sactoking
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2007
- 7,650
- 2,930
- 136
Originally posted by: TruePaige
In the article it has a lawyer who is reviewing her case saying "I would argue if you're open 24 hours, you need to be accessible and provide accessibility 24 hours," Page said.
All she is going to do is make life harder for those of us who read the signs and follow the rules to get late night snacks, because if the restaurant has to maintain dining room accessibility and service in the (many times) not profitable late night hours, they may just close earlier.
She sounds like she has nothing better to do than be a bitter lawsuit chaser. She claims she is standing up against discrimination, but all she is doing is rolling over people who did nothing wrong.
I agree that if she sues on accessibility issues and wins that the repercussions will be exactly that: everyone will just close down.
I think the attorney is out in left field in the bolded statement though. Operating a drive-through window is not discriminatory in accessibility. Why? Because they make vehicles that people confined to wheelchairs can drive. They use hand controls.
Her access to service was not denied due to her condition, it was denied because she did not take the proper steps to be served; the same steps that the ambulatory and non-ambulatory ALL have to take.
Edited for spelling and puctuation
