Should discrimination be a legal right?

[YamiB.]

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]

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.

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.

 

[YamiB.]

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.

What do you mean by productive programs?

 

[!Fluffy!]

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.

 

[nutshell]

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.

I believe the accomodation has to be "reasonable." Therefore, a church or organization with a small budget would be expected to do less than an organization with a lot of money.

 

[jamaesi]

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.

Answers are from here.


Q. What financial assistance is available to employers to help them make reasonable accommodations and comply with the ADA?

A. A special tax credit is available to help smaller employers make accommodations required by the ADA. An eligible small business may take a tax credit of up to $5,000 per year for accommodations made to comply with the ADA. The credit is available for one-half the cost of "eligible access expenditures" that are more than $250 but less than $10,250.

A full tax deduction, up to $15,000 per year, also is available to any business for expenses of removing qualified architectural or transportation barriers. Expenses covered include costs of removing barriers created by steps, narrow doors,inaccessible parking spaces, restroom facilities, and transportation vehicles. Additional information discussing the tax credits and deductions is contained in the Department of Justice's ADA Tax Incentive Packet for Businesses available from the ADA Information Line, see page 29. Information about the tax credit and tax deduction can also be obtained from a local IRS office, or by contacting the Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service.


Q. Are businesses entitled to any tax benefit to help pay for the cost of compliance?

A. As amended in 1990, the Internal Revenue Code allows a deduction of up to $15,000 per year for expenses associated with the removal of qualified architectural and transportation barriers. The 1990 amendment also permits eligible small businesses to receive a tax credit for certain costs of compliance with the ADA. An eligible small business is one whose gross receipts do not exceed $1,000,000 or whose workforce does not consist of more than 30 full-time workers. Qualifying businesses may claim a credit of up to 50 percent of eligible access expenditures that exceed $250 but do not exceed $10,250. Examples of eligible access expenditures include the necessary and reasonable costs of removing architectural, physical, communications, and transportation barriers; providing readers, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids; and acquiring or modifying equipment or devices.

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?

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.

Religious organisations and private clubs are not covered by the ADA. (Which is another reason why I go to a UU Church, all the UU Churches I have been in have done their best to make their churches ADA friendly.)

What if a business is located in an old historic building, are they required to comply?

Straight from the act itself ...

4.1.7 Accessible Buildings: Historic Preservation.

(1)* Applicability:

(a) General Rule. Alterations to a qualified historic building or facility shall comply with 4.1.6 (Accessible Buildings: Alterations), the applicable technical specifications of section 4 and the applicable special application sections unless it is determined in accordance with the procedures in 4.1.7(2) that compliance with the requirements for accessible routes (exterior and interior), ramps, entrances, or toilets would threaten or destroy the historic significance of the building or facility in which case the alternative requirements in 4.1.7(3) may be used for the feature. Appendix Note
EXCEPTION: (Reserved). (b) Definition. A qualified historic building or facility is a building or facility that is:

(i) Listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; or
(ii) Designated as historic under an appropriate State or local law.
​

(2) Procedures:

(a) Alterations to Qualified Historic Buildings and Facilities Subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act:

(i) Section 106 Process. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 f) requires that a Federal agency with jurisdiction over a Federal, federally assisted, or federally licensed undertaking consider the effects of the agency's undertaking on buildings and facilities listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking prior to approval of the undertaking.
(ii) ADA Application. Where alterations are undertaken to a qualified historic building or facility that is subject to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the undertaking shall follow the section 106 process. If the State Historic Preservation Officer or Advisory Council on Historic Preservation agrees that compliance with the requirements for accessible routes (exterior and interior), ramps, entrances, or toilets would threaten or destroy the historic significance of the building or facility, the alternative requirements in 4.1.7(3) may be used for the feature.
​

