Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal
Tell it bro
As if a highly bureaucratic regulatory system was not already in place, 9/11 fueled renewed acceleration to eliminate freedom from the countryside. Every time a letter arrives in the mail from a federal or state agriculture department my heart jumps like I just got sent to the principal’s office.
And it doesn’t stop with agriculture bureaucrats. It includes all sorts of government agencies, from zoning, to taxing, to food inspectors. These agencies are the ultimate extension of a disconnected, Greco-Roman, Western, egocentric, compartmentalized, reductionist, fragmented, linear thought process.
ON-FARM PROCESSING
I want to dress my beef and pork on the farm where I’ve coddled and raised it. But zoning laws prohibit slaughterhouses on agricultural land. For crying out loud, what makes more holistic sense than to put abattoirs where the animals are? But no, in the wisdom of Western disconnected thinking, abattoirs are massive centralized facilities visited daily by a steady stream of tractor trailers and illegal alien workers.
But what about dressing a couple of animals a year in the backyard? How can that be compared to a ConAgra or Tyson facility? In the eyes of the government, the two are one and the same. Every T-bone steak has to be wrapped in a half-million dollar facility so that it can be sold to your neighbor. The fact that I can do it on my own farm more cleanly, more responsibly, more humanely, more efficiently, and in a more environmentally friendly manner doesn’t matter to the government agents who walk around with big badges on their jackets and wheelbarrow-sized regulations tucked under their arms.
OK, so I take my animals and load them onto a trailer for the first time in their life to send them up the already clogged interstate to the abattoir to await their appointed hour with a shed full of animals of dubious extraction. They are dressed by people wearing long coats with deep pockets with whom I cannot even communicate. The carcasses hang in a cooler alongside others that were not similarly cared for in life. After the animals are processed, I return to the facility hoping to retrieve my meat.
When I return home to sell these delectable packages, the county zoning ordinance says that this is a manufactured product because it exited the farm and was reimported as a value-added product, thereby throwing our farm into the Wal-Mart category, another prohibition in agricultural areas. Just so you understand this, remember that an on-farm abattoir was illegal, so I took the animals to a legal abattoir, but now the selling of said products in an on-farm store is illegal.
Our whole culture suffers from an industrial food system that has made every part disconnected from the rest. Smelly and dirty farms are supposed to be in one place, away from people, who snuggle smugly in their cul-de-sacs and have not a clue about the out-of-sight-out-of-mind atrocities being committed to their dinner before it arrives in microwaveable, four-color-labeled, plastic packaging. Industrial abattoirs need to be located in a not-in-my-backyard place to sequester noxious odors and sights. Finally, the retail store must be located in a commercial district surrounded by lots of pavement, handicapped access, public toilets and whatever else must be required to get food to people.
The notion that animals can be raised, processed, packaged, and sold in a model that offends neither our eyes nor noses cannot even register on the average bureaucrat’s radar screen — or, more importantly, on the radar of the average consumer advocacy organization. Besides, all these single-use megalithic structures are good for the gross domestic product. Anything else is illegal.
ON-FARM SEMINARS & ‘AGRITAINMENT’
In the disconnected mind of modem America, a farm is a production unit for commodities — nothing more and nothing less. Because our land is zoned as agricultural, we cannot charge school kids for a tour of the farm because that puts us in the category of "Theme Park." Anyone paying for infotainment creates "Farmadisney," a strict no-no in agricultural zones.
Farms are not supposed to be places of enjoyment or learning. They are commodity production units dotting the landscape, just as factories are manufacturing units and office complexes are service units. In the government’s mind, integrating farm production with recreation and meaningful education creates a warped sense of agriculture.
The very notion of encouraging people to visit farms is blasphemous to an official credo that views even sparrows, starlings and flies as disease threats to immunocompromised plants and animals. Visitors entering USDA-blessed production unit farms must run through a gauntlet of toxic sanitation dips and don moonsuits in order to keep their germs to themselves. Indeed, people are viewed as hazardous foreign bodies at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
Farmers who actually encourage folks to come to their farms threaten the health and welfare of their fecal concentration camp production unit neighbors, and therefore must be prohibited from bringing these invasive germ-dispensing humans onto their landscape. In the industrial agribusiness paradigm, farms must be protected from people, not to mention free-range poultry.
The notion that animals and plants can be raised in such a way that their enhanced immune system protects them from kindergarteners’ germs, and that the animals actually thrive when marinated in human attention, never enters the minds of government officials dedicated to protecting precarious production units.
COLLABORATIVE MARKETING
I have several neighbors who produce high-quality food or crafts that complement our own meat and poultry. Dried flower arrangements from one artisan, pickles from another, wine from another, and first-class vegetables from another. These are just for starters.
Our community is blessed with all sorts of creative artisans who offer products that we would love to stock in our on-farm retail venue. Doesn’t it make sense to encourage these customers driving out from the city to be able to go to one farm to do their rural browsing/ purchasing rather than drive all over the countryside? Furthermore, many of these artisans have neither the desire nor time to deal with patrons one-on-one. A collaborative venue is the most win-win, reasonable idea imaginable — except to government agents.
As soon as our farm offers a single item — just one — that is not produced here, we have become a Wal-Mart. Period. That means a business license, which isbasically another layer of taxes on our gross sales. The business license requires a commercial entrance, which on our country road is almost impossible to acquire due to sight-distance requirements and width regulations. Of course, zoning prohibits businesses in our agricultural zones. Remember, people are supposed to be kept away from agricultural areas — people bring diseases.
Even if we could comply with all of the above requirements, a retail outlet carries with it a host of additional regulations. We must provide designated handicapped parking, government-approved toilet facilities (our four household bathrooms in the two homes located 50 feet away from the retail building do not count) — and it can’t be a composting toilet. We must offer x-number of parking spaces. Folks, it just goes on and on, ad nauseum, and all for simply trying to help a neighbor sell her potatoes or extra pumpkins at Thanksgiving. I thought this was the home of the free. In most countries of the world, anyone can sell any of this stuff anywhere, and the hungering hordes are glad to get it, but in the great U.S. of A we’re too sophisticated to allow such bioregional commerce.
EMPLOYING LOCAL YOUNGSTERS & INTERNS
Any power tool — including a cordless screwdriver — cannot be operated by people under the age of 18. We have lots of requests from folks wanting to come as interns, but what do we call them? The government has no category for interns or neighbor young people who just want to learn and help out.
We’d love to employ all the neighboring young people. To our child-awning and worshiping culture, the only appropriate child activity is recreation, sitting in a desk, or watching TV. That’s it. That’s the extent of what children are good for. Anything else is abusive and risky.
