HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Family Kicked Out Of Gold...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:23 PM

Family Kicked Out Of Golden Corral Restaurant Over Children's Skin Disorder

Golden Corral restaurants may offer all-you-can eat buffets, but are they open to all?

The federal government sued a Westland, Mich. Golden Corral franchise Wednesday for allegedly kicking out a family after noticing a child that suffered from a genetic skin condition. The lawsuit charges that the restaurant's manager violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying service to Danielle Duford of Garden City, Mich. and her four daughters. Three of Duford's daughters suffer from epidermolysis bullosa, a condition that makes a person's skin extremely vulnerable to blistering.

According to the suit, manager David Robinson asked Duford what was wrong with one of her children, saying: “she has scabs all over, so obviously there is something wrong with her.” The document also noted that Robinson asserted the restaurant had “a right to ask what’s wrong if it concerns our customers and is contagious.”

The family was then asked to leave, despite repeated attempts by the mother to educate the restaurant management about the condition and the fact it was not contagious, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

The government is suing to prevent other incidents of discrimination and is seeking compensation for the family, as well as a $55,000 civil penalty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/golden-corral-lawsuit-westland-skin-disorder_n_2733946.html

291 replies, 26822 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 291 replies Author Time Post
Reply Family Kicked Out Of Golden Corral Restaurant Over Children's Skin Disorder (Original post)
The Straight Story Feb 2013 OP
spanone Feb 2013 #1
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #2
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #6
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #8
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #9
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #11
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #12
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #15
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #16
liberalhistorian Feb 2013 #19
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #21
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #25
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #28
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #29
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #33
liberalhistorian Feb 2013 #135
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #146
trumad Feb 2013 #202
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #233
trumad Feb 2013 #266
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #274
CreekDog Feb 2013 #186
liberalhistorian Feb 2013 #133
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #22
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #26
liberalhistorian Feb 2013 #136
Manifestor_of_Light Feb 2013 #289
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #290
CreekDog Feb 2013 #182
treestar Feb 2013 #209
liberalhistorian Feb 2013 #222
treestar Feb 2013 #223
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #24
cthulu2016 Feb 2013 #32
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #35
Squinch Feb 2013 #131
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #10
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #13
grantcart Feb 2013 #36
marybourg Feb 2013 #71
KamaAina Feb 2013 #93
grantcart Feb 2013 #102
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 2013 #144
KamaAina Feb 2013 #145
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 2013 #221
KamaAina Feb 2013 #256
thucythucy Feb 2013 #230
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 2013 #234
thucythucy Feb 2013 #240
LittleBlue Feb 2013 #134
thucythucy Feb 2013 #150
LittleBlue Feb 2013 #157
thucythucy Feb 2013 #176
Shivering Jemmy Feb 2013 #208
undergroundpanther Feb 2013 #188
treestar Feb 2013 #210
Scruffy Rumbler Feb 2013 #257
CreekDog Feb 2013 #163
davidpdx Feb 2013 #177
treestar Feb 2013 #207
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #34
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #45
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #49
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #54
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #61
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #64
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #68
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #69
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #77
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #81
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #82
KatyMan Feb 2013 #125
treestar Feb 2013 #212
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #248
CreekDog Feb 2013 #174
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #250
CreekDog Feb 2013 #258
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #260
liberalhistorian Feb 2013 #246
Javaman Feb 2013 #275
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #284
pnwmom Feb 2013 #52
Javaman Feb 2013 #276
pnwmom Feb 2013 #286
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #30
oldhippie Feb 2013 #41
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #46
LanternWaste Feb 2013 #50
Canuckistanian Feb 2013 #53
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #63
thucythucy Feb 2013 #83
CreekDog Feb 2013 #164
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #84
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #103
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #175
Javaman Feb 2013 #277
Scruffy Rumbler Feb 2013 #138
southern_belle Feb 2013 #153
Scruffy Rumbler Feb 2013 #172
southern_belle Feb 2013 #220
CreekDog Feb 2013 #151
CreekDog Feb 2013 #161
Warpy Feb 2013 #3
X_Digger Feb 2013 #44
jeff47 Feb 2013 #75
customerserviceguy Feb 2013 #100
jeff47 Feb 2013 #127
X_Digger Feb 2013 #106
jeff47 Feb 2013 #129
X_Digger Feb 2013 #140
thucythucy Feb 2013 #148
X_Digger Feb 2013 #155
jeff47 Feb 2013 #156
X_Digger Feb 2013 #160
thucythucy Feb 2013 #168
X_Digger Feb 2013 #228
thucythucy Feb 2013 #236
X_Digger Feb 2013 #241
thucythucy Feb 2013 #242
X_Digger Feb 2013 #245
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #251
jeff47 Feb 2013 #159
X_Digger Feb 2013 #162
thucythucy Feb 2013 #226
X_Digger Feb 2013 #232
jeff47 Feb 2013 #271
X_Digger Feb 2013 #273
jeff47 Feb 2013 #282
X_Digger Feb 2013 #283
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #253
CreekDog Feb 2013 #165
X_Digger Feb 2013 #235
Journeyman Feb 2013 #4
pnwmom Feb 2013 #55
marybourg Feb 2013 #72
Journeyman Feb 2013 #85
Union Scribe Feb 2013 #190
Javaman Feb 2013 #278
SouthernDonkey Feb 2013 #5
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #95
Union Scribe Feb 2013 #169
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #227
Javaman Feb 2013 #279
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #191
SouthernDonkey Feb 2013 #291
MineralMan Feb 2013 #7
SoCalDem Feb 2013 #14
jberryhill Feb 2013 #59
thucythucy Feb 2013 #86
jberryhill Feb 2013 #147
thucythucy Feb 2013 #149
CreekDog Feb 2013 #183
jberryhill Feb 2013 #204
CreekDog Feb 2013 #269
jberryhill Feb 2013 #206
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #192
jberryhill Feb 2013 #205
Occulus Feb 2013 #259
Gormy Cuss Feb 2013 #67
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #193
CreekDog Feb 2013 #185
jeff47 Feb 2013 #17
MineralMan Feb 2013 #18
jeff47 Feb 2013 #20
MineralMan Feb 2013 #39
jeff47 Feb 2013 #70
cthulu2016 Feb 2013 #40
jeff47 Feb 2013 #73
pnwmom Feb 2013 #58
jeff47 Feb 2013 #74
pnwmom Feb 2013 #76
jeff47 Feb 2013 #79
Union Scribe Feb 2013 #173
Union Scribe Feb 2013 #170
uppityperson Feb 2013 #247
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #252
cthulu2016 Feb 2013 #23
Vinnie From Indy Feb 2013 #31
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #194
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #27
KatyMan Feb 2013 #38
cthulu2016 Feb 2013 #43
KatyMan Feb 2013 #48
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #195
KatyMan Feb 2013 #37
pnwmom Feb 2013 #57
KatyMan Feb 2013 #87
pnwmom Feb 2013 #126
KatyMan Feb 2013 #128
pnwmom Feb 2013 #137
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #197
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #196
Scruffy Rumbler Feb 2013 #142
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #92
KatyMan Feb 2013 #94
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #99
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #89
Union Scribe Feb 2013 #167
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #198
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #216
jberryhill Feb 2013 #218
ElboRuum Feb 2013 #287
sadbear Feb 2013 #42
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #199
sadbear Feb 2013 #219
treestar Feb 2013 #213
OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #47
Ian David Feb 2013 #51
pnwmom Feb 2013 #56
thucythucy Feb 2013 #91
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #200
jberryhill Feb 2013 #60
sadbear Feb 2013 #62
Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #65
jeff47 Feb 2013 #78
sadbear Feb 2013 #80
thucythucy Feb 2013 #178
Butterbean Feb 2013 #66
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #88
Pisces Feb 2013 #90
KatyMan Feb 2013 #96
Pisces Feb 2013 #139
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #201
thucythucy Feb 2013 #97
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #104
KatyMan Feb 2013 #109
thucythucy Feb 2013 #120
KatyMan Feb 2013 #122
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #224
thucythucy Feb 2013 #249
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #263
CreekDog Feb 2013 #171
KatyMan Feb 2013 #105
Douglas Carpenter Feb 2013 #98
slackmaster Feb 2013 #101
KatyMan Feb 2013 #107
slackmaster Feb 2013 #108
KatyMan Feb 2013 #110
slackmaster Feb 2013 #112
KatyMan Feb 2013 #113
slackmaster Feb 2013 #115
KatyMan Feb 2013 #117
slackmaster Feb 2013 #118
Butterbean Feb 2013 #123
thucythucy Feb 2013 #130
KatyMan Feb 2013 #111
slackmaster Feb 2013 #114
KatyMan Feb 2013 #116
slackmaster Feb 2013 #119
KatyMan Feb 2013 #121
slackmaster Feb 2013 #124
thucythucy Feb 2013 #132
REP Feb 2013 #141
thucythucy Feb 2013 #152
REP Feb 2013 #158
TeeYiYi Feb 2013 #143
Purveyor Feb 2013 #154
Union Scribe Feb 2013 #166
JI7 Feb 2013 #180
treestar Feb 2013 #214
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #238
treestar Feb 2013 #239
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #225
Apophis Feb 2013 #187
CreekDog Feb 2013 #189
Quantess Feb 2013 #203
jberryhill Feb 2013 #217
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #229
jberryhill Feb 2013 #268
CreekDog Feb 2013 #270
jberryhill Feb 2013 #272
thucythucy Feb 2013 #288
2Design Feb 2013 #179
mwrguy Feb 2013 #181
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 2013 #244
Humanist_Activist Feb 2013 #184
Douglas Carpenter Feb 2013 #211
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #215
Douglas Carpenter Feb 2013 #231
CreekDog Feb 2013 #237
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #243
Rex Feb 2013 #254
Scruffy Rumbler Feb 2013 #262
Rex Feb 2013 #267
AndyA Feb 2013 #255
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #261
AndyA Feb 2013 #264
liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #265
Javaman Feb 2013 #280
HockeyMom Feb 2013 #281
Javaman Feb 2013 #285

Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:26 PM

1. america, america god shed his.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:30 PM

2. A disorder that looks like a contagious disease?

... I'm not big on cutting restaurateurs who discriminate against the disabled much slack, but I'd be inclined to listen to the business owner about this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:52 PM

6. Really?

It didn't look contagious, it looked unappetizing and that's what the manager was concerned about.

During WW II my mother worked as a waitress in the restaurant at Penn Station in NYC. (Now long gone) One day during dinner a soldier, escorted by a nurse and another soldier, came in and was seated by the hostess. Slowly you heard the clink of knives and forks being gently placed on plates as those around him saw he had no nose, nor ears, nor eyes, and strange looking lips. (among other disfigurements) My mother, the hostess and another waitress walked quietly up to those tables and encouraged people to please continue eating. She told me people had tears streaming down their faces, but they did resume their meals. No one left the restaurant prematurely and many went up to his table to give him a hug, or pat his shoulder and say thank you.

Americans used to have souls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:59 PM

8. I don't think the situations are analagous.

I doubt I'll be able to convince you that I have a soul, but if I was a waiter and this little guy...

was my customer, I wouldn't think it unreasonable for the manager to talk to the parents out of concern for the other customers health... not their comfort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:12 PM

9. And if told the child's condition was not contagious

would you continue to insist they leave?

I was not making a personal observation, I wonder why you would take it as such? Only you can determine whether you have a soul

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:18 PM

11. I don't know.

Without hearing that conversation, I'm incapable of answering. "Oh, he's fine!" probably wouldn't convince me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:23 PM

12. The article said the mother

made repeated attempts to educate the manager and explain the condition is not contagious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:32 PM

15. Yes. I read that and understand that this is what the plaintiff alleges. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:45 PM

16. Ah, so you think the DOJ

simply filed charges without investigating the complaint? Without first confirming that the condition is, indeed, not contagious. They never interviewed the manager? Okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:51 PM

19. Hey, this is one of our resident authoritarian

apologists for the police, as well as someone who has openly called child support "male enslavement" and seems to have a thing against women, so what else would you really expect from him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #19)


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:11 PM

25. Well, I just found a post

ln which you agreed that child support is male enslavement and some women just get pregnant to steal a man's money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:13 PM

28. Link please?

Or else you are too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:16 PM

29. Still waiting. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:34 PM

135. LOL, thanks!

Notice how he's suddenly conspicuously silent about this after you posted the link.

BTW, LJJ, sweetie, you DO realize that men share equally in the responsibility for a pregnancy and that if he doesn't want a kid, he shouldn't have sex? Or were you asleep during high school biology classes and do you really think all pregnancies are solely caused just by women? lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #135)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:20 PM

146. You're most definitely welcome. :-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #33)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:42 AM

202. Bang.

Thanks for finding that link---head over to the little boys forum---errr for some reason called the Mens group---and you'll see that being the main theme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #202)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:30 AM

233. Good Morning Trumad...

I didn't know, until last week, that you could find old stuff like that. I would only head over to the boys forum if I was feeling extremely pugnacious and there was no one on any any other forum willing to accommodate me. What do you think the chances of that happening are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #233)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:21 PM

266. You could head over and vote for the hottest celeb...

LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #266)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:52 PM

274. LOL

No thanks...I'd be hard put to decide on a hot celeb...if I don't know you, you ain't hot. How's that for arrogance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:16 AM

186. here's a link where you justify that women should pay more for health insurance than men

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=469656


and a link where you say women should pay the *same* as men for life insurance.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2145825


the common thread? you want women to pay more, any way you can rationalize it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:30 PM

133. Bullshit!

You have stated this directly on other threads, and you admitted to it and agreed with it, saying "because it is male enslavement" when I called you on it on previous threads. You're just backtracking because you don't like the flak you're rightfully getting for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:07 PM

22. Hey thanks for the heads up!

I was doing my best to be polite... Child support is male enslavement? My son works for a libertarian (I swear libertarians are all strange) who has said he would cut the jewels off of anyone who doesn't pay child support. Perhaps someone should ask LjJ if he'd like to turn his in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:13 PM

26. You don't want your "head up" in the sense that LH does.

You shouldn't trust every allegation you read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:37 PM

136. I would say that your admission

as to "it is and some do" on the link pretty much speaks for itself. And I don't go around making up shit about other posters, I actually read and then remember what they've said for reference on future threads.

