If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox 40 Sacramento)   Ford's Real Hamburgers, 50 year-old landmark, shut down by ADA and activist attorney because he couldn't give a crap   (fox40.com) divider line 426
    More: Sad, ADA, attorney-in-fact, activists  
•       •       •

19950 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Sep 2012 at 1:46 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



426 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-09-30 12:17:34 PM
Make sure to liquidate the business and distribute proceeds before the case goes through the court system, otherwise the lawyer gets it all.
 
2012-09-30 12:18:02 PM
New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.
 
2012-09-30 12:19:30 PM
Maybe someone can explain the whole ADA thing to me.  Isn't there some sort of grandfather clause?  Or some way to get some exceptions?  I live in a 200-ish old city, and many of the buildings are in the 150-year-old range (my house is, and all the bars in my area are).  None of them are very handicapped accessable... *especially* not bathrooms.  And there is no way they could be, based on how things were built a century and a half ago.
 
However, when people have gutted old structures recently to the studs to build new restaurants and bars, I've noticed many of them have put on ramps and built larger bathrooms.
 
2012-09-30 12:23:57 PM
GODDAMNITSOMUCH!!!!

I HATE THAT CRIPPLED PIECE OF SH*T WITH THE FURY OF A THOUSAND EXPLODING SUNS!!

/yes, I AM that angry about this. Johnson is a worthless f*cking parasite that the world would be better off without
 
2012-09-30 12:44:24 PM

downstairs: Maybe someone can explain the whole ADA thing to me.  Isn't there some sort of grandfather clause?  Or some way to get some exceptions?  I live in a 200-ish old city, and many of the buildings are in the 150-year-old range (my house is, and all the bars in my area are).  None of them are very handicapped accessable... *especially* not bathrooms.  And there is no way they could be, based on how things were built a century and a half ago.
 
However, when people have gutted old structures recently to the studs to build new restaurants and bars, I've noticed many of them have put on ramps and built larger bathrooms.


Kind of. I'm no expert by any means but there are some historical exemptions. And for some things as long as you do not touch them then you are ok. I was looking into opening a bar with a friend and that was a huge problem for us. In order to be in full compliance we would have to hire experts in the law and the costs were staggering. Or we could have just done what we had to to open and still be vulnerable to lawsuits. Kind of a strange catch-22. So we decided not to have to deal with the headache and are looking for places already in full ADA compliance. Which is no guarantee that you still will not get sued. Any mistakes in the construction can still lead to lawsuits. And in California there are some contradictions between state and federal law. so if you comply with one you and then violating another. I have spent months reading up on this and am probably more confused now than I was at the beginning.
 
2012-09-30 12:45:01 PM

flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.


Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.
 
2012-09-30 12:49:02 PM
1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.
 
2012-09-30 12:50:13 PM

GAT_00: Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.


Doesn't make any sense at all to drive people out of business and destroy jobs because the owner can't pay for changes that benefit a tiny fraction of the population. Most people who own burger stands are not rich fat cats.
 
2012-09-30 12:58:32 PM
The allegation is that Ford's is out of compliance with the ADA - the American's with Disabilities Act.

Wow. The law covers only one American, and that one happened to try to get into Ford's. How unlucky is that?
 
2012-09-30 01:01:13 PM

I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

www.genericsubject.com
 
2012-09-30 01:02:23 PM

GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.


Wow, now you're an expert in ADA compliance. Can you please enlighten us to the meaning of "readily achievable" when it comes to renovation of existing commercial buildings? What about the element by element safe harbor provisions?

Or are you just an opinionated youngster who jumps to incorrect conclusions?
 
2012-09-30 01:03:41 PM

GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.


It does when those laws would require massive structural changes to the building in order to comply.
 
2012-09-30 01:05:24 PM

basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.


No, because that is asking for a nice fat Discrimination law suit!
 
2012-09-30 01:17:50 PM

Azlefty: 1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.


You're a fool. ADA compliance, depending on the size and age of the place, can run into tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes it's just plain impossible without complete destruction of the restaurant (i.e. the original Squeeze Inn in Sacramento, CA or Frank's Diner in Kenosha, WI, older small restaurants built long before this law existed).