Then we wonder why these kids grow up unmotivated and bored with life. Our local newspaper is full of articles and letters to the editor lamenting the lack of things for young people to do. Let me suggest a few things: digging postholes and building a fence, weeding the garden, planting some tomatoes, splitting some wood, feeding the chickens, washing eggs, pruning grapevines, milking the cow, building a compost pile, growing some earthworms.
These are all things that would be wonderfully meaningful work experience for the youth of our community, but you can’t simply employ people anymore. A host of government regulatory paperwork surrounds every "could you come over and help us . . . ?" By the time an employer complies with every Occupational Safety & Health Administration requirement, posts every government bulletin requirement, with-holds taxes, and shoulders Unemployment Compensation burdens and medical and child safety regulations — he or she can’t hire anybody legally or profitably.
The government has no pigeonhole for this: "I’m a 17-year-old home-schooler, and I want to learn how to farm. Could I come and have you mentor me for a year?"
What is this relationship? A student? An employee? If I pay a stipend, the government says he’s an employee. If I don’t pay, the Fair Labor Standards board says it’s slavery, which is illegal. Doesn’t matter that the young person is here of his own volition and is happy to live in a tee-pee. Housing must be permitted and up to code. Enough already. What happened to the home of the free?
Don't worry. According to Undertoad, everything will just sort of work itself out.
Salatin occasionally writes for Mother Earth News. His farm is spectacular. He is an innovator. We hate innovation.
The sound of our government failing will be muffled by red tape. I think it was Salatin who spoke out pretty early against handing the word "organic" over to the Feds. A bunch of left-leaning farmers who believed in government went to the Feds for protection from competition. The idea was to apply the word organic in such a way as to prevent the big guys from using the label. The Feds engaged the red tape machine, ratcheting up the rule making and fees and suddenly the big guys were in the driver's seat.
I told my cousin about my bureacratic nightmare in education then he told his tale of woe getting permission to clean out a "stream." It seems design and enforcement are two different groups who don't interact. It took all summer to get through the tape and a weekend to do the work. :mad2:
It seems design and enforcement are two different groups who don't interact
I think that's a sad fact about a lot of government schemes/approaches.
A Tale of Two Salads asks whether we are really rich when our food tastes as it does? This is the kind of thing innovators are addressing but if we legislate them out of existence... To me it is interesting that we talk about choice being a value in our society but real choice is swept away.
To me it is interesting that we talk about choice being a value in our society but real choice is swept away.
A similar situation is in play in the UK. Our politicians seem obsessed with offering 'choice' regardless of whether that's actually wanted, then each successive governent brings in measures which give an illusion of increasing choice whilst actually reducing it. We've seen it in education, health, transport etc. The idea is always to free these up to allow competition and choice to drive the market towards improvements. But, it's always done so cackhandedly that no actual choice or improvement ensues. In the case of health and education they sold us the choice concept, but didn't put in place enough of an infrastruture to deliver it. In the case of transport, we just end up with one major consortium or company running most of the transport in any one area and the independants clear up the scraps and fill in the blanks on the timetable. On telecoms, they basically allowed a monopoly to develop and the monitoring body have managed over a period of years to force them to loosen their grip on the market slightly (not before it had held us back in developing our internet usage, by several years).
If I go to a doctor and he needs t send me for a test, I really don't want a brochure...I want him to tell me which hospital/clinic will deal with my problem best and send me there. If I have a child starting school, a degree of choice is a good idea, but it's no choice at all if it's between a successful school and a failing school, especially since the schools which are more popular aren't able to take all applicants.
When I go to buy a train ticket, I ask for a ticket for the town to which I want to travel. He then hands me a ticket that takes me there. If I need to leave at 10am I leave at 10am, if i need to leave at 12:30 I need to leave at 12:30. I am really not taking on board the fact that the early train is a Virgin train and the later is Arriva. Nor, do I care that the tracks and stations and trains are all owned by different companies. Nobody says "which train companies are running trains to location x?" when they go to the ticket booth, they say "ticket to location x please" and the companies just work out the timetable between themselvles.
All these areas have been 'freed up' to pursue markets and choice, and a handful of people have become very rich in the process (stuff like rail travel and amenities were sold off practically to the lowest bidder, then heavily subsidised in the early years, costing the tax-payer money in the short term and removing their assets in the long term) meanwhile the customer/consumer is left with a reduced service at higher costs. Dismantling a primarily state-owned infrastructure (note just infrastructure, we're not anti-business inthe UK, we aren't called a nation of shopkeepers for nowt :P)
Basically I think I am saying that we (Brits) do American style capitalism as badly as people say you'd do European socialism.
[edited to note] Sorry...I went off on a bit of a drift there...:P
Drift is good.
We do see this thing differently. I'll have to consider this more deeply to see if there is a way to allow folks of opposing ideologies the choice they both crave.
Wow, that was a depressing read. :( The main reason why I don't eat meat is that the practices of the meat industry are so fucked-up. I hope that Salatin has some luck getting his message out -- it's not one that many people want to listen to.
BUILD A HOUSE THE WAY I WANT
You would think that if I cut the trees, mill the logs into lumber, and build the house on my own farm, I could make it however I wanted to. Think again. It’s illegal to build a house less than 900 square feet. Period. Doesn’t matter if I’m a hermit or the father of 20. The government agents have decreed, in their egocentric wisdom, that no human can live in anything less than 900 square feet.
Our son got married last year and wanted to build a small cottage on the farm, which he now oversees for the most part. Our new saying is, "He runs the farm, and I just run around." The plan was to do what Mom and Dad did for Teresa and I — trade houses when children come. That way our empty nest downsizes, and the young people can upsize in the main family farmhouse. Sounds reasonable and environmentally sensitive to me. But no, his little honeymoon cottage — or our retirement shack — had to be a 900-square-foot Taj Mahal. A state-of-the-art accredited composting toilet to avoid the need for a septic system and sewer leach field was denied.
When the hillside leach field would not meet agronomic standards and we had to install it in the floodplain, I asked the health department bureaucrat why. He said that essentially the only approvable leach fields now are alongside creeks and streams, because they are the only sites that offer dark-enough colored soils. Sounds like real environmental steward-ship, doesn’t it?
Look, if I want to build a yurt of rabbit skins and go to the bathroom in a compost pile, why is it any of the government’s business? Bureaucrats bend over back-wards to accredit, tax credit, and offer money to people wanting to build pig city-factories or bigger airports. But let a guy go to his woods, cut down some trees, and build himself a home, and a plethora of regulatory tyrants descend on the project to complicate, obfuscate, irritate, frustrate, and virtually terminate. I think it’s time to eradicate some of these laws and the piranhas who administer them.
It would serve him right if he got that law repealed, and someone surrounded his property with trailer parks.