And I have no clue what your first sentence means. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, something you don't give most women, that it's not meant to be nasty or risque.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:56 AM

289. Does that include cutting out ovaries of moms who don't pay child support????

Because women pay child support too, FYI.

Texas is a community property state and a no-fault divorce state, and women are expected to support the family equally with men, and women have been able to own property in their own names and transfer property in their own names in Texas since 1836, the first year of the Republic of Texas.

Women are equal in TX due to the Spanish law influence, which is much more equal than the English law in New England or the French law in Louisiana.

We don't have alimony. We have separate maintenance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #289)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:48 AM

290. I wouldn't know...

I said libertarians are strange.... I didn't accept it as a legitimate argument (he was using it in defense of a 'pro-life' position) FL divorce law only requires alimony if one party earns considerably more than the other and child support is paid by both in proportion to their earnings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:41 AM

182. he also thinks women should pay for more health insurance than men

he's posted that so many times on DU that you should have no trouble finding it.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE:

he wants gender discrimination allowed for health insurance because women will get charged more than men.

BUT

he wants gender discrimination outlawed for LIFE INSURANCE, because women will get charged more than men.

and here, he supports discrimination, and wouldn't you know it, --against 3 girls.

frankly, it's not fair to accuse him of anything more than KEEPING SCORE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:57 AM

209. As another resident apologist for the police

(I prefer to think of it as not assuming they are always in the wrong and that they should not have their lives risked lightly) are you saying, in this purely ad hominem post, that the other poster would have a different opinion had it been the father who was with the children?

This is an entirely different issue, however. You are discussing the poster and calling him out on different issues. Not attacking the argument itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #209)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:06 AM

222. It has everything to do with it. Because

he harbors such off-the-wall, negative, mysogynist views on basic issues of fairness and justice such as have been documented above, I consider his judgment suspect on other cases of justice and fairness such as in this OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #222)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:09 AM

223. But the issue still stands, separate from him

So it's just ad hominem. If you prove the other person a jerk, even if that is possible, it still has no bearing on the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:11 PM

24. courts judge.

I don't doubt that the childrens' condition is not contagious. The question is what the parent told the manager and if that explanation should have been trusted.

YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:19 PM

32. And if you can't trust the DOJ, who can you trust?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #32)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:20 PM

35. No one...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:19 PM

131. I work with kids with all kinds of disabilities. I see your point and like you, I would ask the

mother out of concern for the health of the rest of the diners. (I certainly would have used much more sensitive language than the manager used.)

But in this day and age, where the internet is available to virtually everyone, the manager could have looked up an image of the disorder when the mother told him what it was. (That disorder name isn't something she could just pull out of her hat if she had a yen for a buffet while her kids were sick with the chicken pox.) It would have taken a few seconds, and it could have prevented the whole tempest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:13 PM

10. Picture will bring tears to your eyes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:25 PM

13. Looks like chicken pox...

What is sad is that is it a lifelong condition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:22 PM

36. Golden Corral doesn't have waiters.


I think it is reasonable for an open buffet restaurant to ask someone who has open sores not to participate in the buffet line, whether or not they are contagious or not, they will be disturbing to the other customers and it isn't possible to educate everyone at the restaurant.

It doesn't say if there was an option of asking the parents to get the food and have the child served without going to the buffet line.

It is a terrible disease and I feel for the child and the family, but some reasonable accomodations might have been possible, not sure what was attempted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:38 PM

71. But that's exactly what the ADA is all about:

The business must make the accommodation; not the disabled person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:51 PM

93. Someone from the restaurant should have gotten the children their food.

Just as they would have to for someone who was blind, quadriplegic, or otherwise unable to use the buffet line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #93)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:24 PM

102. the report doesn't indicate whether or not that option or the option of the parents getting the food

was the issue or whether the parents insisted that the child have the right to get their own food.

It is a small but important detail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #93)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:00 PM

144. Some people would argue....

....a waiter serving you your food at a buffet is in fact a violation of the ADA, because it limits someone from the "Golden Corral experience". This was gone over when someone sued Chipotle because they supposedly couldn't see over the counter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #144)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:07 PM

145. It was extremely easy for Chipotle to lower the counters

indeed, like zillions of similar counters built across the land since 1990, they should have been built at the proper height in the first place.

But having worked in the field for a full decade, it escapes me how a quadriplegic is supposed to use the serving spoons, or a person who is blind to be able to tell what's what. (This one might be easier, involving swappable plastic name tags with Braille for each dish -- but not everyone who's blind reads Braille.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #145)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:03 AM

221. The "proper height" might change....

....if a person with dwarfism comes in to the establishment in a small wheelchair.

And no, I'm not being snarky here, I'm serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #221)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:28 PM

256. As it happens, many little people do use wheelchairs

not dwarfs so much as people with osteogenesis imperfecta (brittle bone disease). Several of my very best friends have OI. They use standard-size chairs, sometimes with the seat built up so as to elevate them.

Next!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #144)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:27 AM

230. Do you have a cite for that case?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #234)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:42 AM

240. Thanks!

This isn't rocket science. It really is long past time we stopped building our buildings, communications, and infrastructure as if everyone on the planet was five feet ten inches, had two good legs and arms, perfect vision and perfect hearing... Almost everyone, if they live long enough, will acquire a significant disability at some point in their lives. Why not start building our society around that fact, instead of around the myth of everyone being forever non-disabled?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:34 PM

134. After seeing this, I don't blame the owner

No offense, but the average person would be forgiven for being afraid of that condition. It looks like some sort of pox.

It's easy to blame the owner for discrimination, but he may have been genuinely afraid. Would I trust the assurances of the mother? No, not unless I heard it from a medical doctor. If they sat next to me, I'd leave.

Poor kid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #134)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:44 PM

150. The ADA was specifically written

to protect people with disabilities from those who are, out of ignorance, superstition, or for whatever other reason "afraid of that condition." That it looks like "the pox" is no reason to deny services to people. Under the ADA, you can only deny services to a person with a disability because that person poses an actual, genuine, meaningful threat to the health and safety of others. Not the perception of a threat, not the fear of a threat, not "Gee he just looked kinda odd to me" kind of threat, not "eewww gross"--nope, it has to be an actual, based in science medical threat of direct and actual harm.

The ADA even requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to publish a list of such actual threats, in the form of contagious diseases, which is made available specifically to restaurants and other establishments that handle food. That's been happening now for 23 years. For the manager of a restaurant to not be aware of this is like him not being aware of fire codes, health inspection requirements, civil rights provisions, sexual harassment policies. This is stuff any competent manager of a major franchise ought to know.

"If they sat next to me, I'd leave."

That's your decision. It would be cruel, and no doubt hurtful to these children, but hey, if that's what you need to do to assuage your fear of disability, so be it.

"Poor kid" indeed.

There's a slogan in the disability rights movement: "Piss on pity." We don't need for you to feel sorry for us. We need you to respect our rights.