(b) Alterations to Qualified Historic Buildings and Facilities Not Subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Where alterations are undertaken to a qualified historic building or facility that is not subject to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, if the entity undertaking the alterations believes that compliance with the requirements for accessible routes (exterior and interior), ramps, entrances, or toilets would threaten or destroy the historic significance of the building or facility and that the alternative requirements in 4.1.7(3) should be used for the feature, the entity should consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer. If the State Historic Preservation Officer agrees that compliance with the accessibility requirements for accessible routes (exterior and interior), ramps, entrances or toilets would threaten or destroy the historical significance of the building or facility, the alternative requirements in 4.1.7(3) may be used.
(c) Consultation With Interested Persons. Interested persons should be invited to participate in the consultation process, including State or local accessibility officials, individuals with disabilities, and organizations representing individuals with disabilities.
(d) Certified Local Government Historic Preservation Programs. Where the State Historic Preservation Officer has delegated the consultation responsibility for purposes of this section to a local government historic preservation program that has been certified in accordance with section 101(c) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470a (c)) and implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. 61.5), the responsibility may be carried out by the appropriate local government body or official.
​

(3) Historic Preservation: Minimum Requirements:

(a) At least one accessible route complying with 4.3 from a site access point to an accessible entrance shall be provided.
EXCEPTION: A ramp with a slope no greater than 1:6 for a run not to exceed 2 ft (610 mm) may be used as part of an accessible route to an entrance. (b) At least one accessible entrance complying with 4.14 which is used by the public shall be provided.
EXCEPTION: If it is determined that no entrance used by the public can comply with 4.14, then access at any entrance not used by the general public but open (unlocked) with directional signage at the primary entrance may be used. The accessible entrance shall alsohave a notification system. Where security is a problem, remote monitoring may be used. (c) If toilets are provided, then at least one toilet facility complying with 4.22 and 4.1.6 shall be provided along an accessible route that complies with 4.3. Such toilet facility may be unisex in design.
(d) Accessible routes from an accessible entrance to all publicly used spaces on at least the level of the accessible entrance shall be provided. Access shall be provided to all levels of a building or facility in compliance with 4.1 whenever practical.
(e) Displays and written information, documents, etc., should be located where they can be seen by a seated person. Exhibits and signage displayed horizontally (e.g., open books), should be no higher than 44 in (1120 mm) above the floor surface.
​

 

[!Fluffy!]

Thanks for the awesome research Jamaesi! - mw

 

[GloriaPatri]

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.

Segregation was Constitutional too, it doesn't make it right.

Why was the Supreme Court wrong? Because you disagree with them? What rights are stripped away from the people by anti-discrimination legislation?

The freedom to choose and the freedom to property.

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)?

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.

So how do you recommend the government prevent discrimination in the economic sector?

The government shouldn't concern itself at all with the private sector.

But doesn't unnecessary discrimination potentially put certain citizens that belong to the discriminated groups at a disadvantage, therefore threatening their economic well-being?

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.

 

[GloriaPatri]

Um no.

Yeah.

Where do you think your rights stem from? They stem from the right to property!

Here's an example. Your body is your property, correct? Well, since it is yours you can whatever you want to it or with it as long as you are not initiating force against someone else. So, this means you have freedom of speech, the freedom to peaceably assemble, etc. It there are no private property rights then all other rights are null and void.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

What do you mean by productive programs?

Chris Matthews, a democrat, has one of the best opinions on federal services: mainly that, insomuch as they are the desire of the American people, the people have a right to them. However, we should not sit around and stomach ineffective programs. Democrat or Republican, we are all tired of these failed federal programs (regardless of which president signed it into law).

Productive programs are programs that do what they are supposed to do for a price the American people can accept. Now, from an ideological point of view, I am against these programs. But I am not an idealist. I live in a country with people that don't share my beliefs, so I know we are going to have to find a middle ground. I would prefer the government reaching out to people, then using the law to force individuals to do so.

So, the direction I want to see is toward more personal liberty and more effective government. If it wasn't for the fact that democrats hate conservatives, I do not see them really opposing this kind of attitude.

 

[standing_alone]

Segregation was Constitutional too, it doesn't make it right.

Yes, segregation (namely the idea of "seperate, but equal") was ruled Constitutional in Plessy V. Fergusen, however the Supreme Cour later over-turned the seperate, but equal concet with Brown v. Board, thus forcing the desegregation of schools. Therefore segregation is no longer deemed Constitutional - if I recall, one reason was because of the unnecessary burdon put on some people by it being in place.