It would serve him right if he got that law repealed, and someone surrounded his property with trailer parks.
I missed the part where he said he wanted to control everyone else. At least we've laid that whole left-wing tolerance thing to rest.
He doesn't need to want to control everyone else. The point is if planning regulations are set aside then that would apply to everyone and not just him in his yurt. He could well end up losing out to that if someone else successfully built a bunch of stuff that the planning regulations may have prevented. (Unless I have totally misunderstood the situation....)
He doesn't need to want to control everyone else.
Apparently someone does.
The point is if planning regulations are set aside then that would apply to everyone and not just him in his yurt.
I don't remember reading set aside, it is, reportedly, possible to change dumb laws. I ran into the same idiotic regulations when I built. He and I both wanted to do the best thing environmentally, but the regulators insisted on an expensive failing technology.
He could well end up losing out to that if someone else successfully built a bunch of stuff that the planning regulations may have prevented. (Unless I have totally misunderstood the situation....)
What he would lose, wasn't his. I understand some people need to keep undesirables away (trailer park is code for poor rural white) but reducing housing choice damages people's financial well-being.
Aren't there some good reasons for most of these regulations? If we became unregulated, like China, wouldn't we end up with the same type of unsafe products that we get from China?
Aren't there some good reasons for most of these regulations? If we became unregulated, like China, wouldn't we end up with the same type of unsafe products that we get from China?
Sure. There are good reasons to do this stuff. I would suggest however that in an information heavy society like ours, it is just as effective to expose Mattel for ineffective quality control. They cannot afford to lose their positive brand recognition.
As far as zoning regs go, if someone is engaged in activities that poison the air or water of their neighbor, they should be prosecuted for that trespass. If someone lives in a leaky yurt or a
small house that is noones business but their own.
...As far as zoning regs go, if someone is engaged in activities that poison the air or water of their neighbor, they should be prosecuted for that trespass...
Prosecuting after the fact might be too late, if the water table is contaminated, for instance. Better to be pro-active.
IMHO, there's a lot of gray area between obviously reasonable laws and obviously unreasonable laws. In fact, there's a lot of difference of opinion about what is reasonable and unreasonable. Most people probably feel that there should be no restrictions on themselves, because they will make "the right" decisions. Yet these same people probably want restrictions that protect them from other folks making "the wrong" decision. Where the line is drawn is the debate.
As far as zoning regs go, if someone is engaged in activities that poison the air or water of their neighbor, they should be prosecuted for that trespass. If someone lives in a leaky yurt or a small house that is noones business but their own.
You're right, of course, but what about the gray area in between your two extremes? Do you have any problem with regs that cover safety? Like wiring regs or baluster spacing? How about standards of building, like ceiling height or space around a toilet?
I think if someone wants to build a house with a roof that falls on their head, they've got every right in the world. Of course it would be a cumbersome system, but the regulations this fellow is talking about were created with others in mind... he should be able to get special consideration from a judge. Laws are important and all, but they shouldn't be unbending, because of cases just like this one.
I think if someone wants to build a house with a roof that falls on their head, they've got every right in the world.
What if the house catches on fire, and a firefighter responds, but the roof kills him because it was built poorly? Or a girl scout knocks on the door to sell cookies, but the porch roof kills her?
It gets to the point where you can't create a law everytime someone's in the slightest bit of danger. Why don't we just mandate that everyone wears a helmet at all times? How about a national required Battle Buddy (for non-recent army types, the poor bastards in the army have to have someone with them at all times while in training)? I think we've gone too far with protecting people from accidents, because no matter what we do, they happen.
I'm not saying that employers shouldn't have safety measures for their employees, or that schools should hand out text books with razor blades on them, but in this guy's case? Have him put a friggin sign in front of his house saying "If you come onto my porch, there's a good chance it will kill you." I'm just tired of being babied.
Have him put a friggin sign in front of his house saying "If you come onto my porch, there's a good chance it will kill you."
Ah, the warning label. So you're a fan of warning labels on ladders and hot coffee?
I missed the part where he said he wanted to control everyone else.
I missed the part where anyone said he did.
I read your trailer park crack as implying that he would control his neighbors, but was too short-sighted to do so. I've seen nothing in his prior writings to show such a lack of foresight.
I'm sure he wouldn't, as Mr. Libertarian, have any argument against it, but I doubt that he'd welcome it.
And "trailer park" is code for "ugly development with lots of houses smaller than 900 square feet".
I'll take your word for it. Not that that would be particularly relevant to the issue. Unless you are saying he's racist against whites.
I'm sure he wouldn't, as Mr. Libertarian, have any argument against it, but I doubt that he'd welcome it.
And "trailer park" is code for "ugly development with lots of houses smaller than 900 square feet".
I don't know if he's a political libertarian.
ugly development with lots of houses smaller than 900 square feet = affordable housing
Very simple... if you're concerned with what's on the land across the street, buy it.
Ah, the warning label. So you're a fan of warning labels on ladders and hot coffee?
Nope, but if someone's gonna raise a shit fit when I build my crazy house out of linkin logs, I'll throw a sign up, why not?
Would you rather wade through a sea of warning labels or not be able to do dangerous things?
affordable housing doesn't have to be like that though. Also, I don't know what it's like over there but in some areas of the Uk, what tends to happen is large scale housing developments, including affordable housing are built to the point of saturation in the urban areas, because a) it's easier to justify planning permission if it is in land already designated as Housing Land in the Local Development Plan and b) the well off tend not to live in these areas in such great numbers and it tends mainly to be the well off who end up sitting on planning panels.
So, you end up with what little open space is left in a built up area getting overbuilt.
The horrific corruption of the American government and the bureaucratic boneheads that run things in Washington are why I am skipping the country.
That, and the way the oil-dollar is going to die, just makes it all that much more important that everyone abandon the sinking ship known as "America".
affordable housing doesn't have to be like that though.
No it doesn't, but from what I've seen locally it is one way to transition from being a renter to an owner aka- the American Dream. You then upgrade the building or sell the place for enough money to put a sizable down payment on a prefab or other reasonably priced home. The size restriction says that it is illegal to go under 900 sqft which is imposing middle-class standards and costs on folks who are not there yet. It is one of many attacks on the owner-builder, trojan-horsed in zoning regulations. Some people (like me apparently thank God for Pete) do not fit in the economy as it presently exists, but can solve their food, clothing, and shelter issues in ways that maintain their self-respect.
Also, I don't know what it's like over there but in some areas of the Uk, what tends to happen is large scale housing developments, including affordable housing are built to the point of saturation in the urban areas, because a) it's easier to justify planning permission if it is in land already designated as Housing Land in the Local Development Plan and b) the well off tend not to live in these areas in such great numbers and it tends mainly to be the well off who end up sitting on planning panels.