Sorry if I'm coming off a bit harsh here, but this case is really beginning to burn me up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #150)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:17 PM

157. I don't think that is reasonable

The manager isn't a doctor. Even if he had knowledge of this genetic disorder, he wouldn't be able to diagnose it. Certain genetic disorders are obvious, like Down Syndrome, but this one is not. Is he also expected to know the difference between a lung deformity caused by a genetic trait and tuberculosis? Only a doctor could distinguish the difference. How could any thinking person equate that to checking the fire exits and sexual harassment? Those don't require a diagnosis, or taking a mother's word that their child isn't contagious.

And who the fuck is this "we"? I'm covered under the ADA because I have a disability, and from my perspective you're coming off pretty ridiculously. It isn't reasonable to expect people to be comfortable with open bloody sores that resemble pox at a buffet. To make out anyone's uncertainty as this "think of the children" guilt crap is buffoonish, not when the disease is a rare disorder that few outside the medical community have ever even heard about. You're comfortable with it because you're not the manager or a customer at this buffet; you have the luxury of sitting behind a computer lecturing people who were in a situation you haven't encountered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #157)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:56 PM

176. This "we"

are the people who drafted and fought for passage of the ADA, and who expect to be protected under its provisions, no matter how disgusting or frightening others might view our disabilities.

The man manages a restaurant. It's his business to know the laws and regulations that apply. I'm assuming his franchise has an ADA compliance person on staff at the head office to help if he has questions. I'm assuming the franchise does the occasional in-service to keep people posted on the law. If not, they're not very competent--the result being they are now facing civil litigation and a federal suit brought by the US Dept. of Justice.

You have no idea what situations I've encountered. I've eaten, played, lived with people who would look, to your eyes, just as unsettling as the kid in the photo (though usually not so cute). As for the "think of the children guilt crap" there were actual, real live children involved, yes? Kids with feelings, despite how grotesque they might look to you? Children you said you would shun because the sight of them frightened you. That they have a "rare" disorder is beside the point. Albinism is rare as well. So what?

The manager asked the mother about her kids' disability, and she answered, truthfully, as it turned out. There was no danger. Responding out of ignorance, he threw them out anyway. I find that far more dangerous to my well being than a couple of kids with a rare genetic disorder.

It will all be settled in court, unless the franchise decides to settle. I'm very glad the DoJ is taking up this case. This is precisely why we need the ADA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #157)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:54 AM

208. You don't have an argument anymore

The ADA reply to your post was comprehensive enough to demonstrate that. Time to give it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #150)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:46 AM

188. I agree with you 110%thucythucy

piss on pity.disabled people have rights,and I have had my rights stomped on by ignorant and"concerned" alike.And I get pissed off at it all too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #150)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:02 AM

210. Thank you.

Like those kids should stay home their entire lives because others are fearful and ignorant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #150)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:34 PM

257. Thanks thucythucy!

+1000000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:29 PM

163. you don't even know the law that protects the disabled

you don't even know it and you're stinking up this thread with your intolerant posts.

you don't even know the law. holy cow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:04 AM

177. I feel bad for the little guy

Whatever he has it is probably very uncomfortable for him. As for the restaurant I wasn't there and don't know what happened, but it seems like something could have been done to minimize the effect for both the family and the customers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:53 AM

207. Poor little guy

I don't think I'd say anything at all to the manager. I'd wonder what was wrong. Actually it does not look contagious to me. I may be naive, but I'd figure they'd stay home if it was contagious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:19 PM

34. It looks like a condition that IS acutely contagious

Of course the restaurant didn't know the family. If they did they could have worked it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #34)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:36 PM

45. It looks like chicken pox in the picture...

which is no longer contagious when the scabbing begins.

One wonders if all patrons must submit to a physical before entering ... Have you never been in a restaurant in which other patrons were coughing or sneezing? What about on a plane, even worse, with all that stale air being recirculated. You've never had the misfortune of having a co-worker say, "I think I'm coming down with the flu?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:49 PM

49. Impetigo is what it looks like.

That's very contagious.

I wouldn't go eat a buffet meal with someone who thought they were coming down with the flu. I'd go out and get my coworker lunch, or go to some other type of restaurant, but not a buffet restaurant.

But impetigo is truly contagious.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/bacterial_viral/impetigo.html#

A restaurant owner would be truly remiss to allow kids with impetigo to go near a buffet table. And after they left, you'd have to wash everything they touched down with bleach, or expose subsequent diners and the wait staff to the risk of infection. If impetigo sores are being treated and are covered it should be okay as long as the child's hands are clean. (Young kids will scratch.)

Here's the European factsheet on impetigo:
http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/impetigo/basic_facts/Pages/factsheet_general_public.aspx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #49)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:06 PM

54. And you see no other alternative?

The mother is to be considered a liar, the child can't be asked to sit at the table while food is brought to her? If you are indeed so worried about contagious diseases, why would you eat out at all? The things that go on in restaurant kitchens would nauseate you, I'm sure. My cousin had impetigo as a kid...got it at the community pool.

It doesn't matter whether you go to a buffet with a sick co-worker...the sick employee has no business being in the office generously sharing his/her germs.

My middle one looked just like that picture when she had chicken pox....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #54)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:18 PM

61. I think the mother should get a medical statement from a doctor

To carry with her. This situation will happen again. The kids' condition is rare whereas unfortunately impetigo is not.

I don't know the details of what happened AFTER the restaurant manager talked to the women. The children were not contagious and not a threat. There was no reason why they could not eat there.

I assume that the government has done a thorough investigation and the whole thing will be covered in the lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #61)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:24 PM

64. One hopes she will.

One also hopes she takes her business elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #64)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:33 PM

68. Well, depending on what happened

I just don't blame the manager for asking. I think the restaurant manager had a duty to ask. If someone walks in looking like they have measles (another disease), you wouldn't seat them. You'd take them aside and ask quietly. It's not like restaurants don't have to deal with these problems:
http://www.state.nj.us/health/news/2011/view_articlee343.html?id=3699

Impetigo is so infectious that doctor's offices shouldn't let infected kids sit in the waiting rooms. Like measles. The concern wasn't unreasonable, but the kids have a right to live a normal life.

It could be that the mother was very upset and and the whole thing went wrong. Obviously the manager had to assess her credibility. Some parents do ignore these sorts of problems.

I really feel very sorry for all concerned.

PS: I am reacting to the bit in the article that seems to quote an allegation in the lawsuit that says that the manager said he had a right to ask. If the DOJ is claiming he didn't, I utterly disagree. If the mother thought he didn't and reacted angrily and defensively, that might have made the manager suspicious. But it is also entirely humanly understandable that the mother would react that way! She probably felt very hurt and protective of her children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #68)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:36 PM

69. I don't blame him for asking. I blame him

for assuming she was lying and making her leave. You are fixated on impetigo...is there a reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #69)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:51 PM

77. Because every kid I've known with it has been tossed from school, daycare etc.

As if the poor kid had Ebola. And some who didn't have it, but had something that looked as if it could have been. The parents had to go to a doctor and get it checked out and get a medical letter.

And that's what this does look like. Also it's most commonly seen in young kids, so that would be the natural guess.

Note that the article makes it SEEM like the DOJ lawsuit is alleging that the manager didn't even have the right to ask. Well, we all know how bad reporting can be, so that might be a misrepresentation. But if that is true, I do disagree with the DOJ position. A reasonable compromise should not have forced the family to leave, though.

