Roy Tarpley files lawsuit against NBA, Mavs

[Oznogrd]

I hate that the ADA gives "equality" to the disabled at the expense of others. If I want to start a business and find a great location but the bathrooms aren't good enough under the ADA. I then have to pay money out of my damn pocket to fix it. How is that fair? How is that equal?

Here is another personal example in which I witnessed many others suffering for the benefit of one disabled person. I went to a very small rural school, one with a very tight budget. Every year it seems they have to start shaving off 1/4 of positions to stay under their budget. So one day, in the middle of the year, this deaf kid moves into town. This forces the school to hire someone to follow him around and sign every lecture to him at the school'l expense. How can the school afford to do this? They were left with few options which included cutting the music program and having to let all of the librarians go. All because of one deaf kid, every kid in the entire town was put at a disadvantage. How is that fair? Another school in the area had a kid in a wheelchair move to town. The school was forced to put in an elevator because of the ADA. Do you have any idea how much installing an elevator cripples a small school's budget? The next year the kid moved away. How is that fair?

Because everyone should have an unalienable right to education..i'm not saying the ADA's perfect, if the feds want to enforce it, they should provide the funds. But what did you want that wheelchair or deaf kid to do? not go to school?

Also any building built before 1990 does not have to be adapted unless renovations are done, so unless you do some major revamping, you could have your business with inaccessible bathrooms....

I believe you have the same natural rights and freedoms I do. I do not believe you are entitled to extra rights or that your existance grants the state authority to deny others their rights and freedoms.

You want the state to treat you differently, and restrict the rights and freedoms of, and impose duties and require burdens on others for your personal gain. I do not because I am a liberal. I believe in equality under the law that represents recognition of equal natural rights and freedoms. You do not, therefore I believe you are wrong. That is our difference.

As for this...its as i said earlier, if the state didnt mandate it it wouldnt happen unless business owners had family members or someone specific in mind for access to their property/place of business. I do not ask for handicapped spots (although i do understand why some do), i do not ask for special treatment. I ask for not having to travel with a personal assistant to live life, i ask for an ability to do what i want when i want, just like you already have being the blessed lucky person you are. I fully believe the Feds should shell out the dough to pay for it if they mandate it, but i do not believe its a restriction of freedom to mandate allowing everyone an opportunity to be a patron.

[Christopherson]

unalienable right to education

What about the other students who lost their right? As it turned out, they could no longer use the library unless the entire class went their because there wasn't any supervision.

Why couldn't they go to a school for people who have disabilities? It is a much more efficient use of resources. Hell in today's technological world, the deaf kid could just take his classes over the internet, where he could watch videos where the entire lesson was in sign. His education could be 100% catered to his needs. How does that not benefit everyone?

[Oznogrd]

unalienable right to education

What about the other students who lost their right? As it turned out, they could no longer use the library unless the entire class went their because there wasn't any supervision.

Why couldn't they go to a school for people who have disabilities? It is a much more efficient use of resources. Hell in today's technological world, the deaf kid could just take his classes over the internet, where he could watch videos where the entire lesson was in sign. His education could be 100% catered to his needs. How does that not benefit everyone?

because learning from TV is working so well for our society? theres more than just course content at school. you learn socialization, you supposedly prepare for the real world. If a kid learns solely from a video and goes out into the real world, you actually think it would end well? The other students lost no right to education. They did not lose their school, they simply lost a library...of which im sure there was a local public one if they wanted to research they could have used just as easily. As for the school for people with disabilities, you've obviously never been to one. Its not for the kind of people who can function in every day society. You are fully promoting institutionalizing all people with disabilities, which is bullshit. I live alone, drive a car, go to class, go to work, go to practice, vote, go grocery shopping go out drinking just like you. Luckily thanks to a couple of governmental mandates, i can do this without having to take a personal assistant with me, or without doing something hazardous (walking on my arms through a crowded mall i bet would be fun)...

[Christopherson]

which im sure there was a local public one if they wanted to research they could have used just as easily.

Nope. You, like most city folk, are completly ignorant to what it is like in rural areas. These students literally could not do reasearch unless the whole class went to the library.

I have no problem with giving disabled people opportunities, I just have a problem with giving their lives more weight that non-disabled people. We live in a society where nearly everything we do is catered towards the less fortunate. The majority gets screwed on a consitant basis. I'm not saying we should just euthanize every baby born with a disability, I'm just saying the system we use now sucks really bad.

While I don't think that it is an ethical apporach, it's hard to argue that the human race wouldn't be a little bit better off if we had a little more built in natural selection.