The original article and all my assumtions are based on a rural environment. The conflict here is people with urban middle-class sensibilities moving to the country and then legislating away the things they don't like about their neighbors. If they wish to buy up properties and then put deed restrictions in place that is fine, but zoning away their neighbors way-of-life is not.
As you may have guessed, this is a hot-button issue for me. I've gone round and round with tw on this because he doesn't believe people should be able to build the houses they need rather than the supposedly safe (and often shoddily built) assembly line house. If I lived in a township with heavy zoning enforcement, I wouldn't have been able to build on my schedule and eliminate the need for a morgage.
I hope I haven't been too testy on this but I lived in a 12'x12' shed with two kids and a wife, while building my house. Those were the best of times. If I had any zoning enforcement at all it wouldn't have worked. That is why my township supervisors own my vote despite some short-comings. They mind their own business.
Check out our lifestyle
here. This is what zoning prevents.
That's a cool ass house, man. I really like your kitchen setup (with the blue cupboards).
Also cute goat.
The conflict here is people with urban middle-class sensibilities moving to the country and then legislating away the things they don't like about their neighbors. If they wish to buy up properties and then put deed restrictions in place that is fine, but zoning away their neighbors way-of-life is not.
Absolutely. Not only on the small scale, but on the large scale, it further separates the rich from the poor, the black from the white, and pretty much kills any kind of interesting diversity in a neighborhood. Everyone has to have white curtains or blinds? I think I'd rather jump off a cliff.
That's a cool ass house, man. I really like your kitchen setup (with the blue cupboards).
Thankyou sir! It is actually further along than the pictures show.
Also cute goat.
Keep your hands to yourself. ;)
Absolutely. Not only on the small scale, but on the large scale, it further separates the rich from the poor, the black from the white, and pretty much kills any kind of interesting diversity in a neighborhood. Everyone has to have white curtains or blinds? I think I'd rather jump off a cliff.
On the large scale you see it with people opening chain restaurants instead of their own places. An organization like Subway will help the franchisee clear the regulatory hurdles. Somebody that actually makes a nice cheesesteak but has no stomach for bureacracy won't even try.
The original article and all my assumtions are based on a rural environment. The conflict here is people with urban middle-class sensibilities moving to the country and then legislating away the things they don't like about their neighbors. If they wish to buy up properties and then put deed restrictions in place that is fine, but zoning away their neighbors way-of-life is not.
As you may have guessed, this is a hot-button issue for me. I've gone round and round with tw on this because he doesn't believe people should be able to build the houses they need rather than the supposedly safe (and often shoddily built) assembly line house. If I lived in a township with heavy zoning enforcement, I wouldn't have been able to build on my schedule and eliminate the need for a morgage.
I understand *nods*. I think 'country' means different things to you guys than it does over here. We have this thing called 'Green Zone" which is necessary in planning regs because we've lost much (most?) of our wild lands. We have an entirely different relationship with space than yours I think *grins* just a whole other scale.
We'll get you in one of those American as a Second Language classes.:cool:
Places where you can't paint your house the color you want or your mailbox has to be be the same as everyone else, the curtains, the garage... those people are sick!
I can't say it appeals much to me. I lived in an apartment block some years ago and there was a residents committee that voted on shit like that. All the doors had to be exactly the same shade of green:P In fairness to them the block would have looked shit with multi coloured and styled doors and windows because of the architectural style...but it doesn't suit me.
My brother-in-law wanted a fence in HIS yard, he had to ask permission!
I thought he OWNED it?
Fuck them.
Did the fence have an effect on any neighbouring property?
Over here if you build a fence above 6 Foot high, or you wish to build anything that will have an effect on neighbouring properties you need planning permission. If you seek planning permission, notices are then posted around the area so that any neighbours who feel they have a reasonable case for objecting can do so.
Did the fence have an effect on any neighbouring property?
Over here if you build a fence above 6 Foot high, or you wish to build anything that will have an effect on neighbouring properties you need planning permission. If you seek planning permission, notices are then posted around the area so that any neighbours who feel they have a reasonable case for objecting can do so.
On new estates (neighborhoods), gardens (yards) here are generally one large continuum of lawn, with no boundary markers between properties. No hedges no fences etc not even a flower bed. Most such estates have many rules about what you can and can't do to the outside of the property, to keep a sense of uniformity about the place. They are referred to as "cookie cutter neighborhood" I live in one. We killed our residents association who enforced the rules and they came back as zombies, enforcing long-dead style rules! I need out! Oh, did I digress? :lol:
Anyway, it's pretty standard that fences, sheds, satelite dishes, anything over 10' including flagpoles require permission from the association. Unless you have a dog in which case you are required to have a fence and people put these nasty metal chainlink things in..... oops off I went again...
Some of the very expensive cookie cutter neighborhoods, filled with what are known as McMansions go even further, with regulations dictating what colours (colors) you can paint your house. Really.
And yet you still hear comments about this being "the land of the free" and how people wouldn't like to live in a socialist dictatorship country like Europe. ;)
To avoid these neighborhoods, you generally have to choose to live in a smaller, older property with maintenance issues. When we bought here, we were told the association was disbanded and could not be revived and no-one would ever do that anyway.... we were told wrong...... :mad2:
Did the fence have an effect on any neighbouring property?
Over here if you build a fence above 6 Foot high, or you wish to build anything that will have an effect on neighbouring properties you need planning permission. If you seek planning permission, notices are then posted around the area so that any neighbours who feel they have a reasonable case for objecting can do so.
No, because it was on
his property only.
Standard privacy fence.
What happens around here is a chunk of land will become available and developers bid huge sums for them. Then they break it up into building lots which they sell, or more likely build houses on and sell. In the process of breaking up the land into individual building lots, they include covenants (rules) in the deeds, that strictly limit the buyer... and all future buyers.
An individual can't out bid them, so you have to look for a single lot for sale, or a house that doesn't have any covenants in the deed. That makes it very hard to buy a newer house.
Even if you find a lot or house that isn't restricted by covenants, the taxing authority still has zoning restrictions unless you move pretty far out into the sticks. My brother is in the process of buying 653 acres in Massachusetts and building a race track. The hoops and hurdles with federal, state and local laws are daunting. Wetlands, environmental impact, traffic studies, noise abatement, impervious surface, storm runoff, emergency services access, etc, etc, etc.
So, Rkzenrage...
People are completely and utterly free to do absolutely whatever they want with their property...
unless it inconveniences you?
You can't have it both ways.
You are really too dim to see the difference between a business and a home?
Have I once stated that private homes should all be accessable?
No, but you have repeatedly stated that property is property. And I also recall you being extremely opposed to a government-mandated smoking ban in restaurants/clubs/bars, because the establishment is private property.