This is the part that made me wonder:
According to the suit, manager David Robinson asked Duford what was wrong with one of her children, saying: “she has scabs all over, so obviously there is something wrong with her.” The document also noted that Robinson asserted the restaurant had “a right to ask what’s wrong if it concerns our customers and is contagious.”


I think the manager did have the right to ask. That's why I'm wondering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #77)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:57 PM

81. But the article doesn't say when Robinson made that assertion.

I bet Robinson doesn't exert such concern over his kitchen staff. Have you ever seen a patron refused service because they were ill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #61)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:00 PM

82. so now people who look like they may have a contagious disease need to carry papers?

That sounds as bad as making people of a particular skin color carry papers to prove they are citizens. I'm sure you are probably much more likely to get ecoli poisoning from the food a restaurant as you are of getting a contagious disease from a customer. What about people who don't get their children vaccinated? They may be putting the public at risk but you can't see that on their skin, so they are not feared. We shouldn't let fear make us look at people who are different as suspicious or bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #82)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:00 PM

125. Agree

I am dismayed by the attitude displayed in some of the posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #82)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:10 AM

212. IMO it was not intended that way

But more as a useful tool for the mother, so she could avoid hassle. Whip the letter out and it would convince the other person there was nothing to fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #212)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:49 AM

248. Right. The kids had the right to be there. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #61)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:54 PM

174. yes, the disabled should carry papers, right, why isn't your post hidden?

i mean seriously?

make the disabled carry papers?

is that the most effed up thing i've read here tonight? on a night where effed up things are being posted by the dozen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #174)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:05 PM

250. No, the disabled do not need papers

Nor should they.

But there is a difference between a condition such as this, which mimics an infection, and a highly contagious one, and a disability.

For one thing, this shouldn't be a disability. Nor should public prejudice be allowed to make it one.

But here's the thing - if you took a kid like this to daycare, or a school, they would need a doctor's letter before they were allowed to attend. And that's not discrimination. It's required caution.

Individuals have rights, and it should be the goal of our society to protect those rights. But an infectious TB case can be legally isolated. Certain types of infections (like typhus or hepatitis) will get you banned from some jobs until it is cleared up. The risk to others is too high.

Disabilities do not threaten others, unless the disabled person is doing something that their disability makes unsafe. That's why people with very limited vision are not allowed to drive, for example. There is no country and no place where a kitchen or food preparation worker diagnosed with typhoid fever or a contagious skin infection doesn't cause a descent of the authorities:
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130205/LIFE02/130205032/Purdue-food-worker-diagnosed-typhoid-fever-concerns-others-were-exposed

A restaurant worker would be more aware than the general public of these issues. Here, for example, is a UK summary of laws and regulations affecting food preparation workers:
http://www.foodlaw.rdg.ac.uk/pdf/uk-08033-fitness-to-work-draft.pdf
4.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
The law requires that in all food businesses other than those engaged in primary production (e.g. farmers and
growers) and associated operations:

“No person suffering from, or being a carrier of a disease likely to be transmitted through food or afflicted,
for example, with infected wounds, skin infections, sores or diarrhoea is to be permitted to handle food or enter
any food-handling area in any capacity if there is an y likelihood of direct or indirect contamination.“ \\


“Any person so affected and employed in a food business and who is likely to come into contact with food is to report immediately the illness or symptoms, and if possible their causes , to their manager or supervisor.”

These requirements are mainly about people who handle food, but they also extend to managing the risk from contam
ination from other infected workers and visitors to rooms and areas where open food is stored or handled, e.g.
managers, maintenance contractors, inspectors etc.

Breach of the obligations set out in this paragraph constitutes an offence under Regulation 17 of the Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006.


Do you think this is discrimination? By definition, discrimination is unreasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #250)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:34 PM

258. "This shouldn't be a disability" --who do you think you are?

just decreeing that things are and aren't disabilities?

in the face of the law, in the face of medical definitions?

you just make crap up and somehow think it's true?

please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #258)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:46 PM

260. I meant that our society should see that prejudice doesn't turn it into one

Specifically, I was thinking about the rather horrific treatment of HIV infected people early on. Quite rapidly the scientists figured out that it wasn't a threat. But it took an awful lot of education and laws to get those people treated anything close to fairly.

I'm sorry that you perceived it that way - but a human being does have the right to say that something unjust should not happen.

I feel strongly that those kids should have been allowed to eat at that restaurant or any other, and that they shouldn't have been excluded from the buffet either. I also KNOW that most such skin conditions would be an indication of a contagious condition and would warrant different treatment.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #61)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:42 AM

246. Well, hey, why don't people

who are disabled in any way just keep themselves locked up at home and not expose themselves to "regular" folks who don't want to be reminded that not everyone is one hundred percent physically and mentally perfect. Maybe parents of children with disabilities should just keep them locked up at home and never venture out so that "regular" folks don't have to be exposed to and deal with them. And, on the rare occasions when they are allowed out, maybe the police should be available just to check and make sure their papers are all in order and they're legit.

Maybe when I was raising my now-grown aspie son, I should have just kept him inside, away from "normal" folk. He would never have learned social interaction skills, but then again, if you're going to be housebound for the benefit of "normal" people, what difference would that make?

Sweet and good gravy, I do NOT believe the bigoted, authoritarian bullshit I'm reading on this thread. That it's on a supposedly "progressive" site such as this is all the more sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:10 PM

275. That is very wrong...

http://www.debra.org/faq

Is Epidermolysis Bullosa Contagious?
No. EB is an inherited genetic disease, not a contagious one. Children are born with EB because of a mistake in one of the genes that make skin protein. EB cannot be transmitted/developed due to exposure.

The information on inheritance is too complex to explain in this format and is covered extensively elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #275)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:46 PM

284. I know the condition the kids had isn't contagious

It's just that it APPEARS like other conditions that are. Also restaurant staff are trained on these types of issues, because of food regulations.

I'm not saying that I think they should have been excluded. My opinion is the opposite. I'm saying that the initial concern that they MIGHT be contagious would not be unreasonable, because it can look like something it is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:00 PM

52. Anything with some open sores could be contagious.

This child's disease isn't, but you can't tell by looking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #52)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:11 PM

276. No, it's not contagious..

if anything the child is probably susceptible to infection.

Here:

http://www.debra.org/faq

Is Epidermolysis Bullosa Contagious?
No. EB is an inherited genetic disease, not a contagious one. Children are born with EB because of a mistake in one of the genes that make skin protein. EB cannot be transmitted/developed due to exposure.

The information on inheritance is too complex to explain in this format and is covered extensively elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #276)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:40 PM

286. You obviously didn't bother to read my actual post,

just the subject line.

I didn't say that the genetic disease is contagious. I said that you can't tell, just by looking at that child's blistering lesions, what that child has or whether it's contagious.

And, as you point out, s/he could also have a secondary infection which could be contagious.

In any case, very few restaurant customers, seeing the rashes on three children, are going to approach the mother to ask if the children are contagious. If they're concerned, they're much more likely just to leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:16 PM

30. Like maybe impetigo

That's probably what he thought it was, and it is acutely contagious:
http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/bacterial_viral/impetigo.html

That's one of the things that will get your child pitched from school immediately, because of the acute risk of spreading. It does spread from kid to kid in families.