[benji]

As for this...its as i said earlier, if the state didnt mandate it it wouldnt happen unless business owners had family members or someone specific in mind for access to their property/place of business.

Correct. As it should be. The state should not be restricting the freedoms of others and imposing duties just for the benefit of certain people.

i do not ask for special treatment

But, you are. You want the federal government to make others give you special treatment because you are different from most. That is what ADA and similar legislation does. It requires a burden of private citizens to make special accommodations for you.

i ask for an ability to do what i want when i want, just like you already have being the blessed lucky person you are.

This is demanding special treatment, enforced on others by the federal government.

but i do not believe its a restriction of freedom to mandate allowing everyone an opportunity to be a patron.

But they are not mandating "allowing opportunity" they are mandating everyone a requirement to serve you. Business should have the freedom to refuse service just as much as a freedom to offer service.

[Oznogrd]

i feel no remorse in saying this and if i get banned fine, but you two have to be some of the most heartless asshole people i've ever argued with...you are completely saying that disabled people should not be given even the slightest chance in hell of functioning in normal society. To me this is no different than saying blacks should be turned away from white stores or latinos should all be sent back to mexico...thats it i'm done...i'm simply going to smile when you become disabled and realize what life is like when your not so damned perfect.

[benji]

No, I am not. I am saying that the federal government should not be going outside it's constitutional bounds to take away the freedom of people just to benefit certain segments of society.

Not once have I argued that society should not do anything for the handicapped, or any other "disadvantaged" group. I believe the federal government to have no authority to strip the rights and freedoms of some for the entitlement of others.

If white stores do not wish to serve blacks, or vice versa, they should have the freedom to do so. They should not have a duty to serve everyone. If society does not agree with the stores' practices it will take it's business elsewhere, create competition, etc. It should not use the force of the federal government to remove the rights and freedoms of those who "violate the norms of society" and everyone else in the process.

I am far from perfect, but I do not wish you, or anyone else, to suffer because I am not.

You want special treatment because you are different, that's fine. I want everyone to be treated the same within reasonable bounds, inspite of differences. If that makes me a heartless asshole, so be it.

[BigKaboom2]

you are completely saying that disabled people should not be given even the slightest chance in hell of functioning in normal society

I just see the ADA as discriminatory because it classifies people based on genetics and the so-called "birth lottery". I honestly don't care to differentiate between black people, white people, physically disabled people, mentally disabled people, women, men - they're all the same to me.

When I hear that someone is disabled like yourself, it doesn't occur to me that you're vastly different from others and require special accomodations. I refuse to pity disabled folks and I resent those that pity themselves because as long as they've got a brain in their head they can function normally. If there are people in their life who are intolerant of their disability, who the hell needs them? I'd just tell them to stuff it and reconsider mocking others to build their own self-esteem.

My aunt is deaf - she freaking skydives and rides motorcycles all the time! I've never once considered her less of a human being than me, and in accordance with my political views which are largely as liberal as Benji's, I cannot endorse the government singling out people to be given special treatment. If I were disabled I would be embarrassed to take advantage of these things and not be treated like everyone else.

And the walking/rolling lawsuit thing - why would anyone want to hire a disabled person when the chance of the person suing them for ADA compliance violations is extremely high? In the full version of that Penn & Teller show, they talk about a guy who visited a small town somewhere in the midwest and filed many lawsuits against random businesses for not accomodating him properly, obviously looking to take advantage of the ADA for his own personal financial gain.

I definitely feel like the ADA is not only unconstitutional but augments the burden of a disability.

I'm about 6'6" and smash my head on low-hanging doorways constantly but I would never consider bringing litigation against anyone because of it.

[Oznogrd]

i still dont understand how anything besides the handicapped spots (which i use solely because if people park to close to the sides of my car i cant get in until someone comes out and moves) is special treatment. Yes there are bad cases where it is being special treatment, but i can guarantee with my life experience, if it was not mandated, the accomodations that are necessary (a wide enough voting booth for instance) would not exist. I do not trust society because it has never given me a reason to do so. Kaboom, i dont pity myself, that should be obvious, and hell even i know alot of the ADA isnt for me, but i can sympathize with the people that do need it. Like i said: ADA isnt perfect (situations like christopherson mentioned) and if the feds are gonna mandate, they should pay for it. If you look closely at the ADA and most of the legislation in debate here there is a clause that mentions that shop/business owners still have the right to refuse service at any time or if the accomodations will cause significant burden/loss of valuable parts of an organization (the library incident), they are allowed to find other ways to accomodate (be it another school, or maybe just written lectures for the deaf guy) that will not cost them. I know businesses that refuse to put in ramps because of the cost, and it is perfectly legal...I understand the point that people are people, I believe that too, but the problem is most of America truly doesnt and to prevent pure anarchy, there are federal laws about discrimination. If discrimination wasnt an issue, it wouldnt have taken African Americans 100 years post civil war to be integrated into schools, it wouldnt have taken 250 for disabled people to finally stop being institutionalized. You guys trust the good nature of people too much.