In California, lawsuits of this nature are filed under the Unruh Act, which allows $4,000 in damages per violation along with attorney's fees (which is extra profit for lawyers like this who file lawsuits themselves). Note that this damage limit applies for every single time they visit a business and can apply if the mirrors are even half an inch too high. How would you like to have to spend $50,000 because in fines and attorney's fees because this guy said your mirror was too high? And as it turns out, the guy filing suit didn't even come there to buy anything. He just wanted to see if he could sue you.
 
2012-09-30 01:19:01 PM

flucto: GAT_00: Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.

Doesn't make any sense at all to drive people out of business and destroy jobs because the owner can't pay for changes that benefit a tiny fraction of the population. Most people who own burger stands are not rich fat cats.


Discrimination is discrimination. It is all the same, and we treat unintentional discrimination the same as intentional.
 
2012-09-30 01:19:05 PM

ShawnDoc: GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.

It does when those laws would require massive structural changes to the building in order to comply.


You and I both know that the law requires no such thing. However the leftists think it does apparently.

The ADA regulations, which are being constantly changed, are overly burdensome to our most hated citizens, the small businessman. Certainly new construction should meet the published standards. However requiring substantial renovations on a 50 year old building was not the intent of the law.

The law is so onerous that businesses such as the one in this article, are often forced to close rather than spend the time, money and effort to engage lawyers, architects, and engineers to fight spurious lawsuits such or invest in renovations to comply with regulations that may not even apply to them but which they simply can't determine without spending as much money on experts as construction.

Certainly as many businesses as possible should be accessible to the disables, however the law does not require that the Washington Monument install a wheelchair ramp next to the stairs. Reasonableness is key, but reasonableness can only be determined by the Court and the noxious litigants know that.
 
2012-09-30 01:20:51 PM

GAT_00: Discrimination is discrimination. It is all the same, and we treat unintentional discrimination the same as intentional


No we don't.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
2012-09-30 01:25:04 PM
ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.
 
2012-09-30 01:32:39 PM

GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.


Maybe but a lot of it comes from a few lawyers who specialize in these lawsuits. They are pretty common here in San Diego. A lawyer will go into a community just to look for lawsuits. A handicapped sign too old? lawsuit. A Bathroom rail too low? lawsuit. a lot of these lawsuits are not about accessibility but about very minor violations in the the law. It is easier to settle with the lawyer for a few grand than to fight in court.
 
2012-09-30 01:38:26 PM

Tellingthem: GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.

Maybe but a lot of it comes from a few lawyers who specialize in these lawsuits. They are pretty common here in San Diego. A lawyer will go into a community just to look for lawsuits. A handicapped sign too old? lawsuit. A Bathroom rail too low? lawsuit. a lot of these lawsuits are not about accessibility but about very minor violations in the the law. It is easier to settle with the lawyer for a few grand than to fight in court.


That's this guy's shtick, and why I despise him so much. In order to comply, they would have had to level the building and rebuild from the ground up. It's a 60 year old mom and pop burger stand, for cryin' out loud

/it's extortion hiding behind the law
//and Ford's was a DAMNED good burger
 
2012-09-30 01:39:31 PM

GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine.


That anyone can file a lawsuit which you must defend even if you're not out of compliance and which can cost you thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

/of course he can't see this as he has me on ignore because I often disagree with him, challenge his absurd assertions and point out how he is wrong.
 
2012-09-30 01:40:31 PM

GAT_00: Discrimination is discrimination. It is all the same, and we treat unintentional discrimination the same as intentional.


Wait, now I get it. I've seen the light.

roller coasters
space capsules
hiking trails
canoes
water slides
climbing walls
orchards
trapezes
skydiving operations
oceans
and millions of other locations, structures, activities and venues should immediately be sued out of existence because OMG intentional/unintentional discrimination.
 
2012-09-30 01:40:44 PM

Tellingthem: GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.

Maybe but a lot of it comes from a few lawyers who specialize in these lawsuits. They are pretty common here in San Diego. A lawyer will go into a community just to look for lawsuits. A handicapped sign too old? lawsuit. A Bathroom rail too low? lawsuit. a lot of these lawsuits are not about accessibility but about very minor violations in the the law. It is easier to settle with the lawyer for a few grand than to fight in court.


