# Should ADA be Repealed?



## conarb (Nov 17, 2010)

Has ADA gone too far?


----------



## packsaddle (Nov 17, 2010)

completely eliminated.....along with affirmative action, welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, pensions, public housing, unemployment compensation, and all other entitlement programs and legislation.

the free market will take care of those things on its own through personal responsibility.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 18, 2010)

We need to bring back debtors prisions.

Repeal food safety laws as unjust government intrusion into our lives.

While we are at it let us get rid of building codes and building departments.


----------



## rshuey (Nov 18, 2010)

I say just remove it from building codes. make it kinda like zoning. Zoning governs the land use, ADA can govern their **** and just let me keep track of the building construction and fire safety. in a perfect world, I would get the prints, building app, letter from zoning stating compliance AND a letter from ADA telling the DESIGN PROFESSIONAL what he must include in the drawings and why.

*sighs*


----------



## DanB (Nov 18, 2010)

I believe an inclusive society is the best society.  Any of us are likely to handicapped at some time or other; I once spent a year on crutches.  We could all point to pieces of the accessibility requirements we think are unnecessary but, in general, things are getting better.


----------



## rshuey (Nov 18, 2010)

My pap was in a wheelchair for 30 years and I took him many places and he even bitched about all the ada spaces at the malls, walmart etc.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 18, 2010)

> To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. - Thomas Jefferson


Wisdom from the mind of a man with a 13 year old sex slave, literally.

I am truly inspired.


----------



## MarkRandall (Nov 18, 2010)

There's plenty I don't like in the ADA, but there's much more that I do like. ADA has created business opportunities for disabled folks to bring lawsuits on struggling business. Some of those businesses getting lawsuits slapped on them, I'm sure deserve it, but there's plenty who don't. Enforcement through the courts is just plain wrong.

I do believe accessibility needs to be an integral part of the building code and the code has to be approved as complying with ADA regs. I've spent too many years have to verify in multiple codes and guidelines whether my designs meet them.

Pack, if you take my social security, I want every dime I've put into it adjusted for interest/inflation. It's far from a perfect system, but you can't just eliminate it after people have invested in it for most of their lives. If a private institution ran social security the way it has been run, they'd be in jail. I'm all for opting out and people investing privately, but a government option has to continue.


----------



## Alias (Nov 18, 2010)

As someone who has to enforce the CA Disability Access Code, I can tell you that I believe in it but that we need to get rid of the monetary incentive that folks get from suing businesses, local government, etc.  There is a whole nother layer of government regulation now required with the CASp legislation here in CA.  All of this because CA hasn't stopped the monetary incentive for, in most cases, frivolous lawsuits.

Sue, where the west still lives............


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 18, 2010)

What is the difference between Arizonia adopting immigration laws that mirror federal law and trying to enforce them or states adopting accessibility laws that mirror ADA and trying to enforce them. Leave enforcement of existing facilities at the federal level


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 18, 2010)

The private right of suit should be eliminated. End perpetual entitlements for capable people, handicapped or not. Most people can go back to relying on their familiy, churches and local communities for help, in exchange for the services they can provide others within the family, church, and community.


----------



## Mac (Nov 18, 2010)

No.

I agree that a commonsensical limit or cap on punitive damage awards would help achieve the goal of increased accessibility.


----------



## conarb (Nov 18, 2010)

I have to wonder if California is the only state to codify as statute the ADA?  I did a Google search and found nothing on the subject.  Building inspectors do not enforce Federal law, ADA, EPA, OSHA, or immigration law, if other states have not codified ADA the subject of disability should only be of interest to California inspectors, contractors, engineers, and architects.


----------



## tbz (Nov 18, 2010)

I don't have a problem with any new building, any building doing renovation or any existing building with more than lets say 1,200 sqft having to comply.  On the flip side I don't believe small historical buildings, old existing small business either should be required to comply.  If they are losing business because of it, then that is the businesses loss.

As to it being a federal law, I believe only the federal government has the right to file suit.  The personal monetary gain needs to be removed.  If you have a complaint with access file it with the DOJ and stay on their back to get it resolved.

What I find amazing is that there are many cultures in America living along side each other and yet somehow the more government laws enacted to bring people closer to accepting each other, the more people dislike each other.

