I thought that might stir the pot.
Let's start off with this: Someone being handicap doesn't make their argument any better or worse nor does someone hoping I never have to deal with tending to a handicap person make any sort of difference in the argument. At the same time simply because I disagree with said law, or any law for that matter, doesn't mean I wish ill on anyone. That is typically how these arguments are frame when you get into them:
1) I'm handicap (whatever could be fat, black, white, etc.) and thus that alone gives credence to my argument.
2) (usually suggested, as in this case) You want these people (doesn't matter who) to suffer / you hate these people
3) (putting oneself on a pedestal because they want to be morally right) I hope you never have to deal with X!
The argument is this: The ADA was a "feel good" law which had numerous negative consequences but will never be repealed because of the arguments here. It put a gun to people's head to force them to comply through taxation, legislation, and litigation (Your sink is 1/4" too high - time to head to court to settle for $1M).
Before it came along people managed to get up and down curbs. I never saw a blind man stuck on a curb before the ADA because he couldn't step down a step. I did see the odd wheelchair bound person make it up a curb - still it was rare.
The ADA enacted all sort of feel-good measures, all well-intended, may of the pointlessly costly to businesses and governments (federal, state, and local). It sets up a situation where it actually inhibits a handicap person from being employed because the person making the employment decision, and they're not going to say this out loud, will have to be accommodating to their potential employee, and that could literally mean $thousands going out the door AND they have to make an even bigger case to fire this person (and they're still out all of that money). That's a bad bet. We all want it to be a good bet because pretending it's a good bet makes us feel good but it's a bad bet.
Let's say you own a small business.. First the most expensive part of a small business is just getting things up and running. You have to have all sorts of permits and pay all sorts of fees and have people come out and "certify" you, your building, your door, your toilet, whatever. That is a HUGE burden to bear when all you want to do is hang your shingle out. If you're already an established company you can, depending on your size and how well you're doing, absorb some of those costs and it makes the point of entry that much tougher for your potential future competition.
Let's say you have a business but you're still trying to get it up and running but there's another new regulation that you have to comply with such as the lifts for pools. You've never seen a handicap person at your place but now you have pay $10K for this lift and another $5-10K for it to be installed.. and sit dormant.
The thing people forget is that people aren't as crappy as you'd think and you don't need the full force of government to put a gun to their heads to "be good". I'd argue (and it's actually my argument) that using the force of government, instead of the force of the marketplace, is counter-productive to making things better. Left to their own freedom, people will generally, granted not always, try to do right by their customers. If they feel the need for handicap parking spots, which existed before the ADA forced them, then they'll put them in. There's all sorts of evidence that you didn't need the ADA to make any of this happen and people were already moving in that direction.
Ultimately: You don't need the force of government to solve all of your problems. The market is REALLY good at this and you can just be nice to people and explain your situation and eventually it'll spread.
Just think about it and try to wrap your head around it before automatically coming back with: "Well, Brad hates all handicap people everywhere and wants them all to die! I sure hope he's not in charge of how well handicap people live in the future!" (I know none of you actually said that but that's typically where the argument heads)
Think of it one more way: If the ADA were repealed today do you think:
- There would be no handicap spaces in front of Walmart? They'd likely be reduced to a more manageable level. It's extremely unlikely that they'd go away
- That people would build toilets 1/4" higher just to tick off the handicap?
Also consider that I'm not against the measures where they make sense but in the idea of forcing it on people. If you're a small town and no one is handicap, why do you need expensive sloped corners? It doesn't matter, you're forced to have them.