You can't have it both ways, dude, seriously. Either the government has NO business telling you what you can and can't, must or mustn't do with your property, or they have some business. How much business they have telling you what to do is debatable of course, but it's a fairly simple black-or-white, they can or they can't situation.
[COLOR="Red"]You are really too dim[/COLOR] to see the difference between a business and a home?
...
This is your style of posting that people object to.
It was just a question.
Anyone who takes that out of context to not be a question must be an idiot.
Offended by a question? LOL!!!
That was my thought exactly.
No, but you have repeatedly stated that property is property. And I also recall you being extremely opposed to a government-mandated smoking ban in restaurants/clubs/bars, because the establishment is private property.
You can't have it both ways, dude, seriously. Either the government has NO business telling you what you can and can't, must or mustn't do with your property, or they have some business. How much business they have telling you what to do is debatable of course, but it's a fairly simple black-or-white, they can or they can't situation.
However, I would never say that a business could say that a specific group of people cannot come into their business and smoke.
If you are ok with Jim Crow laws fine.
I am not.
However, I would never say that a business could say that a specific group of people cannot come into their business and smoke.
What is they said a certain group of people were not allowed to come in there and breathe? People with respiratory problems, or "disabled lungs" if that terminology makes them more deserving. The smokers would be in there eating hotdogs, and blithely smoking away, while the discriminated-against "weaklings with sissy lungs" were outside duct-taping photoshopped signs to the window. Who would we root for?
What is they said a certain group of people were not allowed to come in there and breathe? People with respiratory problems, or "disabled lungs" if that terminology makes them more deserving. The smokers would be in there eating hotdogs, and blithely smoking away, while the discriminated-against "weaklings with sissy lungs" were outside duct-taping photoshopped signs to the window. Who would we root for?
They can CHOOSE to come in or not. Same as they do with scented candle shops, BBQ restaurants, fragrance departments, the area of some hardware stores where they cut wood, tobacco shops, a shop where they fire pottery... get it yet?
How can this confuse you?
They can CHOOSE to go somewhere that might be harmful to their health. Not much of a choice for them. By that same token, you could CHOOSE to throw yourself out of your wheelchair and drag your ass into the hotdog shop. Not a great choice for you, either. Both cases could be prohibitively harmful. What's the difference?
How can this confuse you?
Because it
doesn't make any fucking sense.I should sympathize with you, and your condition, but say "fuck everybody else" ... I'm not confused. That's bullshit.
I never said that nor implied it.
That you cannot see that people can choose to, or not to, go to those stores is a point that you choose not to see because it invalidates your point.
If you think smoking should be illegal, then all of EVERY type of business I mentioned should be as well, correct?
That is an insane assertion.
However, at least people have a CHOICE to go to those shops or not.
They are not being INTENTIONALLY excluded.
I could give a fuck if you sympathize with me or not.
You aren't being intentionally excluded, you just aren't being intentionally included.
Someone who would keel over and die in the prescence of tobacco smoke is excluded from entering those businesses. They are excluded by their health condition. Same as you. You don't want to be a selfish prick who only cares about yourself, do you?
ROFLMAO!!!!
If they know, it is intentional.
Someone who would keel over and die in the prescence of tobacco smoke is excluded from entering those businesses. They are excluded by their health condition. Same as you. Are you a selfish prick who only cares about yourself? Sounds like it.
It's a good thing there has never been an example of someone who is allergic to tobacco smoke.
If someone asks me not to smoke in their presence I do not.
Fuck off you shit-head. If you want to just sling names you little dickhead, fine, since you cannot string together a coherent argument clearly that is what you need to do to continue this you fucking unfinished lump of wasted chromosomes.
No, the difference is whether they went out of their way to make sure you are accommodated or whether they went out of their way to make sure you cannot gain entry. They did neither. Therefore they didn't "intentionally" do anything.
I'm sorry that this is the level you choose to communicate on, rkz.
I don't think you're a bad person, but your behavior is really poor at the moment.
Oh, and I'm sorry that you didn't catch my edit:
You don't want to be a selfish prick who only cares about yourself, do you?
I found that wording to be more appropriate, as it gives you the option of admitting your error.
Are you being intentionally excluded from the hot dog shop? It sounds to me like they'd be happy to serve you if you came in in an IBOT, or had someone lift your chair up the stairs.
Of course, I think they should follow the Disabilities Act, and become wheelchair accessible but then I also think they should follow zoning restrictions and smoking laws.
I'm sorry that this is the level you choose to communicate on, rkz. I don't think you're a bad person, but your behavior is really poor at the moment.
You chose to drag the argument down to that level. I figured it was what you wanted, so I gave it to you.
We communicate how we wish to be communicated with. We treat others how we wish others to treat us.
Are you being intentionally excluded from the hot dog shop? It sounds to me like they'd be happy to serve you if you came in in an IBOT, or had someone lift your chair up the stairs.
Of course, I think they should follow the Disabilities Act, and become wheelchair accessible but then I also think they should follow zoning restrictions and smoking laws.
Yes, I, and everyone in a wheelchair, is intentionally being excluded. They KNOW they are excluding disabled patrons. Every day they are doing so it is intentional, premeditated and wanted.
Edit:
Remember, they remodeled in violation of the ADA. It was intentional.
You chose to drag the argument down to that level. I figured it was what you wanted, so I gave it to you.
[cough][COLOR="Silver"]bullshit[/COLOR][/cough]
Am I correct, rk, in reading your posts to say that if a businesses is open to the public, then they must make sure to do everything they possibly can to ensure that all members of the public can enjoy their services equally?
You're jumping my point.
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I deleted it.
Yes, I, and everyone in a wheelchair, is intentionally being excluded. They KNOW they are excluding disabled patrons. Every day they are doing so it is intentional, premeditated and wanted.
As opposed to those people who own establishments where smoking is allowed who of course don't know that someone with chronic asthma or emphysema would be excluded from their premises?
It's a good thing there has never been an example of someone who is allergic to tobacco smoke.
Unfortunately, though, there are all too many examples of people for whom tobacco smoke is a guaranteed asthma trigger. What's your point? You are not allergic to the steps in a shop, you do however have difficulty in walking up them.
True story: a friend of mine who died earlier this year, suffered for his last few years with a dreadful lung disease. I used to go for a drink with him from time to time. Unfortunately at the time pubs were generally smoky places. There was a section that was 'non smoking' in the pub we drank at, but when the place was full, the smoke from the main area drifted across.
