sight-impaired browsers (was: [svlug] Tax money at work)

[Smitty]

Derek Balling wrote:
The ADA definitely undermines freedom of association, states' rights,
privacy rights, and many other rights under the guise of accomodating
someone who is crippled.  Those who rammed this crap through the US
congress used the conline "What? Anyone who opposes this is just cold
and mean-spirited."  It is usually the case that if someone can handle a
job well, the employer will make accomodations for the employee, without
having huge financial penalties coercing them.  This is another
suppressive law that makes running a business more dangerous, less fun,
and more complicated.  I suggest you email your reps and senators to get
this thing repealed.  
Smitty

> 
> At 9:12 PM -0700 4/21/01, Deirdre Saoirse Moen wrote:
> >><offtopic>
> >>And, on a side note and completely off-topic... The ADA annoys me in
> >>so many ways. It is not the world's job to adapt to $RANDOM_PERSON's
> >>disability. If you are born with a disability, you have my sympathy
> >>(although many would not want it) and you'll even get my help if you
> >>desire it, but an employer/retailer/business-owner to be forced to
> >>consider every possible handicap and for adapting to it to come out
> >>of THEIR pocket, to me, is just plain wrong.
> >></offtopic>
> >
> >They don't have to...unless the issue comes up.
> 
> But my point/position is that even if the issue comes up, while I
> would encourage the employer/retailer/business-owner to accomodate
> their customer (because its a nice thing to do and builds good
> customer will), I certainly can't stomach the idea of the government
> coming in and saying "Hi, I know you exist on a 0.002% margin, but
> please now invest copious sums of money remodeling your bathroom,
> stairs, entrances, and other facilities so that
> $ONE_RANDOM_WHEELCHAIR_OWNER can get in and around like anyone else."
> 
> Sorry, that just leaves the nastiest taste in my mouth, and I can't
> support that type of thing. :)
> 
> D
>