Its funny how people are like deer in headlights, they just can't seem to see the truck coming is going to hit them, they just think the lights are so pretty.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 18, 2010)

tbz said:
			
		

> Its funny how people are like deer in headlights, they just can't seem to see the truck coming is going to hit them, they just think the lights are so pretty.


Some people are like the deer. Others, are like the truck.

Conarb: ADA requirements are interesting to us, (other states), too because the suits and threats of suit are not restricted to California.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/177412177.html


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 18, 2010)

Well, crap; I couldn't vote.

  Don't give a rat's butt wasn't listed.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 18, 2010)

I stand corrected. Make that, interersting to us too, but not interesting to Uncle Bob.


----------



## FredK (Nov 18, 2010)

Well I remember requiring ADA in the CEO private restroom (all cherry wood) when I was in Washington State years ago.  The yelling and threats about that were legend around the office.  Then when he came in later to obtain a permit for his new warehouse he said something like this.  "That ADA stuff you made me put in sure came in handy when I broke my leg skiing."

Never know when one go to need access to ADA and it's a pain in the butt to try to add it later.  Have no problems with new and retro it can be a challenge but most people I talked to sem to think it's a good idea.

As to the suit and $$$ to some (both sides) it's the only thing they understand and will need to be brought kicking and screaming to comply.

Really think DoJ should be filing the suits though.


----------



## conarb (Nov 18, 2010)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> Conarb: ADA requirements are interesting to us, (other states), too  because the suits and threats of suit are not restricted to California.


I'm sure they are, but not from an enforcement standpoint, unless you fear you will go down like California and end up having to enforce your own version of ADA.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 19, 2010)

We have had a couple of different occasions that the threat of suit has passed through our town. Everybody that is threatened with suit calls us wanting to know why we have historically issued CO's without enforcing ADA requirements. I could see us going down that California road . . . but am better warned against it now.

I am surprised how different our state laws are concerning ADA. Why does California allow personal suits? And why did California codify as statute ADA requirements? I mean, what was the motive of those not handicapped?


----------



## conarb (Nov 19, 2010)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> Why does California allow personal suits? And why did California codify  as statute ADA requirements? I mean, what was the motive of those not  handicapped?


California has a huge radical left-wing contingent of bleeding-heart liberals,  mostly aging Hippies out of the state university and college system.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 19, 2010)

I heard a theory once about why there are liberals in California (this was speaking about the entertainment industry), that goes like this "they feel guilty for making so much money for doing so little work"

Don't know how true that is.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 19, 2010)

This is what needs to be stopped.

http://adaabuse.com/


----------



## Mark K (Nov 19, 2010)

Jobsaver

I believe that you will find that the ability to sue on ADA is tied to the federal law.  The reason for bringing ADA requirements into the building code was so that every ADA compliance problem would not have to be litigated.

The idea that we should go back to a system where we do away with all government services and rely on familiy, churches and local communities for help is disturbing.  What you are saying is that anybody who does not have strong local ties, good relations with family, or church membership should be left to suffer.


----------



## packsaddle (Nov 19, 2010)

> The idea that we should go back to a system where we do away with all government services and rely on familiy, churches and local communities for help is disturbing.


It's not disturbing.....it's just foreign to you.

It's the way this country was founded and it's the way this country will end.


----------



## texasbo (Nov 19, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> I have to wonder if California is the only state to codify as statute the ADA?  I did a Google search and found nothing on the subject.  Building inspectors do not enforce Federal law, ADA, EPA, OSHA, or immigration law, if other states have not codified ADA the subject of disability should only be of interest to California inspectors, contractors, engineers, and architects.


DOJ has certified Texas Accessibility standards as compliant with ADA. So anyone building in Texas can look forward to contending with federal compliance, state review and inspection, and local compliance, as many jurisdictions have adopted the accessibility provisions in the IBC, their own provisions, or a combination. Have a nice day...

I have no problem with limited, measured requirements for handicapped accessibility FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS ONLY. And by public, I don't mean buildings that the public can enter; I mean buildings paid for with public funds.