One Friday we went for a drink, me Al, J and Linda. We spent less than an hour in the pub. It was near empty when we entered, but over that hour it began to fill up and the pub began to get smoky. Eventually Al said he had to go. He'd had to use his inhaler and was starting to get very short of breath. He and Linda left and went home. I could tell Al was gutted, not just because he felt rough, but because he was disappointed. It was the first time he'd ventured out to a pub in weeks, having recently had a spell in intensive care, followed by a slow recovery. It was a foolish thing to do, going in the pub, but we'd gone early like we usually did, to avoid the crowd and then got caught up in a heated political conversation and hadn't noticed the place filling up around us.
He ended up back in hospital that night. Another 4am ambulance ride, revived en route. It's possible that the smoke had no bearing on the situation...possible but unlikely. All he wanted, was to go for a drink with his friends, like everybody else does. It was a foolish thing to do...but an understandable one for a man whose social circle was to be found mainly at the local pub. .
So now, you tell me, should a man have to choose between entering a building and risking potentially life threatening symptoms, and excluding himself from places healthy people access with ease?
Perhaps the fact that you have a penchant for interesting tobaccoes is steering your opinion in this instance.
Five Guys Burgers serves peanuts in the shell, free, at every table. They have a sign on the door warning people that peanuts are in use.
1% of children are allergic to peanuts. Some people are so incredibly allergic that merely being in the presence of a peanut will trigger it. Being in the presence of so many peanuts would be fatal for someone who was peanut-allergic. 125 people die each year due to peanut allergy.
Five Guys Burgers knows this, but their answer is not to stop serving peanuts. Their answer is to put a warning sign on the door. This is notice that peanut-allergic people are not welcome. They know they are excluding the peanut-allergic. They could serve a different snack, even a cheaper snack. Every day they are serving peanuts it is intentional, premeditated and wanted.
The difference is only one of numbers. Peanut-allergic people are a minority. But they're too small of a minority to have their civil rights violated. I'm not sure I understand it but I'm guessing there is some sort of notion in the law that works out the difference.
Well frankly fuck those peanut-allergic people. What kind of crap is that, that these people would have us not eat peanuts at Five Guys? Fuck them, man, if I saw a peanut-allergic person right now, I would wave my peanut right at 'em. I would not hire a peanut-allergic person -- because what else are they gonna be allergic to? I wouldn't want my sister to marry one -- because what, are you not going to have celery with peanut butter at Thanksgiving? Just because old nut-rasher, Mister PB&Sneeze has an issue with it?
Am I correct, rk, in reading your posts to say that if a businesses is open to the public, then they must make sure to do everything they possibly can to ensure that all members of the public can enjoy their services equally?
I'm curious as well, rkz.
Is that what you're saying? If not, what
are you saying?
Yup, but you are reading things into it, I am not.
Again, for those who say that smoking in shops should be illegal for those with lung issues there are dozens of businesses that are just as bad and/or are worse that you are going to have to make illegal. I listed them earlier... you just chose not to read that.
can enjoy their services equally?
Can if they choose to.
What I am against is removing that choice.
Then your answer is yes. I asked a single question and frankly I'm not interested in joining your tirade about smoking bans. If you think that public businesses should be made open to everyone then say so plainly. If you think there are exceptions where businesses don't need to accommodate everyone then list them. Saying that you'd need to close other businesses as well doesn't say anything about whether the point is valid, it's only a side shot saying "it doesn't matter what's right here, I'll bet you won't go through with it either way". Maybe someone should call your bluff.
rkz, people don't choose to be asthmatic, peanut-allergic or blind any more than they choose to be in a wheelchair.
OK, so the law has ruled in favor of those in a wheelchair. It has also ruled in favor or those with asthma. what's the difference? Please explain to me without ridiculing me. I really don't see the difference. Maybe that's due to my pesonal bias because I'm asthmatic?
Why do you think the law has not ruled in favor of the blind and peanut-allergic? Do you think they should?
What do you think about nightclubs who have different admission rates and drinks tariffs for males and females?
I'm not trying to trap you, I'm asking because I'm having a really hard time understanding the logic of your differentiation, but I know there must be some because I believe you're not stupid (for want of a better, more PC term).
I understand that you believe that this hotdog shop and other places who violate the code are willfully excluding would-be patrons in wheelchairs, but I'm curious as to what you think their reason for this might be? Surely it can't just be cost? if you're already doing a major rennovation, a ramp is not that big of a deal. There must be something else...
(sorry, I realize I sort of melded two thread together there, but they seem fused in my mind now)
snip~Well frankly fuck those peanut-allergic people. What kind of crap is that, that these people would have us not eat peanuts at Five Guys? Fuck them, man, if I saw a peanut-allergic person right now, I would wave my peanut right at 'em. I would not hire a peanut-allergic person -- because what else are they gonna be allergic to? I wouldn't want my sister to marry one -- because what, are you not going to have celery with peanut butter at Thanksgiving? Just because old nut-rasher, Mister PB&Sneeze has an issue with it?
:notworthy: :lol:
I think the confusion is this: rkz insists that asthmatic people could CHOOSE to enter a smoking establishment. I propose that their health condition would prevent them from doing so, therefore this is not a valid choice. It's not a valid distinction.
The only difference I see is that it would be physically possible for them to enter, as opposed to a non-wheelchair-accessible business. However, they could only enter at great peril to their own health. I would therefore count them as "excluded" from that business. Just like the peanut-allergy people are "excluded" from the burger joint. They could walk in there, but they might die. It's not a real choice.
So, you feel that all BBQ joints should be outlawed?
The peanut allergy thing is rediculous... they just don't eat the food with the peanuts in it, good lord!
It is a valid distinction.
A roller coaster could kill me, I could choose to get on one though, if I were stupid.
Open to and catering to are not REMOTELY the same things.
I am allergic to most perfumes (formaldehyde). I would never suggest that the fragrance department change for me, I just use a different entrance and exit. I am not a selfish asshole... or is it prick?
It all boils down to you being the one complaining about your exclusion. Therefore you should equally consider the exclusion of others. Not just yourself. That's selfish. And I'm not hurling an insult to say that; that is actually the definition of selfish. It's also hypocritical, by definition.
You aren't doing a good job of explaining your point. In fact, you aren't explaining your point at all. I would welcome an explanation. I would read it.
The peanut allergy thing is rediculous... they just don't eat the food with the peanuts in it, good lord!
You don't know anything about peanut allergies. Many people are so allergic that simply breathing airborne particles are enough to send them into anaphylactic shock. Almost all airlines have stopped serving peanuts because the recirculated air made it 100% impossible for someone with this allergy to ride in their planes. The only difference is they did it voluntarily, because peanut allergies are not covered under the ADA.
My family got to make a trip to the ER over Christmas, because my stepson ate a chocolate-chip cookie which had been removed from the tray with the
same spatula that had earlier been used to pull up some peanut-butter cookies.
