Quote:
Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston
It’s really amazing how people interpret another’s post. He’s entitled to his opinion. He can speak for himself but your post is an attempt at shaming him...and also a veil threat at his future health IMO. Remind me not to book any appointments in your practice Doc! I love and attend adaptive sports events...especially at my kids schools. It’s exciting and well attended by students and parents. Had the opportunity to ski in NH with an individual with adaptive skis and was blown away by the skill level and fluidity. I can understand some may have limited experience/interaction with that community....but that being the case doesn’t make one against their advances into the mainstream. I read his post differently than you, having followed his intelligent, thoughtful and constructive posts in the past....I believe his intentions were without prejudice or malice to the community
|
Thanks for the defense, but I didn't respond to that post, because it's not worthy of a response. It was a complete and utter distortion of my post.
I'm involved in a bit of a controversy right now, at a country club. They've planning on renovating their clubhouse and trying to find every angle under the sun, to avoid compliance with handicap accessibility regulations. I told them that not only are they legally and ethically wrong, they should be embarrassed to even suggest they're not willing to provide accessibility.
The other side of the coin, there are limits to "reasonably accommodation".
While playing golf yesterday, I was thinking ... the next time I look at TOTV, someone will be attacking me about my post. The analogy that came to mind, is:
Suppose in their infinite wisdom, The Villages decided to create a "beach" at Lake Sumter (alligators and reality aside) and wanted to place a "floating swimming/diving raft" in the middle of the lake.
Would they be obligated to build a "pedestrian bridge" to the diving raft? I think not.
What if they opted to provide a pedestrian bridge? In that case, they are 100% obligated to provide a bridge that is in compliance with all accessibility regulations.
The law (or ethics, nor common sense) dictates that everyone has to be accommodated, in a way that makes their physical capabilities, consistent will someone else's. If that was the case, the NBA would have to two hoops at each end of the court. One for the "real basketball players" and one for the guys over 5'5", who got booted out of Jockey Training School and decided to play in the NBA, instead.
"Being old" is not considered a disability under ADA. Entitled jerks have manipulated ADA/Disability regulations, to the detriment of those who it was designed to help. In TV, it seems anyone who's ever seen a Doctor, can get themselves a pass to drive their golf cart anywhere they want to take it. That's just plain wrong in my opinion.
If you have a legitimate disability that keeps you from playing golf, get yourself a solo-rider, adaptive golf cart to play golf or rent one at the course. That's what they're designed for. Every course at TV has one to rent. If the demand was there, they'd buy more.