A property owner should have the right to allow whoever he wants on his property, to serve whoever he pleases, and to make, or not make the facility accessible as he pleases.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 19, 2010)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The idea that we should go back to a system where we do away with all government services and rely on familiy, churches and local communities for help is disturbing.  What you are saying is that anybody who does not have strong local ties, good relations with family, or church membership should be left to suffer.


What a stretch! I recall using clarifying words like "capable people" and "most people".

But, you reinforce my point. Our culture should encourage building ties within communities, maintaining family relationships, and helping out. Many "government services" could be reduced or abolished.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 19, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I have no problem with limited, measured requirements for handicapped accessibility FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS ONLY. And by public, I don't mean buildings that the public can enter; I mean buildings paid for with public funds. A property owner should have the right to allow whoever he wants on his property, to serve whoever he pleases, and to make, or not make the facility accessible as he pleases.


Draft the ordinance and send it to my ahj. I'll sign off on it.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 19, 2010)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> What a stretch! I recall using clarifying words like "capable people" and "most people".But, you reinforce my point. Our culture should encourage building ties within communities, maintaining family relationships, and helping out. Many "government services" could be reduced or abolished.


It was called "feudalism."


----------



## brudgers (Nov 19, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> DOJ has certified Texas Accessibility standards as compliant with ADA. So anyone building in Texas can look forward to contending with federal compliance, state review and inspection, and local compliance, as many jurisdictions have adopted the accessibility provisions in the IBC, their own provisions, or a combination. Have a nice day...I have no problem with limited, measured requirements for handicapped accessibility FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS ONLY. And by public, I don't mean buildings that the public can enter; I mean buildings paid for with public funds.
> 
> A property owner should have the right to allow whoever he wants on his property, to serve whoever he pleases, and to make, or not make the facility accessible as he pleases.


You forgot to change your signature to "whites only."


----------



## texasbo (Nov 19, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> You forgot to change your signature to "whites only."


Uncalled for, and if you were a decent human being, you'd edit the comment. I won't hold my breath. Can we compromise, and agree on "No brudgers served here"?

I stand by my statement however. The current trend is to adopt anti-smoking laws. I detest smoking, and from a purely selfish perspective, I wish all facilities were non-smoking. However, from a position of fairness, I think it's a travesty. A business owner should have a right to allow smoking, and for those who dislike it, like me, go somewhere else.

I can't wait for smokers to play the "I'm addicted to cigarrettes" card, and claim damages on reasonable accomodation grounds.


----------



## texasbo (Nov 19, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Wisdom from the mind of a man with a 13 year old sex slave, literally.I am truly inspired.


So you are willing to diminish one's contributions, based on an alleged incident, supported only by heresay, anecdotal, and time-eroded evidence? You are willing to do so even when such alleged actions were legal and not inconsistent with the conventions of the time in which he lived? It was immoral, by todays standards, for the caveman to club his mate, so I assume you condemn all cavemen?

Do you discount the works of King and Kennedy because they were philanderers?

Or is that pretty much OK with you, since ADA is lucrative for you, and you haven't quite figured out how to make a buck off of cheating husbands?


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 19, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> This is what needs to be stopped.http://adaabuse.com/


It is telling that the attorney's own office is in violation. What a hypocrite!


----------



## brudgers (Nov 19, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Uncalled for, and if you were a decent human being, you'd edit the comment. I won't hold my breath. Can we compromise, and agree on "No brudgers served here"?I stand by my statement however. The current trend is to adopt anti-smoking laws. I detest smoking, and from a purely selfish perspective, I wish all facilities were non-smoking. However, from a position of fairness, I think it's a travesty. A business owner should have a right to allow smoking, and for those who dislike it, like me, go somewhere else.
> 
> I can't wait for smokers to play the "I'm addicted to cigarrettes" card, and claim damages on reasonable accomodation grounds.


Your property rights are secured only by the system of government to which we all consent.

You don't get to pick and choose.

It's a package deal.

Read the last sentence of your post again.

Go ahead and replace "accessible" with "integrated" because it is also justified by your property rights argument.