Plus, they were really jealous of those who could eat the peanuts. There have been numerous studies of the effects of Peanuts Envy.
I have stated clearly that I am allergic to fragrances but do not feel that perfume departments, that exclude me by their activities, should be changed or shut-down. It is my choice not to enter them because I am CAPABLE of entering them.
Establishments that serve peanuts do not exclude those allergic, they should not choose to eat there.
BBQ joints, shoe stores (I am allergic to them as well, shoes are treated with formaldehyde) or establishments like the one I spent three hours in last night smoking my pipe in do not have a sign or bars on the door stating "if you do not smoke or don't like it we don't want your kind here, your money and company are no good here, leave you half-human".
A place that is built with a barrier to a specific group of people is an ENTIRELY different thing... it is not only the SAME as the Jim Crow signs stating "Whites Only" it is worse because a black or Asian could CHOOSE to ignore the sign and enter the establishment anyway, as they did during the civil rights (for able-bodied only) fight.
These barriers are a clear sign that they do not want our kind there, our money and company is not wanted and they CHOOSE not to grant us entry like everyone else, whether we want it or not.
Historic building is bullshit, if they can renovate it and put a restaurant in it they can put a ramp in or get a portable ramp and install a bell for someone to bring the portable ramp.
They do not, they do not want us there.
Choice.
If a store allows smoking that does not mean someone will ALWAYS be smoking there.
Also, if they do and lose business they will then stop allowing it... that way you make your voice heard by not doing business there.
Again CHOICE.
You don't know anything about peanut allergies. Many people are so allergic that simply breathing airborne particles are enough to send them into anaphylactic shock. Almost all airlines have stopped serving peanuts because the recirculated air made it 100% impossible for someone with this allergy to ride in their planes. The only difference is they did it voluntarily, because peanut allergies are not covered under the ADA.
My family got to make a trip to the ER over Christmas, because my stepson ate a chocolate-chip cookie which had been removed from the tray with the same spatula that had earlier been used to pull up some peanut-butter cookies.
I did not know that.
Are you suggesting peanuts be outlawed or people be allowed special treatment like separation or able to say "I am peanut allergic so I need clean utensils"?
There are people who are allergic to the sun.
I don't see the distinction. You're citing the strong feelings you have, about a situation you have faced personally, as the differentating factor. It isn't. Since I'm not in a wheelchair, I don't have a peanut allergy, and I don't have asthma; I see all these situations equally. Fairly. Without bias.
Nothing I've said recently has mentioned feelings.
I don't see the distinction. You're citing the strong feelings you have, about a situation you have faced personally, as the differentating factor. It isn't. Since I'm not in a wheelchair, I don't have a peanut allergy, and I don't have asthma; I see all these situations equally. Fairly. Without bias.
Nothing I've said recently has mentioned feelings.
Okay, bad choice of words. But now that
I've mentioned it, do you have a response?
I really don't have feelings about the smoking issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other as far as being able to shop or eat (I don't smoke in my home or when I eat anyway. I only smoke a pipe or cigar a few times a week and prefer to have my environments smoke free unless it is a bar or smoke shop. The only emotion I have attached to that is that the assault on freedom worries me and makes me defensive... it leads to other things.
I do not see making places open for people who are in wheelchairs (the ibot is a red herring and off-topic, it is not available to 99.999% of those whom are disabled who can afford it and is not covered by any insurance company) is not giving those people a choice to choose to shop there or not.
How does it make me feel, frustrated and marginalized.
Read anything by anyone who lived before Jim Crow laws were removed and the culture of that mind-set changed and that is exactly how it makes me feel.
Once in the store I don't care if all the isles/tables/etc, are chair width apart if they are accommodating.
But, even in accessible stores it is not unusual to be treated like a nuisance before anyone even talks to you, or worse like a child (people will often give people in chairs candy or pat us on the head and talk to us like children then not give us the same service they give any other adult).
How would it make you feel to be told "we don't have time to help you (your kind) you are going to have to go somewhere else" because they choose to exclude you?
It is humiliating and frustrating because there is NO reason for it and NO excuse for it.
Again I don't want to hear the bullshit about subliminal fears of contagion or being faced with one's own mortality because that is a cop-out and bull-shit.
When I was vegan for a long time I developed a bad reaction to animal protean, though it was not deadly it was very sensitive.
I was often lied to about the contents of soup and bread... it is difficult and for those this kind of thing is deadly for (I became vegan because my wife did develop a deadly allergy to animal protean because of pituitary tumor) the guidelines need to be far more stringent.
But, I don't think peanuts need to be banned from public.
A place that is built with a barrier to a specific group of people is an ENTIRELY different thing... it is not only the SAME as the Jim Crow signs stating "Whites Only" it is worse because a black or Asian could CHOOSE to ignore the sign and enter the establishment anyway, as they did during the civil rights (for able-bodied only) fight.
Ohhh.....I see...you are more discriminated against than African Americans under Jim Crow laws. Okay.
It is humiliating and frustrating because there is NO reason for it and NO excuse for it.
You are absolutely right there is no excuse for it.
I certainly wouldn't expect any store to stop selling peanut products, nor would I shut down private businesses that chose to allow smoking. I just took issue with the idea that the people who suffer with the life threatening conditions we've spoken of in this thread, are presented with a choice that is in reality no choice and may have a different perspective; one which does not deserve to be dismissed out of hand.
I really don't have feelings about the smoking issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...
I really don't have feelings about the wheelchair issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...
I really don't have feelings about the peanut issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...
How does it make me feel, frustrated and marginalized.
How does it make me feel, frustrated and marginalized.
How does it make me feel, frustrated and marginalized.
Why is the wheelchair guy the only one whose feelings matter?
I did not know that.
Are you suggesting peanuts be outlawed or people be allowed special treatment like separation or able to say "I am peanut allergic so I need clean utensils"?
There are people who are allergic to the sun.
No, I'm merely saying that I agree with the analogies others have put forth in this thread: having a severe peanut allergy in a restaurant that serves peanuts all over the table is equivalent to that same restaurant not having a wheelchair ramp.
Is it irritating? Yes. Is it
wrong? On a personal level, it isn't the decision I would make if it were my restaurant, but I don't feel it's bad enough to take legislative action against. Like you said, by not going in, you vote with your dollars and the company will in theory make the most economic decision.
I don't agree, again, though it would be stupid, they can choose to eat there.
It is not a comparison on any level.
I really don't have feelings about the smoking issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...
Quote:
I really don't have feelings about the wheelchair issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...
Quote:
I really don't have feelings about the peanut issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...
All out of context.
The smoking issue does not inhibit anyone. They CAN go to the stores.
