Dog, seriously. I know its fun to imagine what the law might mean if you were elected God of the Universe, but it is actually really easy to find out what the law really does mean, here in our shared reality.
Given that, it is both disingenuous and assholish to keep pretending, without any basis in fact, that the club is in violation of any law.
And one more thing that I haven’t clarified very well. This lat pulldown machine is the only piece of equipment that I can’t use in the gym. However, it is by no means the only non-handicap accessible piece of equipment there. I can make do with plenty that is not technically “handicap accessible”. I do everyday, all the time.
My issue with HHFC is their lack of any real handicap accessible workout equipment. Not for me, because as I’ve said, I can make do with most of what is offered (with the exception of their lat equipment). It’s for the wheelchair-bound (and disabled at large) population as a whole.
Now, as I’ve said many times before, I am not asking Hurley to equip their gym with a piece of accessible equipment for every piece of regular equipment they have. That is unrealistic and silly. What could be a perfect, and reasonable, solution is to have one high quality, versatile, multi-use, adjustable pulley/cable trainer-machine, which could be used for just about every exercise which does not have an accessible machine available for the disabled. This would include lat pulldowns.
This is what I meant before when I said “no wheelchair bound person can get a proper physical fitness workout session at HHFC”. A full, proper physical fitness session is more than simply cardiovascular exercise (someone mentioned that most disabled folks would be satisfied with just an arm-bike workout). Especially for para/quadraplegics, for whom strength training is vitally important and has real-world implications for their lives.
See that’s the problem here, when it comes to the law you don’t get to decide what you think something means. You have to look it up and use the definitions as set by the people who wrote the law. I mentioned to you earlier in one of the threads that …wait, I bet I can find it…
Here it is:
Ok, in the post where I mentioned “barriers” to the equipment, I erred. It was a semantic error. I shouldn’t have used such a term.
So, they have one piece of machinery that you can’t use, and you go crying to the DOJ…I’d kick you out of my gym too.
Did you ask the other disabled people about this? Maybe they don’t need your help ‘fighting the good fight’. Maybe they’re perfectly happy with the status quo. I’ll bet a lot of people would prefer you didn’t put words in their mouth.
So, ultimately, what this comes down to, is that you want them to buy something for you. You freely admit that they can’t buy something for everyone, but this…this would be perfect for you.
No, something for me and all the other disabled individuals using the facilities. Why is this so hard for you to accept? I never admitted they can’t buy something for everyone, you are reading my words to fit your argument. I said that one high quality, multi-use trainer-machine could meet the need OF everyone.
No, and it’s the crux of the problem. If architectural barriers included design flaws, your case might have merit, but it doesn’t include it…I’m willing to bet you’d never heard the term ‘architectural barriers’ before it was mentioned in one of these threads because I don’t think you read the Safe Harbor Act. Not only that, I think when you saw it, you found a way to make it apply to your situation and ran with it…like we weren’t going to call you on it. I think you just googled for some ADA law that included exercise machines assumed that meant they violated it. You’ve shown over and over that you did very little research before you got the DOJ involved and you seem to ignore every link and post we give to you. I’ve learned more about the ADA laws regarding your case against the health club in the last few days (and I honestly thank you for that, I like learning about that kind of stuff). You wrote to the DOJ, you accused the health club of breaking the law…You should be schooling us in ADA law, not the other way around.
This is disingenuous. The law intends “architectural barriers” to mean the design of the workout room, not the design of the individual machine.
I admitted error on this already.
What about the guy with only one arm? Or the person with no legs below the waist? They won’t get to use it. According to the precedent you’re attempting to set, the health club will have to purchase another machine that can work out their lats as well.
Here’s my question from earlier, I think it applies
You’re actually wrong, they most certainly would be able to use it.
You called it a “semantic distinction” without acknowledging that your error, which you choose to dismiss as semantic, is actually the incredibly shaky foundation upon which both your legal action and righteous indignation rest.
For the purpose of the argument, pick a disability that wouldn’t allow someone to use either of the lat machines referenced to. That’s all I was driving at.
That’s what I was driving at as well, what sort of disability would you imagine would prevent someone from being able to access and use a free-standing, adjustable pulley-cable trainer system but at the same time bring the person into the gym? That is what is so good and useful about equipment such as what I am describing; it is so versatile and accessible to virtually everyone, from all walks of life.
“But wait… there’s MORE!”
Whale Wars is actually done by the guys in the Sea Shepherd Society. Although Seas Shepherd founder/chief Whale Wars blowhard Paul Watson was a former member of the board of directors of Greenpeace. He was either (a) kicked off the board for advocating actions that would violate their policy of non-violence (according to Greenpeace) or (b) quit because Greenpeace was a bunch of ineffective wusses (according to Watson).
Anyway, back to tonight’s episode of Wheelchair Wars, already in progress.
Sort of ready for this show to be canceled.
I laughed out loud. Good one.
I really don’t know enough about disabilities to be able to answer that question.
So, what you’re saying here (as I read it) is that there is no disability that would prevent anyone from using this machine? None whatsoever? Every single person with every conceivable disability could use this machine?