[Andrew]

drinking and doing drugs is not a disability period. i dont give a shit how many different groups come out and say it is, i dont even care if its legally a disability now, it aint. like i said before, bad news if he wins anything(which i am sure he will since thats the country we live in now)

Agreed. As I said, drug and alcohol problems shouldn't be downplayed and I can see how it's legally been classified a disability, but it remains a lifestyle choice that could be avoided...though I guess in that respect, it could be argued that it's no different from someone who chooses to ride motorcycles or partake in some other potentially dangerous activity that ends up leaving them permanently disabled after a mishap.

Tarpley wants the NBA and the Mavericks held accountable for their actions and their decisions and I can see his side of things since other players have been reinstated after similar suspensions. I believe Stanley Roberts was banned for several years after testing positive for LSD and was later reinstated but his comeback attempt fell short to say the least, so there would seem to be a double standard there. However, it doesn't seem that Tarpley is willing to accept responsibility for the choices he made or the position he put the NBA and Mavericks in all those years ago.

[benji]

i still dont understand how anything ... is special treatment. ... the accomodations that are necessary (a wide enough voting booth for instance) would not exist.

That is special treatment, is it not? Special buttons, special ramps, special door handles, special stall sizes. How is this not special treatment? In this case it is being enforced by the power of the state instead of a choice to simply offer it, which is authoritarianism.

You guys trust the good nature of people too much.

Um, no. I know people are selfish, emotional, disgusting creatures. That is why I want to limit the power of the state. These people you supposedly do not trust to do good out of their own will, you do apparently trust with absolute power and the authority to remove the natural rights and freedoms of others, as long as you benefit from it.

to prevent pure anarchy, there are federal laws about discrimination

Those laws are unconstitutional, and do not prevent anarchy, but invite authoritarianism.

I know businesses that refuse to put in ramps because of the cost, and it is perfectly legal

How so? If they are "public accomodations" which are defined as basically everything in ADA, that would be illegal. You could easily acquire an injunction against them requiring them to install a ramp.

The following private entities are considered public
accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations
of such entities affect commerce -
(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except
for an establishment located within a building that contains
not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually
occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the
residence of such proprietor;
a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or
drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium,
or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other
place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store,
shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty
shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas
station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance
office, professional office of a health care provider,
hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified
public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public
display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of
recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or
postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless
shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service
center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or
other place of exercise or recreation.

The federal government should not fund the mandates of the ADA, it should repeal the bulk of the law. Continuing to expand the federal government is the last thing we should be doing. There are already constitutional provisions against discrimination by the state. Creating law requiring discrimination by private entities is not within the powers of federal government, that is what they have done with this legislation and others.

You can make all the emotional arguments to why it should be done, but that is not an argument for granting the federal government authority to impose something on the people. Change society by changing attitudes, not by using the power of the state to change morals to benefit you.

To sum up, and restate. You want an authoritarian state if it makes things better for you, and a certain group of others. I do not, I want a liberal state. I know that makes me an outlier in the world, and even an extremist. But I think history makes the case for making logical and reasoned grants of power to the state, not ones driven by emotion and guilt.

[Oznogrd]

History makes the case...
The history of disabled culture maybe? the fact that the "greatest" country in the world ignored its own preaching of equality for all for almost everyone who wasnt a rich white landowner? thats not equality. What you people are not getting/even attempting to understand that without so called special treatment, i wouldnt leave my house because the hassle would be too great. Institutions or living with my family my entire life would be my only solution. How is that OK? The governments job is to help people: be it the minority or the majority. Emotion needs to be just as big a factor as logic in governmental decision because humans are not always logical beings. I repeat once again: if you repeal the ADA: i become a massive drain on the economy and a burden of all your tax money. With the ADA: i do not. I'm not saying theres not some things wrong with it, i'm not saying i believe the doorknobs must not be round or that drive up atms need braille, but i do believe without the government mandates i would be living at home being a "pathetic loser"..

[benji]

I repeat once again: if you repeal the ADA: i become a massive drain on the economy and a burden of all your tax money. With the ADA: i do not. I'm not saying theres not some things wrong with it, i'm not saying i believe the doorknobs must not be round or that drive up atms need braille, but i do believe without the government mandates i would be living at home being a "pathetic loser"..

