Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
YamiB. said:I'm wondering if Radio Frequency X would have preferred to have many if not most handicapped and minority people dependent on gonvernment handouts rather than making them able to get jobs.
Radio Frequency X said:I would rather the government offer productive programs than take away the rights of others. I would prefer this to happen at the local level however.
Moon Woman said:I'm going to own up to my ignorance here and just throw out a few observations or questions regarding the ADA accessibility code.
If a small business or small church or small office building didn't have the required access under the ADA, does the government pay for them to upgrade? Does anyone here know how much it costs to add elevators, ramps, widen door openings, and add wheelchair-accessible bathrooms etc.?
If there are no low interest loans or grants offered, I think this would constitute an "unfunded mandate" and it would seem unfair. A lot of small businesses operate on a very slim profit margin and that kind of burden could shut them down.
If a small business or church or office building doesn't meet ADA accessibility code, and doesn't have any disabled members or employees, are they required to upgrade anyway? What if a business is located in an old historic building, are they required to comply? We have a lot of lawyers, offices, boutiques etc. in very old buildings in a nearby town and I know they aren't wheelchair-accessible. Some of them have huge columns and wide porches so high off the ground you would have to practically tear down the front of the building to comply. Not to mention the narrow hallways, tiny bathrooms and no elevators. It would probably be cheaper to tear down the whole building and start all over.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that every business that can be made accessible should but not if it causes undue hardship for the business or the community. If some little towns no longer had commercial use of the old homes in their historic districts, they would probably sit empty and rot, and the town would go downhill in a hurry.
If a small business or small church or small office building didn't have the required access under the ADA, does the government pay for them to upgrade? Does anyone here know how much it costs to add elevators, ramps, widen door openings, and add wheelchair-accessible bathrooms etc.?
If there are no low interest loans or grants offered, I think this would constitute an "unfunded mandate" and it would seem unfair. A lot of small businesses operate on a very slim profit margin and that kind of burden could shut them down.
They don't have to, but are at risk of a lawsuit should someone who needs accessibility comes there- and they are required to make reasonable accomendations for individual employees.If a small business or church or office building doesn't meet ADA accessibility code, and doesn't have any disabled members or employees, are they required to upgrade anyway?
Straight from the act itself ...What if a business is located in an old historic building, are they required to comply?
Segregation was Constitutional too, it doesn't make it right.standing_alone said:Ah, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the commerce clause allows the Congress to make anti-discrimination legislation that affects privately-owned business, so therefore anti-discrimination legislation is Constitutional.
The freedom to choose and the freedom to property.Why was the Supreme Court wrong? Because you disagree with them? What rights are stripped away from the people by anti-discrimination legislation?
Yes, it is more immoral. We should never give the government more power. Why do you think we live in a police state now? Because since the 1930's we have been giving the government more and more power. The more power we give government, the less liberty we enjoy.Is this "social engineering," as you call it, more or less immoral than racial (and other forms) of discrimination? Doesn't the government have the responsibility to make sure that its citizens are not being discriminated against unfairly in economic matters (as such discrimination can put certain groups at an unnecessary disadvantage)?
The government shouldn't concern itself at all with the private sector.So how do you recommend the government prevent discrimination in the economic sector?
They can always go and find another job - they have the freedom of choice. Anyway, you don't have a right to economic well-being.But doesn't unnecessary discrimination potentially put certain citizens that belong to the discriminated groups at a disadvantage, therefore threatening their economic well-being?
Ðanisty said:Um no.
YamiB. said:What do you mean by productive programs?
GloriaPatri said:Segregation was Constitutional too, it doesn't make it right.
The freedom to choose and the freedom to property.
Yes, it is more immoral. We should never give the government more power. Why do you think we live in a police state now? Because since the 1930's we have been giving the government more and more power. The more power we give government, the less liberty we enjoy.
The government shouldn't concern itself at all with the private sector.
They can always go and find another job - they have the freedom of choice. Anyway, you don't have a right to economic well-being.
standing_alone said:However, what you guys are failing to show me is how anti-discrimination policies hurt private businesses or put an unnecessary burdon on them or that anti-discrimination policies are worse than letting businesses be racist, sexist, etc.
Radio Frequency X said:This would be a difference in our opinions. How far are you willing to go to make sure this happens?
Radio Frequency X said:Because the employer owns the business, the employee does not. It is an ownership issue and I am a believer in an ownership society.
It can cost businesses extra money because they have to build wheel chair accessible ramps.standing_alone said:However, what you guys are failing to show me is how anti-discrimination policies hurt private businesses or put an unnecessary burdon on them or that anti-discrimination policies are worse than letting businesses be racist, sexist, etc.
Because anytime the government tells us what we can and can not do with our property it's a step backwards concerning our liberty. You should be able to do whatever you want to with your property as long as you are not initiating force against someone. Since the government is telling us what to do with our property (everyday, more and more) it's becoming more of a priviledge to own private property than a right.Well, since it's obvious you are a classical liberal (libertarian) to the core and due to our ideological differences will disagree on the idea of liberty overall and how much the Constitution applies to it (the beauty of the Constitution), may I ask how setting in place anti-discrimination policies threatens private property or makes one lose their private property?
That's like saying the government should force Bill Gates to make me CEO of Microsoft. Sure, it's "harming" me to work at some menial job while I could be making billions of dollars over at Microsoft. They're not being harmed when someone doesn't give them a job. A job is a priviledge, not a right. There are plenty of jobs out there and even if there weren't we shouldn't force businesses to hire people they don't want to hire.Why shouldn't it? If its citizens are being harmed through unnecessary practices, doesn't it have the obligation to step in and protect the well-being of its citizens?
The only rights we have are the rights to life, liberty, and property. I wasn't really talking about the Constitution before but I'll put in my two cents.Ah, I see you also interpret the Constitution rather narrowly, in only what is explicitly stated. Maybe sometime I should go through the Constitution and see just what we are ever explicitly given the right for. You and I don't have the right to vote, for example. Do you think we have any rights outside those that are explicitly listed in the Constitution? If you follow this rather narrow interpretation of the Constitution, what do you make of the Ninth amendment, that states, "The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."? This amendment addresses that there are rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Yes, they should. Even if it did I would think that the chances of anti-discrimination laws being overturned to be very slim.In addition, if you are so concerned about anti-discrimination policies being a threat to liberty, do you feel that they should be challenged in a court of law? For, if you want these policies to go away, you're going to have to prove how they are unConstitutional.
Fluffy said:I think what you are saying is rational and consistent but I disagree on the acceptable outcomes of a system and on the outcomes of your system.
For example, if the majority of businesses decided to discriminate against a particular group then I would view such an outcome as unacceptable. Whilst I would be quite willing to see one such business suffer and fail, I would be unable to stand by and watch a proliferation of discrimination.
How do you propose that we solve such a situation without using either the government or the legal system?
Pardus said:Both sides are wrong.
We should allow it (but require public advertisement) so it stops happening.
If you make it illegal to admit such a policy, people just will not admit to it.
How can you convince someone that they are wrong when you don't know who they are?