‘How do you know I’m mad’ said Alice.
'You must be, ’ said the Cat, ‘or you wouldn’t have come here.’”