----------



## Rio (Nov 20, 2010)

The whole thread's kind of moot because the ADA laws are about as likely to be repealed as a pig is likely to be able to fly to the moon.  However, getting some tort reform done and thereby putting things into a little more reasonable perspective is a much more possible goal that might actually be achievable.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 20, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> So you are willing to diminish one's contributions, based on an alleged incident, supported only by heresay, anecdotal, and time-eroded evidence? You are willing to do so even when such alleged actions were legal and not inconsistent with the conventions of the time in which he lived? It was immoral, by todays standards, for the caveman to club his mate, so I assume you condemn all cavemen? Do you discount the works of King and Kennedy because they were philanderers?
> 
> Or is that pretty much OK with you, since ADA is lucrative for you, and you haven't quite figured out how to make a buck off of cheating husbands?


We're not talking about philandering. Today he would be a registered sex offender.

BTW, I love the "it was legal at the time argument." Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws


----------



## texasbo (Nov 20, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Your property rights are secured only by the system of government to which we all consent.You don't get to pick and choose.
> 
> It's a package deal.
> 
> ...


Agreed. And that is my point; it's reached a point where there is bound to be pushback. Replace "accessible" with "integrated", then replace "integrated" with "redhead", then replace "redhead" with "smoker". I'm not arguing with what it is, I'm arguing with how in a reasonable person's judgement, it should be. There will be change. Whether or not it's before you start drawing Social Security or not is yet to be seen. Cash in while you can.


----------



## texasbo (Nov 20, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> We're not talking about philandering. Today he would be a registered sex offender.BTW, I love the "it was legal at the time argument." Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws


And today George Washington would be labeled a terrorist. Today Curtiss Lemay and Paul Tibbets would be tried for crimes against humanity. Like you said, you don't get to pick and choose. Are we living in today's world, or yesterday's? And I didn't bother to read the Wiki article (the same Wiki, by the way, that you have often discounted in previous posts).

How can you possibly  compare laws that were clearly and blatantly passed to discriminate against an entire race of people, with laws that give an extremely small minority of the population virtual unlimited ability to collect damages that they have not suffered? I would argue that your Nuremberg reference is actually more appropriately applied in terms of how the general populace suffers discrimination from the government and the militant handicapped.

Excuse me if I find it difficult to find a similarity  between a law that results in decapitation if you make love to a Jewish girl, and one that doesn't  allow you to shut a business down because you have trouble getting into the front door in your wheelchair...


----------



## conarb (Nov 20, 2010)

Brudgers:

Interesting that you bring up the Nuremberg Laws but ignore the *Nuremberg Defense*, as we all remember many universities and public agencies passed laws giving preferential treatment to Blacks and Latinos, much to the disadvantage of Whites and Orientals, in *Bakke* the Supreme Court ruled preferential quotas unconstitutional, presumably those who conspired to engage in that unconstitutional activity could have been found liable for damages done by their unconstitutional activities (I know of none that were), were the court to ever find that granting preferential treatment to the disabled to be similarly unconstitutional, inspectors claiming that they were just following orders while enforcing that preferential treatment would be barred from asserting the Nuremberg Defense of _respondeat superior_, just following orders.  It's not beyond the realm of possibility with all the illicit legal activity and profiteering going on with ADA that the constitutionality of preferential treatment for the disabled may come before the courts, as preferential treatment for racial minorities did.  So far courts that have become disgusted with such activity have only barred lawyers and plaintiffs from filing serial litigation as an abuse of the legal system, but it wouldn't take much for a court to throw the entire system out in disgust, precipitating a constitutional challenge.


----------



## peach (Nov 20, 2010)

If the whole purpose of ADA is to provide accessibility to the disabled (and I have a disabled child), then that's what civil law suits are for.. force the business into compliance.  If I sue a place because it doesn't have hearing assistance, but I'm not the deaf person.. what gives me the right to collect  compensation?  (should be nothing).. but I could on principle sue and collect monetary damages, even if I'm not the one directly affected.. something is wrong with the law.


----------



## Simonsays (Nov 22, 2010)

Keep the ADA but completely eliminate all of the various states' access boards.


----------



## jpranch (Nov 22, 2010)

Required accessibility? Absolutely! ADA? No, no, and no. Get rid of that archaic document.  There is a better way. The A117.1 standard. Make it mandatory across the country. At least this standard gets up-dated. And hasn't the DOJ just done a lovely job up-dating ADA? NOT!