So what? People abuse laws and lawsuits all the time. You know what that means? Fix the law, don't toss it. These people want to toss it, like if something doesn't work right the only solution is to completely get rid of it. Nothing works like that. Make it simply and easy to learn and comply with. Of course, the people who support actions like making laws simple and easy won't touch fixing the ADA, they want to just toss the whole thing now. You don't see people trying to fix the ADA, only junk it.

Again, and the sudden silence here also encourages my suspicions, the outrage about the ADA is politically correct outrage over discrimination being illegal.
 
2012-09-30 01:41:26 PM

flucto: GAT_00: Discrimination is discrimination. It is all the same, and we treat unintentional discrimination the same as intentional.

Wait, now I get it. I've seen the light.

roller coasters
space capsules
hiking trails
canoes
water slides
climbing walls
orchards
trapezes
skydiving operations
oceans
and millions of other locations, structures, activities and venues should immediately be sued out of existence because OMG intentional/unintentional discrimination.


I give you an A for your skill in completely missing the point.
 
2012-09-30 01:45:06 PM

feckingmorons: GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine.

That anyone can file a lawsuit which you must defend even if you're not out of compliance and which can cost you thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

/of course he can't see this as he has me on ignore because I often disagree with him, challenge his absurd assertions and point out how he is wrong.


Is there anything I can do to help with that?
 
2012-09-30 01:49:51 PM

GAT_00: sudden silence


Of course it is silent, you hide everyone who disagrees with you!

They have amended the ADA in 2008 with the ADA Amendments Act signed by President Bush. It more clearly defined what a person's 'substantial limitation' is. It also clarified that someone must be disabled, with that meaning they have a "disability is an impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity" and clarifies that the accommodations must be reasonable and that it can be made without undue hardship. These amendments apply more to the employment part of the ADA that the public accommodations part, but they are not dissimilar in their application - especially about reasonableness and undue hardship.
 
2012-09-30 01:50:26 PM

flucto: feckingmorons: GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine.

That anyone can file a lawsuit which you must defend even if you're not out of compliance and which can cost you thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

/of course he can't see this as he has me on ignore because I often disagree with him, challenge his absurd assertions and point out how he is wrong.

Is there anything I can do to help with that?


-snert-
 
2012-09-30 01:51:23 PM
Lived in Sacramento for a year, never heard of the place. Meh.

The ADA has been around for a very long time, suck it up owner and comply.
 
2012-09-30 01:54:10 PM

GAT_00: Tellingthem: GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.

Maybe but a lot of it comes from a few lawyers who specialize in these lawsuits. They are pretty common here in San Diego. A lawyer will go into a community just to look for lawsuits. A handicapped sign too old? lawsuit. A Bathroom rail too low? lawsuit. a lot of these lawsuits are not about accessibility but about very minor violations in the the law. It is easier to settle with the lawyer for a few grand than to fight in court.

So what? People abuse laws and lawsuits all the time. You know what that means? Fix the law, don't toss it. These people want to toss it, like if something doesn't work right the only solution is to completely get rid of it. Nothing works like that. Make it simply and easy to learn and comply with. Of course, the people who support actions like making laws simple and easy won't touch fixing the ADA, they want to just toss the whole thing now. You don't see people trying to fix the ADA, only junk it.

Again, and the sudden silence here also encourages my suspicions, the outrage about the ADA is politically correct outrage over discrimination being illegal.


Ahh people can complain all they want about the law but it will never go away. Also nothing in the article or comments has anyone said they want to toss the entire law. I think you are just reading way more into this than what it is.
 
2012-09-30 01:54:10 PM
Should I take the "Rules is rules" stance or the "government is interfering with small business" stance? I need to know where to channel my outrage.
 
2012-09-30 01:55:15 PM
I would like to plead guilty, your honor...

i291.photobucket.com

i291.photobucket.com

i291.photobucket.com

... to FAPPING!
 
2012-09-30 01:55:51 PM

Tellingthem: Also nothing in the article or comments has anyone said they want to toss the entire law. I think you are just reading way more into this than what it is.


Oh come on, you know these people. They don't have the mentality to fix something. Something goes wrong they always want to toss everything, start completely over, like that fixes everything. Read between the lines and remember who the angry people in here are.
 