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.

The freedom to choose and the freedom to property.

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?

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.

And I am not buying that anti-discrimination policies are a threat to liberty.

The government shouldn't concern itself at all with the private sector.

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?

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.

Got to love that insensitivity. Finding another job isn't as easy as snapping your fingers and making it so. It takes time. If discriminationatory policies are putting an unnecessary burdon on people to find jobs, it will be all the harder for that person to find jobs. If there are employers a, b, and c in a town and all have racist policies, certain people will never be able to find a job - and even if there is employer d, that doesn't discriminate, employer d isn't certainly going to be able to hire everyone that employers a,b, and c turns away.

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.

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.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

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.

My argument (which is more of an opinion or position) looks somewhat like this:

a) In principle, the government should not place restrictions on the buying or selling of goods and services, except in cases where a product or service harms the individual through either force or fraud.

b) Understanding that this principle is shared by only a small minority of Americans, I simply push for less economic restrictions and more economic liberty. I do not believe that the Supreme Court will overturn its position on the Commerce Clause.

In the case of discrimination, regardless of the massive leaps the Supreme Court has taken with the Constitution, there is no literal right in the constitution for the Federal Government to regulate private business. Thus, this goes against my libertarian principles. Insofar as pushing for practical solutions to the current position of the Supreme Court, given that it is currently legal for the federal government to place bans on certain kinds of discrimination, it should show the greatest possible restraint in these areas.

Is discrimination wrong? Yes.
Are federal restrictions on business wrong? Yes.
In trying to find a balance between these two wrongs, I think it is wise for the People to err on the side of economic liberty, because I think that the threat of the abuse of power by the federal government is greater than the threat of racism and discrimination in society.

 

[YamiB.]

I think that the problem really arises from what people consider public or private. I know that I consider a buisness to be public. When the person made their private property in a buisness they submitted themselves to the rules of the government.

I'm still not understanding what you mean on the issue of people living off the government. It seems like you're against the idea of the government supporting people too. Which would mean that if both of your ideas were put in action that many handicapped people and people belonging to minorities would be unable to support themselves leading to many other problems.

 

[Fluffy]

This would be a difference in our opinions. How far are you willing to go to make sure this happens?

Because the employer owns the business, the employee does not. It is an ownership issue and I am a believer in an ownership society.

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]

I think the best way would be to allow discrimination, but make it compulsary to announce such discrimination.

"Welcome to chicken licken, we don't serve or hire monkeys" on the door.

 

[GloriaPatri]

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.

It can cost businesses extra money because they have to build wheel chair accessible ramps.

But, other than that it doesn't really "hurt" business.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

What I take the ninth amendment to mean is the government can not use issues such as state's rights to uphold barbaric institutions like slavery, which goes against the principles of life, liberty, and property.

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.

Yes, they should. Even if it did I would think that the chances of anti-discrimination laws being overturned to be very slim.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

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?

Well, I think that is why we are where we are. If you look at Jay's "argument" (if you can call it that), he is basically saying that discrimination against a particular kind of person is never acceptable and that it is the government's job to prevent it from occuring. I know that the country wouldn't be as "nice" a place if things were done my way, but we would have a greater potencial for economic and social diversity. The danger is in the high potencial for natural segregation. I am not certain how much of that I could stomach before I too was screaming for government action. Which is why I am not so idealistic as to believe we'll even have complete economic freedom. But I think it is reasonable to petition the government and our society to show the greatest possible restraint here. The question of "where we draw the line" is arbitrary and I would encourage Americans to draw that line closer to the economic freedom ideal than to the pure equality ideal.

Does that make any sense? I'm not sure if I've been clear about what my actual expectations are.

 

[Pardus]

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?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

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?

I'd go for that.

 

[spacemonkey]

Every time someone is hired for a job discrimination is a factor in the decision. They discriminate based on experiance, education, job history, refrances, ect. It should be the right of a private buisness owner to hire whomever he wants based on whatever criteria he deems necissary.