If it were impetigo, the servers and other diners could have picked it up from almost anything the kids touched. No restaurant owner wants to be shut down by the health department because they have been traced as the source of an epidemic.

I don't know what the solution is. The woman has the perfect right to take her kids out, but I don't feel the restaurant manager was wrong for asking her about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:31 PM

41. I had impetigo as a kid ....

 

.... no fun at all. Out of school for 2 weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #41)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:38 PM

46. My younger brother had one tiny lesion

They saw it at school and he was whisked away as if he had Ebola. My mother came and took him to the doctor, who gave her ointment and careful instructions, and said my brother could return to school the next day.

He was bounced again. They would not let him back in until the lesion had healed. It was tiny - really just a red spot. It's impossible for a layman to tell the difference between these kids' condition and impetigo.

Just a couple of years ago one of my friends had a child who probably had a small lesion. Same thing happened. The reason they do this is that it spreads through schools like wildfire, so they follow a very strict policy. It is acutely contagious, especially with kids.

I can't blame the restaurant staff for this one, although it might be a good idea to give the woman a doctor's letter explaining the situation so that such things don't keep happening.

I have to admit that if I walked into a buffet-style restaurant and saw these kids near the food, I'd walk back out. I would think it was impetigo, and I wouldn't want to run the risk. If I didn't know about impetigo, I wouldn't worry. But I do, and my guess is that experienced restaurant personnel also do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:51 PM

50. I'd be much more inclined to listen to a doctor about a disorder that looks like a contagious diseas

"but I'd be inclined to listen to the business owner about this one..."

I'd be much more inclined to listen to a doctor about a disorder that looks like a contagious disease. However, I realize many people would also be inclined to listen to a doctor talk about food preparation and patron seating-charts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:03 PM

53. It's very simple

You should not be able to discriminate against anyone solely because of your own ignorance of a situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #53)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:23 PM

63. "How was I to know she had Typhoid?"

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2006-02-03/news/0602030391_1_typhoid-fever-city-health-department

Restaurant managers have a responsibility to protect their customers from illness. The default setting shouldn't be "Typhoid outbreak? I didn't know for sure".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #63)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:20 PM

83. The case you're citing

involves restaurant EMPLOYEES having typhoid fever, which management knew about, as well as numerous health code violations leading to possible transmission of the disease (by water or food contaminated with blood or feces, among other things). It's also an old case, and I'd be curious to know how it was resolved.

In any event, I highly doubt restaurant owners are under any legal obligation to diagnose their customers' potential illnesses, or assess their possible degree of contagiousness. It seems to me such an "obligation" would be well nigh impossible to enforce. As long as the food is healthy and the facilities pass health inspection, they're probably covered against any such liability.

On the other hand, under the ADA restaurant owners are prohibited from discriminating against people with disabilities, children included, even if the owner is ignorant of the condition and refuses to be educated. The DoJ is notoriously slow to take on ADA cases (they're usually brought by private plaintiffs) so this says to me the plaintiffs here have a pretty strong case.

Time, and testimony, will tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #83)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:30 PM

164. you can't expect that poster to know anything about laws protecting the disabled can you?

why would he know that stuff?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:20 PM

84. Please do tell us what a contagious disease "looks like".

I have a BS in microbiology and a DVM, so I'll be paying very close attention to what you say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #84)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:27 PM

103. As far as I know, cranial-rectal inversion disorder isn't contagious.

But I can diagnose that, even over great distances.

When you see a child with lesions, it is generally sensible to suspect chickenpox or impetigo, both of which are contagious.

Epidermolysis bullosa doesn't spring to mind immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #103)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:54 PM

175. And if you are worried about it, then you DON'T TOUCH that child.

If you are REALLY worried, you ask the parents discreetly if chicken pox has been ruled out, and then you take their word for it. And then you either sit down and mind your own business, or you leave of your own free will (but don't expect to get off without paying for your meal).

For all you know the kid's got effin' ACNE or caught ringworm from their kitten. But it's nothing you need to worry about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #175)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:13 PM

277. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:43 PM

138. My sister and niece have this genetic disease. They are in pain every day from it. No, it is not

pleasant to look at, but it is even harder to live with. After asking what was wrong and learning it was not contagious, the owner at the least should have shut the fuck up. And the most, he should have comped this family's meals.

If this families experience with this disease is anything like my sister's and her daughter's, it was probably a very rare treat to feel able to go out and enjoy a meal. For people with EB, just wearing cloths can be extremely painful. I cannot imagine this mother's life trying to deal with the wounds these three children will have everyday of their lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scruffy Rumbler (Reply #138)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:55 PM

153. My cousin's children has this

there life has been a living hell. This just makes me cry. They are NOT contagious...they are human beings...with real emotions and feelings....people are so cruel!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southern_belle (Reply #153)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:42 PM

172. Hi southern_belle,

I hear you. My sister (in her 50s) was kind of lucky. Our mother was a nurse and taught my sister how to treat her blisters and dress her wounds from a very young age. Her specialist has told her she is lucky to be her age and still have all her fingers and toes. Her level of the disease consists of external and internal blistering. She is a great singer but after too much singing or talking, her vocal cords blister. She has had them in her lungs in the past.

Her daughter has a slightly less severe level. She blisters externally with no sign as of yet for internal.

It was a long struggle for my sister to get disability. It was not recognized as such until a few years ago. It is impossible to work full time when everyday tasks cause blistering. When just the act of wearing cloths causes enough friction to produce blisters. I remember as children her ordeal with just going to school. Wearing shoes would blister her feet. She would switch to slippers until they were too much. She would then use crutches until her hands and armpits would blister and then she would have to stay home. Our father was rather a stern man and refused to make any considerations for her and this disease.

As a child, she was not treated for the constant pain she was in. And that has had an effect on her.

This is a disease that leads to much isolation for several reasons, the pain, the visual disfiguring from the blisters, the inability to wear shoes...

The best to your cousin and the children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scruffy Rumbler (Reply #172)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:53 AM

220. Thank you

The best to your sister and her daughter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:50 PM

151. who cares what you think? it's the law

Title III—Public accommodations (and commercial facilities)
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189.



Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.

----------------


why are you so consistently uninformed and against civil rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:28 PM

161. well you are also failing to advocate for the disabled

you don't even know the law?

yikes.

and given a moment to even advocate for the kid with the disability --nah.

whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:37 PM

3. Once they had been assured that the kids weren't contagious

it was wrong of them to ask the family to leave. The bullous (blistering) skin diseases are pretty frightening to look at, even if you know what the cause is, but if the kids were dressed, the effect would have been reduced enough to tolerate.

Skin diseases like that are the worst for trying to function in public. Most are not contagious but they are disfiguring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:34 PM

44. And if the mother lied, and other diners were infected with impetigo?

Would the manager be legally and morally blameless, because "The mother told me it was genetic and not contagious."?

This is a hard one- I can see both sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:47 PM

75. Yes, the manager would be blameless

He's not a doctor. If the mother lied, then the mother is the one responsible for any other infections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #75)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:19 PM

100. But who has the deeper pockets

The mother or the restaurant owner?