2012-09-30 01:56:14 PM
A quadriplegic lawyer? This guy chases his own ambulances
 
2012-09-30 01:56:23 PM

flucto: GAT_00: Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.

Doesn't make any sense at all to drive people out of business and destroy jobs because the owner can't pay for changes that benefit a tiny fraction of the population. Most people who own burger stands are not rich fat cats.


somewhere along the way 'majority rules' ceased to exist. one person is butt hurt by a xmas tree at an airport, every decoration has to come down, even though multiple religions were represented. america has gone moran and we ain't never coming back.
 
2012-09-30 01:57:04 PM

GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.


Really? Most new laws should allow grandfathering, because people and businesses set up based on the old rules and it isn't fair to change the rules or cost structure of their business.

Imagine you built a house that was compliant to a rule, and then they changed the rules such that you had to significantly change it? How in any sense would that either be fair, or a valid way to implement new rules?

Businesses turn over often enough, and people like to remodel occasionally. So fairly quickly, even with grandfathering, most buildings will be brought up to new codes.

But forcing existing owners to comply to new rules that didn't exist when they set up their business plan just doesn't make any sense.
 
2012-09-30 01:57:05 PM

ArkAngel: Azlefty: 1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.

You're a fool. ADA compliance, depending on the size and age of the place, can run into tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes it's just plain impossible without complete destruction of the restaurant (i.e. the original Squeeze Inn in Sacramento, CA or Frank's Diner in Kenosha, WI, older small restaurants built long before this law existed).

In California, lawsuits of this nature are filed under the Unruh Act, which allows $4,000 in damages per violation along with attorney's fees (which is extra profit for lawyers like this who file lawsuits themselves). Note that this damage limit applies for every single time they visit a business and can apply if the mirrors are even half an inch too high. How would you like to have to spend $50,000 because in fines and attorney's fees because this guy said your mirror was too high? And as it turns out, the guy filing suit didn't even come there to buy anything. He just wanted to see if he could sue you.


So, pay $50,000 in fines and look like a whiny biatch, or spend $50,000 to become ADA compliant and continue growing your business.

You sir, sound like the tool.
 
2012-09-30 01:57:49 PM
Mt. Everest isn't ADA compliant. We should shut it down.
 
2012-09-30 01:57:59 PM
Is it wrong to punch a dude in a wheelchair?
 
2012-09-30 01:58:03 PM
Oops, misread fool as tool. My bad.
 
2012-09-30 01:58:42 PM

jabelar: GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.

Really? Most new laws should allow grandfathering, because people and businesses set up based on the old rules and it isn't fair to change the rules or cost structure of their business.

Imagine you built a house that was compliant to a rule, and then they changed the rules such that you had to significantly change it? How in any sense would that either be fair, or a valid way to implement new rules?

Businesses turn over often enough, and people like to remodel occasionally. So fairly quickly, even with grandfathering, most buildings will be brought up to new codes.

But forcing existing owners to comply to new rules that didn't exist when they set up their business plan just doesn't make any sense.


The ADA was passed 22 years ago. This isn't some new law.
 
2012-09-30 01:58:52 PM
The American Dental Association says that their burgers are bad for your teeth ;)
 
2012-09-30 01:59:36 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: GODDAMNITSOMUCH!!!!

I HATE THAT CRIPPLED PIECE OF SH*T WITH THE FURY OF A THOUSAND EXPLODING SUNS!!

/yes, I AM that angry about this. Johnson is a worthless f*cking parasite that the world would be better off without


There used to be an individual, who shall remain nameless, on a forum I used to frequent who was "mislabeled" (disabled is pejorative, you see.) He ran a blog, and all he did was look for technical ADA violations everywhere he went. I remember he got burned out of his apartment and put up in a hotel by the red cross, which was promptly followed by a dissertation on how terribly the hotel was infringing on his rights......because the rail in the handicap accessible bathroom was something like two inches to short.
 
2012-09-30 02:00:39 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Is it wrong to punch a dude in a wheelchair?


Asking that question is discrimination. All dickwads deserved to be punched in the head without regard their physical abilities, race, or sexual orientation. You're an abilitist.
 