----------



## Architect1281 (Nov 22, 2010)

CA I graduated from Architect school way too many years ago (36)

as part of my edumacation we were handed a wheel chair and had to negotiate the school for three days each of us students.

I attended class with a wide variety and age of students.

many of my slightly older clasmates were vietnam veterans some with differing levels of physical ability.

that experience alone has convinced me that all considerations possible should be implemented to make buildings

compatible to all. Have we come to a deep end of the pool - on that I say perhaps.

at the time I was young and scheptical and still politically incorrect and humoursly proposed requlating the same issues for the

vertically enhanced with such items as dual height light switches and multi level door openings.

Just last week I had an individual who bought an older building to convert to a church proudly hand me a DOJ letter

stating that churches were exempt from the ADA criteria and I asked him to get me the same letter telling he was exempt from the building code.

Old Building Change of use F, S, to A3 Church (Compliance is the Alternative - Resistance is Futile)


----------



## jpranch (Nov 22, 2010)

1281, thank you for helping me make my point. ADA is a POS and not maintained in any fashion. The doj has done us all a great diservice. If you really want to screw something up just let the fereral government take it over.


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 25, 2010)

Mark K said:
			
		

> JobsaverI believe that you will find that the ability to sue on ADA is tied to the federal law.  The reason for bringing ADA requirements into the building code was so that every ADA compliance problem would not have to be litigated.
> 
> The idea that we should go back to a system where we do away with all government services and rely on familiy, churches and local communities for help is disturbing.  What you are saying is that anybody who does not have strong local ties, good relations with family, or church membership should be left to suffer.


The government didn't create us and it sure shouldn't do anything except what the Constitution authorizes, which isn't much.


----------



## KZQuixote (Nov 26, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Wisdom from the mind of a man with a 13 year old sex slave, literally.I am truly inspired.


Dude!

Sally Hemings came to France with Thomas Jefferson and voluntarily decided to return to these United States from France, where she was a free person. She eventually bore six children who were, I believe, honorably fathered by Mr. Jefferson.

Your characterization is myopic and irrelevant.

Mr. Jefferson was and is a GREAT American as was Sally Hemings.

Bill


----------



## brudgers (Nov 29, 2010)

Sure she had all the freedoms accorded to a 13 year old sex slave (who could not speak French) at the close of the 18th century.

Jefferson had all the powers of a planter in the south and a diplomat abroad.

And you have motorcycle riding as the font of your wisdom


----------



## fatboy (Nov 29, 2010)

"And you have motorcycle riding as the font of your wisdom"

How is this relevant?

Just curious......


----------



## High Desert (Nov 29, 2010)

I think that was Brudgers subjective way of saying Bill is not very smart. Seems to be a slam on you too, Fatboy. I guess some people need to massage their egos a bit to feel better.


----------



## fatboy (Nov 29, 2010)

Hence.....my curiosity.

Seemed a bit schoolyard to me.......but I come here to learn.

So, I guess I got schooled. I'm just a dumb-a$$ biker also.


----------



## High Desert (Nov 29, 2010)

But a smart one, as evidenced by your Harley logo.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 30, 2010)

fatboy said:
			
		

> "And you have motorcycle riding as the font of your wisdom"How is this relevant?
> 
> Just curious......


reference this post:

http://www.inspectpa.com/phpbb/showthread.php?107-Education-and-updates&p=33178&viewfull=1#post33178


----------



## Gene Boecker (Dec 2, 2010)

Back to the topic. . . . .

The federal government has broadened the "public welfare" clause to the point that it is no longer anything that the founding fathers would recognize.  To that extent, we have gone too far from the exacts on the constitution.  The question, now that we have traveled off the holy path, it whether we "should" address discrimination at all; and, if so, should disabilities be included in that collective discussion.

If we contend that all men (in the generic - not gender - sense) are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights including liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then maybe there needs to be something to address the issue.  And, if there should be something to address it, politicians will always assume they know best and make laws to address it.  It's what they do.  The best we can hope for is a law that allows rule-making which addresses things in a manner consistent with the best and most reasonable minds.  Step into the 2003 A117.1!  . . . The basic framework for the 2010 ADAAG; just as the 1986 was the framework for the original ADAAG.  We are fortunate that the IBC and the ADAAG align to a 99% degree due to this involvement.