Sometimes life hands people a really shitty set of circumstances, where they cannot do things that other people can do, or they have to be prepared to do some serious educating, including bringing letters from doctors. Disabled people with metal in them get screwed over by the TSA all the time, they bring documentation about replacement body parts with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #100)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:07 PM

127. If the restaurant owner decides to settle, they'd be paying

If they decide to go to court, I can't see how they could possibly be found the responsible party - no one on the restaurant should be expected to have any medical training, and thus have no reason to doubt the lying mother.

That being said, it's likely the restaurant would settle for some relatively trivial amount, since that would be cheaper than mounting a defense and winning. Especially since it is unlikely they would be able to collect in their counter-suit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #75)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:33 PM

106. Riiiight. Any personal injury attorney would wipe the floor with him.

If you think otherwise, I have a bridge I'd love to sell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #106)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:10 PM

129. Based on what?

Claiming that a restaurant should have trained medical staff?

Personal injury attorneys still have to base their claims on something in the law. There's no basis for the manager to doubt the mother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #129)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:47 PM

140. Proximate cause + reasonable person test

Because a reasonable person doesn't have the ability to distinguish between a genetic disorder and an infectious disease, a reasonable person might believe the children were contagious. In such a case, the manager's letting the children use the self-serve area would be the proximate cause of the other patrons' infection.

Consider a situation that's already been litigated. A bartender cuts off a patron who, to a reasonable person, would appear to be intoxicated. Turns out that the person had a motor dysfunction disease, which was aggravated by their consumption of alcohol. The patron filed a civil claim under the state ADA analog and lost.

If I recall, this was in Washington state, but let me see if I can get the cite.

You're naive if you think that the mother's explanation has any bearing on the liability of the business to the other patrons.

eta: From the federal ADA-

Sec 12182(3),
Nothing in this subchapter shall require an entity to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of such entity where such individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #140)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:09 PM

148. You'll notice that your quote from the ADA says

"where such individual poses a direct threat..." Not "is perceived to pose" or "is believed to pose" or "is suspected to pose..." Nor does it say anything about "a reasonable person" determining the threat to exist. The threat has to be based in medical FACT, not the fears-prejudices-ignorance of the person providing the public service.

That language was very carefully drafted. Remember, the ADA was written during the height of the hysteria around AIDS. The authors of the act, some of whom were AIDS activists, wanted the law to protect people who didn't pose an ACTUAL threat, but were instead victims of prejudice, ignorance, and superstition. People used to think cerebral palsy was contagious, spread by drool. Some probably still do. It isn't a question as to whether or not the person holding such a belief is "reasonable"--it's whether the threat exists in actual FACT.

Also from the ADA: "The term 'direct threat' means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation."

These children did NOT pose such a threat. Therefore, the manager could not discriminate against them under the provisions of the ADA.

In terms of employment discrimination, for instance, Title I mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services publish, each year, a list of infectious or communicable diseases, the risk of which "cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation" in which case "a covered entity may refuse to assign or continue to assign such an individual to a job involving food handling." The list is updated annually, and restaurant management is supposed to be cognizant of the list. These children do NOT have a condition listed by HHS. This language is in Title I, remember, the Employment section, the application of which by the courts has tended to be LESS rigorous than Title III, "Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities." So I'm really not sure where in the law this manager is going to be able to hang his case.

Now, whether or not he'll be able to get a judge to rule that, basically, "Yeah, well, the law is the law, but hey, how was he to know?" will be interesting to see. But I think it will be a serious blow to the disability community if the courts were to rule that, essentially, you can discriminate against someone with a disability as long as you BELIEVE them to be dangerous, as opposed to posing an actual danger based in fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #148)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:00 PM

155. Reasonableness was re liability, not the ADA.

"Failing to exercise reasonable care" would be the language in the liability suit.

Had the children's disease been contagious and other patrons were made ill, and a suit brought against the restaurant, then those infected would claim that a reasonable person would have denied service. In not doing so, the manager assumed liability for those infected.

The WA case (still looking for the cite, it might be CA under Unruh) demonstrates that a reasonable interpretation of threat to the public (absent compelling evidence that it wasn't in good faith) are acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #155)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:17 PM

156. Didja notice the major hole in your statement?

Had the children's disease been contagious

It wasn't, and the manager was provided no reason that it could be. The only information the manager has is what the mother told him. With no medical training, how is the manager supposed to have any reason to doubt her.

Under your interpretation, the manager needs to throw out any patron with a runny nose or a mild cough. You said you were just choking? Well, we can't take that risk. Get out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #156)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:23 PM

160. Again, you think that the mother's statement has legal weight.

Absent medical training, how is the manager to know? Who does he trust, the mother or his eyes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #155)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:35 PM

168. Can you sue someone for refusing to disobey federal law?

It would seem to me that a very good defense in any such case as this would be: the ADA says I can't discriminate against a person with a disability unless there is a definite threat to health and safety, as defined by the law and by the regulations promulgated by the Dept. of Justice and, in this particular instance, the federal Dept. of Health and Human Services. I obeyed the law. That's my defense.

Can a court actually find you liable for damages that might arise in the course of obeying a federal law?

Is the Washington case an ADA related case? I'd be very interested to see the cite.

Just to emphasize, for 23 years now HHS has been publishing a list of communicable diseases, the people who have such conditions restaurateurs are allowed under the ADA to exclude from food preparation and handling (and I think a buffet style restaurant would qualify as "handling"). The list is updated annually. Managers are supposed to be cognizant of this. Most franchises like this also have an ADA compliance person on staff, if they know their business, to deal with just such situations. Not in each location, but certainly at the head office.

It just amazes me that after almost a quarter of a century people who are supposed to know are so oblivious to this act, and disability rights law in general. A few years back I ran into a situation on a college campus where the administration honestly didn't know (or said they didn't know) they were covered under Section 504 of the Rehab. Act. which was passed in 1973! It's been the law for almost forty years! It's like not knowing your local fire code, or, if you manage a restaurant, being oblivious to having to pass a health inspection.

It's particularly weird for me because I remember all the intense lobbying the various restaurant associations did around ADA. THEY were the ones for whom this part of the law was written. You'd think, as a part of being a savvy business person, these folks would get some education.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this case pans out. The DoJ has been notorious among disability rights advocates for its lax enforcement of the ADA, so the fact that they're taking the case on at all would seem to indicate there's something there. But maybe not.

It's late, and my mind is mush.

Best wishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #168)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:26 AM

228. Negligence / liability cases are civil cases..

I don't doubt that a competent PI Attorney could convince a jury that a reasonable person can't tell the difference between impetigo and this genetic disorder.

Heck, get an expert witness, say a doctor who deals with infectious disease, and present him or her with photographs of various diseases and slip in a photo of a person with this disorder, and ask him to pick out which one is the genetic disorder and is therefore not contagious..

After the doctor struggles with it, ask him what are the characteristics visible to casual observation used to differentiate between the two. In closing arguments, make a statement such as, "Would *you*, reasonable folks on the jury, before hearing the doctor's explanation, have the knowledge to tell this difference? "

No, this is a hard case of duty v duty. Duty to protect the public versus duty under the ADA.

