Posted by Paul T. Holland on 10/03/07 23:52

Relayer wrote:

>
> Stu, first off, I have owned my own business.
>
> Second, I have run a number of companies.
>
> Third, we are not talking accessability or accomidation here. (I
> actually think I had a typo there..I said Toys R Us is
> accessible..their web site might not be)
>
> The OP complained and wants to sue because their website is not usable
> by disabled people

actually, that's not really what he wrote:
>Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.

In my other post to this thread i mentioned that he's pretty well know
around usenet - and that he doesn't grasp the idea that there a re
multiple ways for folk to apply for work there.

he's saying that low income, disabled, aren't going to have internet
access or any way to access the internet job sites that employers put
up. [i've had multiple go rounds with him elsewhere] this is an issue of
robert's of long standing, that the 'combination' of low income and
disabled is 'of itself' limiting...

which of course it is...as it is for any low income person, disability
notwithstanding. he believes that disability should give 'greater'
access to things like the internet - jobs - etc. as if, by itself, one
earned extra bonus points above any other low income person...

has has in his own right had access to multiple opportunities for
further education, none of which has led to employability - his
particular mental state makes him a 'difficult' fit...even with multiple
social workers, counselors, et al...

(so we all assume he is blind..as I cant think of
> another reason why it's not usable)

he is not blind
>
> It was suggested he actually go to the store (which is the only thing
> legally required to be accessible) and apply for the job (and if
> blind, would have a hard time actually performing the required work
> there).
>

robert has great difficulties when he has to go to a particular location
on his own. and a greater difficulty in fitting into a given corporate
structure. this isn't because of physical needs...

> Has nothing to do with a business being accessible, as most are. In
> fact, it's rare now to find one that isn't, so people are running out
> of people to sue.

indeed

>
> Stu, you are legally blind. Do you think you could run around a Toy's
> R Us and find the newest "My Pretty Pony" the mother with 6 kids in
> tow is trying to find, while 6 other people are trying to return their
> lead paint toys and you need to do a price check on the latest Hot
> Wheels '67 Camero (all toys that do NOT have braille?)
>
> How would you handle it if you couldnt read the packaging. Sue Mattel
> because their Hot Wheels are not handicapped accessible? Or Toys R Us
> because they stock toys like that (which by the way, are almost all
> toys)?

[Back to original message]