What if it's based on a mental illness?I'd say no because your right is to make the request, not to have it accommodated.
What if it's based on a mental illness?I'd say no because your right is to make the request, not to have it accommodated.
What if it's based on a mental illness?
What if the need to be seated in a corner facing an exit is based on something like PTSD?What do you mean? If the request is based on a mental illness? You'll need to give me a 'for instance'.
What if the need to be seated in a corner facing an exit is based on something like PTSD?
Fair enough.So the reasoning behind the request is what you mean. Ok, well, does that change the basic right to make the request or the choice to go elsewhere? I don't think it does.
Is it any different than a woman choosing a female OGBYN?This whole thing to me is less about the request that's being made or why and more about the steps taken to accommodate said request.
If it was based on discrimination.The reasoning, the validity behind the request doesn't really matter. But the actions taken on the part of the granter of the request do matter.
Is it any different than a woman choosing a female OGBYN?
Yeah I do get that piece. But let's take the father's request out of it entirely for a moment. Should the hospital, or any business, use race as a factor when making it's staff schedules?If it was based on discrimination.
I see it as accommodating a request by a customer.
In a perfect world? No.Yeah I do get that piece. But let's take the father's request out of it entirely for a moment. Should the hospital, or any business, use race as a factor when making it's staff schedules?
In a perfect world? No.
Show me I can't.
The article clearly shows it can be done.
The article shows it was done. That does not make it legal.
Wait and see what the court decides. I can see who will win on this.
nope the faith is in them having to uphold equalityI think you place way to much faith in our courts.
nope the faith is in them having to uphold equality
and civil rights
To what are you referring here?Whoever promised you that was a fool. And you a fool for believing him.
It's the LAW, you can't just treat people badly because you don't like the colour of their skin, their heritage, their religious choice, or their sex. So, I'm pretty sure you can and will uphold such a concept.It impossible too uphold such a concept. Only fools would try.
To what are you referring here?
It's the LAW, you can't just treat people badly because you don't like the colour of their skin, their heritage, their religious choice, or their sex. So, I'm pretty sure you can and will uphold such a concept.
Do we have the right to push our morality on others, when their actions does not phisicaly or mentaly hurt another.?Just a question, is it the action (behaviour) itself that is judged right or wrong or is the moral validity of the behaviour contingent upon the end result?
Whoever promised you that was a fool. And you a fool for believing him.
Its impossible too uphold such a concept. Only fools would try.
Your faith in legislation to solve all your problems, is funny
Legislation does not prevent all problems nor does it protect everyone. WoW. I mean Wow. What insight. O course it cannot not.
To help you understand I will use a simple example.
It is against the law to murder a person. Yet people do commit murder.
What laws do is protect to a point, inform you of your rights and your obligations.
Society also by determining as a whole what is or is not acceptable also can effect changes in a person’s behaviors.