2012-09-30 02:01:03 PM

GAT_00: Tellingthem: Also nothing in the article or comments has anyone said they want to toss the entire law. I think you are just reading way more into this than what it is.

Oh come on, you know these people. They don't have the mentality to fix something. Something goes wrong they always want to toss everything, start completely over, like that fixes everything. Read between the lines and remember who the angry people in here are.


The guy that ignores dissent says 'they' don't have the mentality to fix something. Is that a stipulation that the lawsuit is improper, and that there should be no private right of action under the ADA? If it is broken as it must be in his acknowledgement that it needs fixing, then what does he think should be fixed. He complains about other people not having the mentality to fix it, yet offers no solution himself.

Typical.
 
2012-09-30 02:02:53 PM

Azlefty: 1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.


Did you even read the article? The compliance issue involved the width of the hallway to the bathroom. It's not a matter of being too stupid to know how to fix it, it's a matter of the cost being so expensive that the business owner can't afford to spend the money to fix it.
 
2012-09-30 02:03:42 PM

basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

[www.genericsubject.com image 400x290]


That'll get you shut down plus a nice class-action discrimination lawsuit.
 
2012-09-30 02:03:52 PM

OrygunFarker: So, pay $50,000 in fines and look like a whiny biatch, or spend $50,000 to become ADA compliant and continue growing your business.

You sir, sound like the tool.


Dude, you have total logic fail as there are other options which are more likely and practical.

There is also:
c) go out of business because you can't do either
d) change the law so you only have to come up to compliance when business changes ownership or you remodel significantly.
 
2012-09-30 02:04:00 PM

GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.


Maybe it's the idea that businesses who have existed in the same location in the same quarters for 50 years could have charges brought against them to modify their structures to meet the requirements of a law that didn't exist at the time the building was built and the business was launched?

Maybe it's the idea that no building owner of an existing struture is forced to comply with each and every new building ordnance as soon as it's passed, but they are required to do so for something like ADA?

Maybe it's the idea that there's only ONE ambulance-chasing litigator who is bringing these suits in the area, and always on his own behalf?

Just think -- many of the business owners who are forced out of business because of ADA lawsuits like this are now living off your tax dollars when they were just a few months before productive members of society and contributing tax revenues to their community, state, and Federal coffers. Now they're not -- they're leeching off of it, and they'd prefer not to be. All because they ran a business in a building that was older than they were and was not designed with ADA in mind.

I have nothing against the disabled, but I do have something against disabled lawyers who prefer to be predatory in their practices...

And -- if he's quadraplegic, how can he even hold a farking hamburger? Why would he even go there? Has anyone determined whether or not the man actually went to the site, or if he had someone else scout it out as a target for his predatory lawsuit practice?
 
2012-09-30 02:04:25 PM

Azlefty: basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

No, because that is asking for a nice fat Discrimination law suit!


I'm pretty sure that you're allowed to discriminate against ambulance chasers.
 
2012-09-30 02:04:55 PM
This.

feckingmorons: They have amended the ADA in 2008 with the ADA Amendments Act signed by President Bush. It more clearly defined what a person's 'substantial limitation' is. It also clarified that someone must be disabled, with that meaning they have a "disability is an impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity" and clarifies that the accommodations must be reasonable and that it can be made without undue hardship. These amendments apply more to the employment part of the ADA that the public accommodations part, but they are not dissimilar in their application - especially about reasonableness and undue hardship.


What I posted on slashdot about something similar.

Q. Are there any limitations on the ADA's barrier removal requirements for existing facilities?

A. Yes. Barrier removal need be accomplished only when it is "readily achievable" to do so.

Q. What does the term "readily achievable" mean?

A. It means "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."

Q. Will businesses need to install elevators?

A. Businesses are not required to retrofit their facilities to install elevators unless such installation is readily achievable, which is unlikely in most cases.

Q. Must alternative steps be taken without regard to cost?

A. No, only readily achievable alternative steps must be undertaken.

ADA FAQ 

This is just some guy with a failing business who is blaming the ADA instead of the myriad other reasons why his business is failing. So it matches up with the tea-potty agenda that "all regulation is bad especially if it helps cripples."
 
Displayed 50 of 426 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report