Why did your parents fail you then? (Since you said it was parenting in regards to the guy in the video.) Why do you have such a low self concept that you feel you are worthless without the federal government "making" you into something? Why do you consider it alright, to take from others with the power of the state, to benefit yourself, when you define yourself as nothing more than a product of the state?

If the politicans decided to follow the constitution for a change and repealed the ADA, you would instantly become a vegetable? Have faith in yourself instead of being a servant to the state.

What you people are not getting/even attempting to understand that without so called special treatment, i wouldnt leave my house because the hassle would be too great.

So, then it is fine to demand special treatment? Even at the cost of others? With your history references are you implying that because, in the past, people were not equal under the law, we should not ever have people be equal under the law? That because of past (you think it's not the greatest country ever?) we must be beholden to it? Would you argue then for the return of fiefdom and slavery?

Institutions or living with my family my entire life would be my only solution. How is that OK?

Who was saying it is okay?

The governments job is to help people

No, it is not.

Emotion needs to be just as big a factor as logic in governmental decision because humans are not always logical beings.

Which is why government must be. Emotion should be kept out of government, as emotion is not even handed.

What you people are not getting/even attempting to understand that without so called special treatment, i wouldnt leave my house because the hassle would be too great.

What you are not getting, or even attempting to understand, is that some people do not care for authoritarians who use the state for personal gain. You claim you do not want special treatment, while demanding it and claiming it is your right because you are different. You complain when people try on their own to help you out of their own will, but demand the state force them to benefit you when you want it.

All I am saying, is that you are an authoritarian, who wishes to use the state for personal gain and that I consider it wrong. Not that it is wrong, merely that is your philosophy, I consider that philosophy to be wrong. (And that the ADA is unconstitutional and authoritarian, but that has already been surpassed.)

[TheMC5]

The governments job is to help people

No, it is not.

Yes, it is. Or at least, it should be, and has traditionally been in western democracy.

[Sauru]

thats exactly what the governments job is, to help people(assuming you live in the U.S.). sounds to me like you are more into a communist country benji

[benji]

No, the federal government's job is to enforce and maintain laws, and provide a national defense to protect from foreign threats to natural rights. It is not to "help" me. I know George W. Bush's "when someone is hurting, government has to move" is not a new sentiment, but it is not a liberal sentiment. (Additionally, in the American system, the federal governments job also includes managing the disputes of the states

Western, liberal democracies, jobs were not, prior to the Progressive movement (and the American Fascist movement), to "help" people but instead to provide a minor framework for a nation's society to operate within. The belief that government is here to "fix" or "help" society, instead of protecting simple order and providing a legal framework, is a modern political philosophy.

A "communist country" (as provided historically, not the ignorant notion of Marxism) would be a better example of a government that is here to "help" society instead of one that allows the market of life to flourish freely.

[Christopherson]

Benji, I am not nearly as well versed as you when it comes to politics and government, so I was wondering if you could explain something to me.

You have considered yourself a liberal. By this you are meaning a true liberal, correct? Not the sort of liberal the Democratic party refers to correct? I would think that anyone on the side of the Democratic party would be all for the government helping people, no? Anyways, I'm just a little confused and I figured you would be a good person to clear this up.

[Oznogrd]

I would become an instant vegetable if cities/businesses were not mandated because i would be unable to function independently. And there are guys even worse off than me who wouldnt even be able to get out of their buildings. I have faith in myself, but it can only go so far. When your entire life becomes only pain and hassle, why would you want to live? By implying accomodations shouldnt have to be made; you assume people would just "find a way" and some peoples bodies just dont have the functionality for finding a way. You may say "well thats natural selection and the way of things" but its not right. Period.

The idea government is here to help is "modern political philosophy." well i live in the here and now and i believe it is the job of the government to protect ALL citizens anyway they can. Majority/Minority, Anyone and Everyone should have the same rights as everyone else. Without the antidiscrimination laws, this wouldnt happen. Yes i understand there can be reverse discirimination, and that should also be made just as big of an offense.

I think we disagree on far too many things to ever reach an understanding between us. I believe you are a heartless asshole who may never achieve empathy for anyone but yourself, and you believe i'm a hypocrite of the highest caliber. If you're ever out in Illinois sometime during the winter, i'll let you borrow my chair and see if you can make it across the street to convenience store without ramps or accomodations and tell me that the ADA should still be repealed. Thats it i'm done.

[benji]

Majority/Minority, Anyone and Everyone should have the same rights as everyone else

Yet, you want more rights than everyone else, merely because you are different.

