Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89!David.Andrews
From: David.Andrews@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (David Andrews)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: Agreeing to disagree!
Message-ID: <18354@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 26 Mar 91 04:00:54 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: David.Andrews@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:129/89 - BlinkLink, Pittsburgh PA
Lines: 69
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 14187

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

DA> It is important though because the airlines have chosen to
DA> make blanket decisions
 >>  DA> about us as a group, solely based on blindness and
DA> their emotional response to
 >>  DA> it, not on fact.  Some blind people could handle an exit
 >>  DA> row, some could not.
 >>
 >>      Another words this is a matter of principle.  The same
 >> applies to the vending machine issue.  Whether it would put
 >> a blind opperator out of business is not the question in
 >> point, obviously it won't put him out of business, But, it
 >> is the principle we are talking about.   let's look at it
 >> from the standpoint of discrimination, which you seem to
 >> understand better.  If you let a gumball machine in the
 >> building, what do you tell another organization who wants
 >> to bring in a coke machine.  If you don't let him in, then
 >> he can hollow discrimination.  Since the income from the
 >> first machine is not going to the opperator, then how can
 >> you justify not letting the second machine.  in Only
 >> onvolume of business, no way.

As I said in an earlier messag3e, I believe that these situations
should be handled by the vendor, the state licensing agency and
the property in question.  There will be permissible things, and
nonpermissable things.  With rights come responsibilities.
Vendors, blind or not, can not expect to have an absolute
monopoly in any building.  No business person can.  What is
permissible should be negotiated by the parties involved.  Yes,
you can call everything descrimination if you try hard enough,
but some kinds are more obvious then others.

 GP>      If the airline has no restrictions on who shall
 GP> occupy an exit row, they must be relieved of the threat of law
 GP> suit in the event of a crash where this issue would come into
 GP> play.  If it's a question of morals, this still applies. How
 GP> could anyone be told to take risks they would not ordinarily
 GP> take and then be punished for same.  Will the NFB sponsor
 GP> legislation which takes the airline off this hook?  The silence
 GP> is deafening.  If me or mine get hurt because of one unfortunate
 GP> occasion in which this policy backfires, can I sue the NFB? Will
 GP> the NFB put itself in the stead of the airline?  I can't hear
 GP> you... Why do I hear a very small voice whispering, "we're only
 GP> in it for the bucks, guy.  Didn't you know that?"

Gary,  Maybe I am stupid, but you lost me with your statement
that we are just in the airline thing for the bucks.  This has
cropped up before and I don't understand it.  Please explain?
This is not an issue that has made us any money.  Now to your
liability issue.  The NFB has not said that there should be no
restrictions on who sits in an exit row seat.  In fact I think
that most of us believe that there should be some restrictions
and guidelines.  I personally think that only trained airline
personnel should sit there.  The airlines say that it is a safety
issue.  However, they will not clear the rows entirely, or seat
there people there because it would cost them some ticket sales.
So, who is making money over this issue?  What we object too is
the position by many that all blind people are unsafe to sit in
an exit row seat solely because they are blind.  Yes, some are,
and some are not, but blindness is only one factor.

... Your Sound Alternative

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89!David.Andrews
Internet: David.Andrews@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org