[ICallHimTurtle]

I'd just eat at home, personally. I like my own food better anyway. It's too easy to sue people/corporations these days. I feel we need some kind of filtration system?

I would like to add here that I am overweight. I also eat healthier and work out more than most people I know. Those I run with have admitted to being baffled by this. I've just accepted it as my lot in life, and made the decision not to JUDGE every other large person around me - I don't know your story just like you don't know mine.

*I* think I'm sexy, and my husband agrees. *I* know I'm healthy, and my doctor agrees. *I* know I'll live a full and, God-willing, long life.

Maybe we can make the choice here to see people as people and not disabled persons with no self-control.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Are there high enough percents of kosher and halal restaurants to serve Jews and Muslims? That's the beauty of the free market. Every niche gets covered.

Alright, here goes.

First of all, I think the answer to your question is no. There are, in general, too few kosher and halal restaurants. I only know 2 kosher restaurants in the entire New Orleans area. I don't know any halal ones.

But to answer the real question, about catering to non-disability related needs, I think there is a difference between an unwillingness to avail oneself to a public service and an inability to do so. A blind person can't read a menu an order a pork dish off of it. A Jewish person won't. I think the purpose of the ADA is giving the blind person the choice.

For another example, let's look at movie theaters. By the ADA, movie theaters should be designed to allow blind people access. Blind people may not want to go to movies, but they should still have the choice.

There's nothing stopping Jewish people from eating pork. They have the option. They just choose not to.

Businesses that don't follow the ADA don't give disabled people the choice at all.

The reason I said this brings up issues is that some people have dietary restrictions imposed on them by health issues. People with celiac disease can't eat wheat. If a restaurant doesn't offer a gluten-free menu, people with celiac disease don't have the choice of eating there. Does this mean food allergies should be considered a disability under the ADA? I don't know.

A little Googling shows that at least in some cases, food allergies are covered by the ADA.

Maybe restaurants that don't cover a particular dietary requirement should simply be required to allow those with the restriction to bring in their own food. Again, I don't know. This is where it gets confusing for me.

[adamwagg]

I suppose Bob that that is why the laws often say reasonable expense etc. and leave it up to the courts to interpret what that means. You can't come up with a perfect list of rules/laws to cover all circumstances.

I think the general principle of 'places should undertake reasonable steps at reasonable cost to ensure that their services are available to people with disabilities' is a good one.

What that actually means in practice is hard to say.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Alright, here goes.

First of all, I think the answer to your question is no. There are, in general, too few kosher and halal restaurants. I only know 2 kosher restaurants in the entire New Orleans area. I don't know any halal ones.

Not enough? If you had a need for either of those kinds of restaurants, THEN, you would probably know of a few more places. As it stands, there are tons of halal food stores around my home, and many halal eating establishments. But if I go to the opposite side of town, I can't find any. My point: the market determines how many are needed and where.

But to answer the real question, about catering to non-disability related needs, I think there is a difference between an unwillingness to avail oneself to a public service and an inability to do so. A blind person can't read a menu an order a pork dish off of it. A Jewish person won't. I think the purpose of the ADA is giving the blind person the choice.

I don't know of a single restaurant that wouldn't be willing to accommodate a blind person. Its pretty simple to read a menu out loud. Of course, there aren't many that have brail menus for example, but is it reasonable to expect that? If they go to a restaurant to be served, shouldn't they be able to rely on their company or the server to read the menu to them?

For another example, let's look at movie theaters. By the ADA, movie theaters should be designed to allow blind people access. Blind people may not want to go to movies, but they should still have the choice.

Movie theaters do allow blind people in? Of course, movies are clearly not designed for blind people. Maybe each movie should be made 3 times. One with overly descriptive script, and audio for blind people, one with basically no script, and purely visual for deaf people, and the regular release for everyone else? And if the answer is that the movie industry doesn't have to make movies that specifically appeal to a blind person (to "accommodate them"), then why should an equally private business such a restaurant be forced to take extra steps that aren't necessarily profitable to accommodate disabilities?

There's nothing stopping Jewish people from eating pork. They have the option. They just choose not to.

They are simply my example of a niche market.

Businesses that don't follow the ADA don't give disabled people the choice at all.

The reason I said this brings up issues is that some people have dietary restrictions imposed on them by health issues. People with celiac disease can't eat wheat. If a restaurant doesn't offer a gluten-free menu, people with celiac disease don't have the choice of eating there. Does this mean food allergies should be considered a disability under the ADA? I don't know.

A little Googling shows that at least in some cases, food allergies are covered by the ADA.

Maybe restaurants that don't cover a particular dietary requirement should simply be required to allow those with the restriction to bring in their own food. Again, I don't know. This is where it gets confusing for me.

My cousin-in-law is a celiac, and she lives in a small town. The restaurants there do not offer her much choice. When she comes to the city, she has a favorite restaurant that has a really great gluten free menu. This restaurant benefits from an increased volume of celiacs because of the wide selection of choices that they give this niche of customers. Other restaurants may also provide options, but are much more limited in their offerings. They may or may not be better off because of that. It should be the business owners choice to decide which markets he wants to go after.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Movie theaters do allow blind people in? Of course, movies are clearly not designed for blind people. Maybe each movie should be made 3 times. One with overly descriptive script, and audio for blind people, one with basically no script, and purely visual for deaf people, and the regular release for everyone else? And if the answer is that the movie industry doesn't have to make movies that specifically appeal to a blind person (to "accommodate them"), then why should an equally private business such a restaurant be forced to take extra steps that aren't necessarily profitable to accommodate disabilities?

Accommodation is about making things available, not making extra things. A blind person doesn't get a bigger menu, just the same menu in a different way. The ADA is just supposed to guarantee that the blind person can still get the menu that everyone else can get on their own.

Everyone else at White Castle can get seating. The ADA, if it's decided it covers obesity, would simply guarantee that obese people are also able to get seating. They wouldn't need special seating. They would just need *access* to the same seating.

Perhaps for food allergies, the restaurant should just be required to prepare dishes not containing the allergen in such a way as to ensure the dish does not become contaminated. I can't see requiring a bakery to bake gluten-free bread, but I can see an argument for requiring a bakery/ice cream shop to keep the flour out of the ice cream. I'm not necessarily saying that's how I think it should be, but I think the argument could be made.

To take your idea to the extreme of business owners deciding for themselves who to serve, can a baker put a single drop of bacon grease in each loaf just to keep Jews away? Can they decide they just don't want to serve Jews? Or for disabilities, can a business owner put a speed bump in the entrance way to keep wheelchairs out?

[Bryan]

the ADA requires a business to make reasonable accommodations to allow the disabled to access their business but it doesn't require you to completely change the business model to accommodate the disabled. So a movie theater has to put in wheel chair access and seats that accommodate wheel chairs, allow guide dogs into the theater, but it doesn't have to change the movies to accommodate the blind. A restaurant would have to either provide braille menus or read/tell the blind what is on the menu. They don't have to change their recipes to accommodate those who can't eat gluten. A seafood restaurant wouldn't have to change its menu to accommodate those allergic to shell fish.

The key here is reasonable accommodation.

but going back to the original topic, being fat is not a disability! I'm fat and I don't expect six flags to change it's rides so a fat person can ride the rides.