Quote Originally Posted by worthy cook View Post
Ill chime back in again

1) this guy says he hasn't had a job in two years. so he is probably getting some kind of disability check and riding that wave.

2) If this is the first offense of the business then they should have a grace period to get it fixed. If it is determined that it is a multiple complaint, they should have to pay the city, not this man. And if they don't get it fixed, face more penalties or get shut down.

3) You would think that since he is so determined to change the world, he would donate money to help his cause. But from his attitude that is def not the case.

4) The cheesy lawyer makes my case.

This is what shows whats wrong with the legal system. You can sue for anything if you don't get your way. Its like that group of large folks who wanted to take legal action against the ford center cause they couldn't get in the seats. Or like me filing a lawsuit against clay bennett because I can't afford courtside seats.

Look I have two sisters who are disabled. One whos had a leg amputated and one who was in a car wreck and has a head injury so Im not talking out my ass here. They realize that there are some things they can't do anymore and have accepted it. This guy hasn't accepted it and wants to take it out on the world.

Sorry for the rant but I guess Im the only one that thinks it painfully obvious this isn't right.

Well, that's because it's not unequivocally wrong. Room for debate here. This is what we intended to happen. We end up with ADA compliant businesses at very little on-going government expense. Who cares what his motives are? We, as society, should merely care that these businesses are up to code.

I'm just glad the government isn't spending public money to send government employees wandering around to restaurants. We're pushing forward a societal agenda on private dollars without expanding inefficient government. That's a GOOD thing in my world. And that would be the alternative...otherwise, we have ADA requirements to be met, but no teeth with which to enforce.


So which do you prefer? Allowing private citizens to sue based on the ADA? Or having government agents checking EVERY building on the public's dime? Or having the ADA be practically unenforceable?

(I don't know how other states enforce the ADA that don't allow for personal damage suits.)