The ADA law should be maintained.  The process needs to be fixed to address the realities of construction.  The lawyers and politicians need to back off as much as possible and let us build the environment in a manner in which we do not discriminate against people to the greatest extent feasible.  Ah!  Now we can all debate what's "feasible."


----------



## brudgers (Dec 2, 2010)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> Back to the topic. . . . . The federal government has broadened the "public welfare" clause to the point that it is no longer anything that the founding fathers would recognize.  To that extent, we have gone too far from the exacts on the constitution.  The question, now that we have traveled off the holy path, it whether we "should" address discrimination at all; and, if so, should disabilities be included in that collective discussion.
> 
> If we contend that all men (in the generic - not gender - sense) are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights including liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then maybe there needs to be something to address the issue.  And, if there should be something to address it, politicians will always assume they know best and make laws to address it.  It's what they do.  The best we can hope for is a law that allows rule-making which addresses things in a manner consistent with the best and most reasonable minds.  Step into the 2003 A117.1!  . . . The basic framework for the 2010 ADAAG; just as the 1986 was the framework for the original ADAAG.  We are fortunate that the IBC and the ADAAG align to a 99% degree due to this involvement.
> 
> The ADA law should be maintained.  The process needs to be fixed to address the realities of construction.  The lawyers and politicians need to back off as much as possible and let us build the environment in a manner in which we do not discriminate against people to the greatest extent feasible.  Ah!  Now we can all debate what's "feasible."


The public welfare clause is in the Constitution, the inalienable rights stuff is in the Declaration of independence...RoboCop is on a Unicorn.

If you want to pick a place to start going back to "original intent," I suggest starting with the idea that corporations are persons.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Dec 3, 2010)

((RoboCop is on a Unicorn???))


----------



## brudgers (Dec 3, 2010)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> ((RoboCop is on a Unicorn???))


http://www.google.com/images?q=robocop+is+on+a+unicorn


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 4, 2010)

ADA, and public facilities regulations are not enforced; except in rare cases where an individual uses them for personal financial gain. Don't beieve it? Go to any strip mall and ask to ues the restroom. Most times you will be informed that they don't have a public restroom or if pushed; it's out of order. The overall purpose of social (and so called public good) laws are to restrict individual rights; not protect them.

We used to have mostly, mom & pop stores. In order to run them out of business; new laws that made it impossible for them to stay in business, were passed (for public safety and/or the public good); including the ADA and public restroom laws. Remember when all gas stations were required to put in new holding tanks? Probably not; it did not run you out of business.

When the government passes a law "for the public good"; it is to minimize the individuals rights; not, improve anything.

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Dec 4, 2010)

It always seems that the process is arye! A 117.1 just needs to be enforced. Get rid of the rest/


----------



## brudgers (Dec 5, 2010)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> ADA, and public facilities regulations are not enforced; except in rare cases where an individual uses them for personal financial gain. Don't beieve it? Go to any strip mall and ask to ues the restroom. Most times you will be informed that they don't have a public restroom or if pushed; it's out of order. The overall purpose of social (and so called public good) laws are to restrict individual rights; not protect them.We used to have mostly, mom & pop stores. In order to run them out of business; new laws that made it impossible for them to stay in business, were passed (for public safety and/or the public good); including the ADA and public restroom laws. Remember when all gas stations were required to put in new holding tanks? Probably not; it did not run you out of business.
> 
> When the government passes a law "for the public good"; it is to minimize the individuals rights; not, improve anything.
> 
> Uncle Bob


Psssst....you're using the internet.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 5, 2010)

Brudgers,

I really gotta go man; can I use your bathroom?

Uncle Bob


----------



## KZQuixote (Dec 5, 2010)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Brudgers,I really gotta go man; can I use your bathroom?
> 
> Uncle Bob


Hey Bob, Watch out for that Unicorn while you're in there.

Bill


----------



## brudgers (Dec 5, 2010)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Brudgers,I really gotta go man; can I use your bathroom?
> 
> Uncle Bob


Sure, I'll email it to you.


----------