You are really having a hard time with the difference between can and can't huh?
I don't agree, again, though it would be stupid, they can choose to eat there.
Wasn't it already established that you
could throw yourself forward out of your wheelchair and crawl into the store? It would just be really stupid and dangerous for your health.
I can physically walk into a room filled with poisonous gas.
Quote:
I really don't have feelings about the smoking issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...
Quote:
I really don't have feelings about the wheelchair issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...
Quote:
I really don't have feelings about the peanut issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...
Also, you
asked me what my feelings were.
They are irrelevant to this discussion.
Wasn't it already established that you could throw yourself forward out of your wheelchair and crawl into the store? It would just be really stupid and dangerous for your health.
And I would not be able to open the door, enter and eat.
rk you have argued yourself into a position of presenting your health and disability in competition with other disabling conditions. Is that really what you want?
.
(eta)
You insist that if anybody can walk a short distance, regardless of the effect of that exercise on their health (e.g somebody with severe respiratory problems or very severe rheumatoid arthritis) they shouldn't use the disabled parking spaces, thereby denying the protections you consider fair for someone who uses a wheelchair. You similarly deny people with highly disabling conditions the protections you consider are fair for someone in a wheelchair
I never said short distance. In fact I stated that if they are just walking in to use a chair or cart provided by the store that is not what I am talking about.
I said if they are walking the entire store they can walk the extra spaces to their car. You misquoted me or did not read it, s-ok it is a hobby here.
My main argument is that those without lifts should not be able to use the spaces with loading zones.
I am not talking about protection I am talking about access.
Two entirely separate topics.
Lets go back to the Five Guys example (we have one on campus so I know what the peanut thing is about). We have Peanut Allergy Guy (PAG), and Wheelchair Bound Guy (WBG). The store has steps with no ramp and both patrons and cooks are eating some amount of peanuts. PAG cannot enter the store because of the concentration of airborne peanut contaminants, and can't eat the food even if someone goes in and gets it for him because of the moderate possibility of peanut oil being transfered to some part of his food at some point (cook picking up the bun, etc). WBG cannot enter the building because of the lack of a ramp but could eat something through take-out.
````````````````| WBG | PAG |
-----------------------------------
Can enter building`| no | no |
-----------------------------------
Can eat food`````| yes | no |
-----------------------------------
I'll tell you the truth rk. The case against the restaurant is the same as the case against the perfume department, the only difference is that you are willing to be inconvenienced by one and not the other. You bring me one, I'd use it to slam both with infractions. And absolutely you could take to court a restaurant who's air quality caused someone to go into respiratory arrest or something equivalent. BBQ's will need to maintain a certain level of air cleanliness and the 'smoky' atmosphere will be a thing of the past.
Law 101 man
Then you think peanuts should be illegal?
I am not talking about protection I am talking about access.
Two entirely separate topics.
Legal protection of your right not to be physically prevented from accessing a building, to which any non-disabled person might reasonably expect to be able to gain access.
Wow, that was some semantic gymnastics.
Fine, but not padding the world.
What you don't think the laws governing disabled access are legal protections?
Legal protection of your right not to be physically prevented from accessing a building, to which any non-disabled person might reasonably expect to be able to gain access.
Wow, that was some semantic gymnastics.
Fine, but not padding the world.
Not semantics at all, that was a much clearer definition of your complaint. You can't define your grievance by what you want done about it. Very good wording on her part.
Then you think peanuts should be illegal?
I could argue that they should not be allowed in any public facility and be as right as someone saying that every building must have a ramp. Not the same as illegal since we're excluding private residences.
The logical conclusion of rkz's argument is that rkz should not be guaranteed access to the hotdog place. Why? Because the peanut guy can't go to the burger joint, and the asthma guy can't go to the barbecue place. So, let's be fair. If wheelchair guy wants to say "fuck peanut guy" and "fuck asthma guy" then, by all means, fuck you too, wheelchair guy.
Should peanuts and smoking be made illegal? No, I don't think so. But if they restrict certain people from entering those businesses, then so be it (according to rkz). If the lack of a wheelchair ramp restricts rkz from entering a business, then so be it. Let's be fair, okay? Let's not be selfish, point-dodging hypocrites.
Again, I am talking about access only not, protection.
An allergy does not restrict access. Good topic for another thread.
We are off-topic and I never stated nor implied fuck anyone.
Access only, not protection? How does that work if that access is not protected by law?
Exactly, I am talking about access being protected by law.
I am not talking about making substances or behavior within establishments illegal. That is off-topic.
Okay. I think I get the distinction.
[eta] Although the distinction reminds me a little of that which can be drawn between de facto and de jure discrimination.
Cool.
Going out of town, see you guys on Monday.
Sorry Rk, I think I edited that as you were posting :P
Have a good weekend!
So I take it you're ignoring your ability to throw yourself forward and drag yourself into the store? Cause I mean, once you're in, you dont expect any kind of protection inside the store. You dont care if they make you eat on the floor, obviously. Right?
bye rk..have a good weekend good looking.
So I take it you're ignoring your ability to throw yourself forward and drag yourself into the store? Cause I mean, once you're in, you dont expect any kind of protection inside the store. You dont care if they make you eat on the floor, obviously. Right?
I see you still can't read.
Still unable to understand that we are discussing access & I am not discussing what happens inside.
Unless you are unable to discuss access and this is just another lame attempt at changing the subject, either way...
Pathetic.
Exactly, I am talking about access being protected by law.
I am not talking about making substances or behavior within establishments illegal. That is off-topic.
And with a wave of my hand, I have now changed the topic. In your opinion, rk, what
should happen with regard to dangerous substances and behavior inside establishments? I'd like to broach the topic.
Sure, who cares if people can't get in there?
You talk about the AB topic now since you are bored now. Have fun.
Sorry, I didn't realize we were busy hammering out actual policies here. I'll hold my questions on related topics until all buildings can be demonstrated to have disabled access ramps.
rk, that was my ENTIRE POINT with that post, that we AREN'T talking about inside. You said you couldn't go in, sit down at a table, and have a meal. I said, using your own claim that what happens inside is irrelevant, that you can't claim that you should have to be able to sit down and eat. You just have to be able to get in, which you can do at great health risk to yourself. Just like peanut guy and asthma guy.
using your own claim that what happens inside is irrelevant
I never stated that.
I demand that we are discussing petunias. [COLOR="White"]. . . [/COLOR]You are all off-topic.
I like petunias you really dress-up a salad with them!
Take it from "petunia guy" here, he knows what he's talking about!
Put them in your underwear for a "surprise" for your lover!
Or, you could tie a yellow ribbon 'round the ol' oak tree ...
Ouch. Yeah, do the petunias thing I guess.