kippsix wrote:There definitely is a legal issue here. It's called the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). That store is mandated to provide the parking and accessibility that is required for ALL. There may be some "grandfathering" in (some time to make the accessibility), but that time should be long gone!!! I implore you to turn this business in to the authorities. If not for yourself, then for that young child you were referring to.
Good Luck. We have some similarities, and I have dealt with these same issues.
My last post in this thread was going to be my last post, but that's largely because I thought this was getting too much away from actual "flute talk." Also, I wasn't trying to imply that I was seeking advice about how to handle the encounter to which I referred. I did invite that in a way though, and I do care about your input. In fact, I care very much.
My observations about the law with regard to this issue may or may not apply to this forum in general. Each person here might, in the future, encounter a musician with a disability, or circumstances that promote or do not promote the inclusion of that musician. I'll leave the decision of whether this subject matter is pertinent here to the reader, and hope that he or she understands that I'm wholly mindful and
respectful of the purpose of this board. Understand too please, that being human, I initially inserted a personally painful thing.
Yes, I am very familiar with the various titles of the ADA, as well as disability rights legislation in the U.K. I also spent a career enforcing U.S. federal regulations of one sort or another (as indicated in my bio), and finally came to the conclusion that while the rule of law is a beautiful thing, the law itself is a tool of
last resort to employ in most disagreements. Once we bring the law to the table of such a discussion, we've introduced a process adversarial by design. Instantaneously, we take those with whom we disagree
farther from the place where we want them, rather than bring them closer. We cause them to necessarily increase their guard level. It's true that we may win the battle in the end, but we've won with some disfavor in the eyes of the other party. That disfavor may negatively influence future interactions. In this instace, it may bring some harm to, rather than help the next flutist, drummer, or kazooist (wink, wink) with a disability.
I'd rather take a little longer, and use the very best diplomacy I can muster to cause change that I think will be positive. I want them to
want the next musician with a disability. If I mention now, and eventually pursue the legal aspect, they may, in the end, be forced to tolerate that person, but mere tolerance is far less than I want for
either party. Both will suffer. This is much harder work which takes longer, but the results are well worth the effort.
My first interest here is in all things flute, so I'll be happy and delighted to read anyone's further thought, if one appears, but I'll let you have the last word.