Yes i understand there can be reverse discirimination, and that should also be made just as big of an offense.

There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" there is merely discrimination.

The idea government is here to help is "modern political philosophy." well i live in the here and now and i believe it is the job of the government to protect ALL citizens anyway they can.

Even if it has to remove their freedom?

It is a "modern political philosophy" out of the progressive, marxist and fascist authoritarian movements. It is not the only philosophy. It runs counter to the U.S. Constitution. And liberalism.

I would become an instant vegetable if cities/businesses were not mandated because i would be unable to function independently.

I do not believe this. You clearly exist quite well currently. You live alone, you drive a car, work, practice, grocery shop, and drink. None of those things the government was required to do for you. (Voting and going to class I do not consider related to this discussion, as that is the government.)

Technology is what makes the disabled no longer invalids as they were even fifty years ago, let alone a century. Most achievements in the improvement of the lives of the disabled have come not from the government but the market.

I believe you are a heartless asshole who may never achieve empathy for anyone but yourself, and you believe i'm a hypocrite of the highest caliber.

I do not believe you are a hypocrite.

If you wish to believe I am heartless, an asshole and incapable of empathy merely because I feel that while society should do things, the state should not be granted absolute power to enforce it upon people and strip their freedom. That is fine. You can believe that. Just as it is fine for you to believe others should not have freedoms, and that the state should be an authoritarian one, if it is to your benefit.

I think we disagree on far too many things to ever reach an understanding between us.

Yes, we disagree, I am a liberal who wants limited equal laws, you are an authoritarian who wants to use the power to benefit yourself. That does not mean we cannot reach an understanding. I believe I clearly have an understanding of you, as you should have one of me. You believe the state should be "correcting" society. I believe that is better described as tyranny. I do not believe in emotional or "moral authority, because they lived it" governing because it is a disaster waiting to happen, you apparently do.

If you're ever out in Illinois sometime during the winter, i'll let you borrow my chair and see if you can make it across the street to convenience store without ramps or accomodations and tell me that the ADA should still be repealed.

Alright, if I ever am in the area I will let you know. I will more than likely absolutely fail in the task, and still tell you the unconstitutional, authoritarian law should be repealed. Why? Because it will still be authortiarian and unconstitutional. My emotions on whether or not getting across the street (which is government owned by the way) is a terrible task will not change my liberal interpretation of the law.

Although, admittidly I do not want society to help me with the er...problem I have...I know for certain I do not want the government to be forcing others to "help" me and stripping the rights of everyone merely for my short term and minimal benefit. Even if I had an actual serious disability. But that is a result of my...problem, if I accepted it as real...more than my political philosophy. I digress far too much by this point.

[Sauru]

you gotta be fucking kidding me with all this. do you honestly believe that all men are created equally? i dont as i have experience with people who just were born with less than the normal person. i have had friends who needed machine just to stay alive, i dont see how anyone can honestly be so insensitive.

[benji]

Thanks for reading the thread, Sauru.

I know people are not equal. But I believe the state should treat everyone equally under the law.

If it is insensitive to believe the law of the state should treat people equally, then I am insensitive. I would rather be considered insensitive than have the same philosophy as the racists, sexists and fascists of the past.

[Sauru]

maybe i am just not fully understanding your point here, therefor until i do i will not post comments on it, i might have you all wrong...

[cyanide]

I know people are not equal. But I believe the state should treat everyone equally under the law.

I would generally agree with that, however, what should the state do in this situation:

A hard of hearing person is suing a hearing person for unpaid loans in a civil court. Because of the distance between the judge and the individuals, and the open area of the courtroom, it is nearly impossible for the hearing person to hear what the judge says. The hard of hearing person would likely lose a case that he should have won because the state does not provide an interpreter or a real-time captioning service to the hard of hearing client.

Is this a violation of human rights? Does this change the perception of equality?

[benji]

That is irrelevant to this discussion. The court system is part of the government.

EDIT: Should clarify. That is the government regulating and requiring of itself, which is generally under its powers. However, if the court would only allow the interpreter to the hard of hearing person, that would be discrimination and the government would clearly be in violation of the Constitution.

[cyanide]

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but if the hard of hearing person does not get an interpreter, wouldn't it also be discrimination by the government because the HH individual is not treated as an equal? The interpreter is there to relay visually exactly the same information that the hearing individual hears so there is no advantage. There would be disadvantage to the HH person because he is not getting equal information that the hearing person is, and it would be an advantage to the hearing person because he is getting information that the HH is not. So, to make it nondiscriminatory and constitutional for both sides, an interpreter would be provided for both the HH and hearing individuals, right?