I can't find that WA case, but I believe it was the state ADA. If I recall, the person had parkinson's or bell's palsy- something whose effects are aggravated with alcohol consumption. I'll ask a buddy of mine if he can remember the case.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #228)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:34 AM

236. Sorry, but in my opinion a judge

would block a case like that from even being argued.

Federal civil rights law trumps local laws, codes, ordinances.

And the federal ADA trumps state disability rights law, unless the state law is more inclusive-has more teeth--than the federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #236)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:43 AM

241. That would be for the defense to argue.

I could make a case either way on the motion to dismiss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #241)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:45 AM

242. Well, at this point this is all

very hypothetical. As always, the details will matter.

We'll just have to wait and see how this case unfolds. ADA cases, when fully argued, typically take years, especially if there are appeals. So we might be in for a fairly long wait.

In the meantime, best wishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #242)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:59 AM

245. Yup, so much angels-on-heads-of-pins (for the hypothetical we were discussing).

Best wishes to you as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #236)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:08 PM

251. Continuing the hypothetical

If the person was an actual threat and contagious, would the ADA be a defense? The ADA only applies to people who are not a threat, but if everyone got sick then they were an actual threat, and hence the restaurant becomes liable.

It's a no-win situation for the restaurant. You get A) a Federal ADA lawsuit, B) a lawsuit from all the people who got sick, or C) a big loss of business because your customers think you let contagious people eat at the buffet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #140)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:22 PM

159. Your argument is the reason he can ask.

Because a reasonable person doesn't have the ability to distinguish between a genetic disorder and an infectious disease, a reasonable person might believe the children were contagious.

That would be for the reason to ask.

And when the answer was "it's not contagious", under what basis would he call her a liar? In the cite you provide, a reasonable person would know intoxicated people lie. How often do mothers lie about rare genetic diseases in restaurants?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #159)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:28 PM

162. If I handed you a gun and said, "It isn't loaded." and you point it at a bystander..

and proceed to shoot someone with it, you're saying you would have no liability??

No, you would be liable, regardless of what I did or didn't tell you. You would have failed to exercise reasonable care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #162)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:24 AM

226. Even if I was comfortable comparing kids with disabilities to loaded weapons,

which I'm not, your analogy as is doesn't hold in this context.

The law in various states allows people to carry weapons into a restaurant. Some have open carry laws, others have concealed carry. If someone goes into a restaurant with a weapon, and that weapon goes off and injures another patron, you're saying the restaurant can be sued? That the management of a facility open to the public is financially liable to any harm caused by anyone wth a weapon who enters the premises?

Run that by the gungeon and see what kind of response you get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #226)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:29 AM

232. It was a stretch, yes. I struggled to find an analogous situation..

We were discussing whether the mother's statement that the children weren't contagious would be a defense against liability for the manager's actions.

My statement that a gun isn't loaded as I hand it to you does not absolve you of liability if you point it at someone and shoot them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #162)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:40 PM

271. Because it is reasonable for me to check if the gun is loaded myself.

It is not reasonable to ask me to get a medical degree in order to diagnose the kids myself to prove or disprove the mother's story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #271)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:45 PM

273. No, because it's not reasonable to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, regardless..

.. of whether you think it is loaded, or what I told you.

My telling you that it is not loaded does not absolve you of liability- just as the mother's statement would not absolve the manager, should she lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #273)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:35 PM

282. Again, the manager isn't in any position to doubt her story.

I'm really not sure how this isn't getting through to you.

The manager has no qualifications to doubt the mother's story. No untrained person does. Thus it is not reasonable to require him to diagnose a medical condition.

For that matter, what contagious disease was it supposed to be? The manager would have to actually know a contagious disease that the kids symptoms resembled. "Something icky" doesn't cut it when you're insisting the manager must overrule the mom.

Finally, do you think the DoJ might have some inkling about what's reasonable and not reasonable in regards to the law? They might have some sort of idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #282)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:43 PM

283. He has no qualifications to disprove *or* corroborate her statement.

As such, he has no obligation to just take her word for it. That does not absolve him of liability, should she be lying.

What, you think that liability can magically be waved away by saying, "But so-and-so told me..."??

Thus it is not reasonable to require him to diagnose a medical condition.


Exactly. He's not in a position to confirm or deny the mother's statement.

For that matter, what contagious disease was it supposed to be?


Chicken pox, measles, and impetigo are the ones that immediately come to mind, looking at the picture- both terribly contagious (assuming the sores were still weeping).

Finally, do you think the DoJ might have some inkling about what's reasonable and not reasonable in regards to the law? They might have some sort of idea.


Ahh, and finally an appeal to authority. Well if the DoJ thinks so, they must be right, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #159)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:14 PM

253. There isn't a basis to kick them out.

That's my opinion, but also the DOJ's, which is more authoritative.

However I don't think asking constitutes discrimination, and although the article may be misrepresenting the facts, it seems to imply that the DOJ is alleging that asking was improper. But probably not. Probably if we read the complaint the question would be included to establish that ejection from the restaurant was done because of the skin condition.

You can't bar persons with a skin condition from a restaurant just because it makes other diners uneasy. You can ask someone who is ill and may not know that they could spread it to leave. I think the manager was legally okay for asking, but not for asking them to leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:32 PM

165. there's this thing called the law against discrimination

how about reading it before lecturing us based on ignorance of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #165)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:31 AM

235. I've read it, all of it, thanks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:45 PM

4. I Googled what this looks like and have to say, for a manager of a buffet-style restaurant . . .

I can certainly see where his concern came from. True, it was based in ignorance of the condition, but so was his concern for the safety of his customers. I just don't know what to make of a case such as this. Given what's addressed in this news article, if I were on a jury I'd be hard pressed to find the manager at fault for his ill-considered but well-intentioned act. And even when the mother assured him her children were non-contagious, what basis would he have for accepting her opinion over his fear?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:07 PM

55. I agree. The manager was stuck between a rock and a hard place. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:41 PM

72. Possibly by doing just what you did; googling

and seeing the disease she told him her kids have looks just like they look.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marybourg (Reply #72)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:24 PM

85. Not to put too fine a point to it, but . . .

you'd have to be a fool to use the internet for medical advice.

For starters, how would you know that what you were told by someone and what you were looking at on the internet were, in fact, the same things. Google this disease, then Google impetigo and tell me the average restaurant manager could tell the difference.

I think I'll stick to my original assertion and repeat that the manager acted according to the dictates of his best judgment. We weren't there and any contrary opinion will need to be decided by people with far more knowledge than we have at present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:39 AM

190. Nonsense.

His concern over their safety my ass. Does he kick coughing people out of the place? Hell no, they're probably working in his kitchen as he's ejecting this family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #190)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:17 PM

278. Exactly. people coughing, sneezing openly and doing whatever else are for more contagious than a

skin disorder.

the ass of a manager should have quietly spoken to the parents first and found out what was happening with their child. Anyone with a little compassion would have done that.

I really despise people who make blanket statements out of pure ignorance rather than having a little common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:50 PM

5. I'm sorry. I have all the sympathy

in the world for the family. And while the condition itself may be a "disabillity" and in and of itself may not be "contagious", but scabs and open soars are still a source of bacteria and infection and shouldn't be allowed in a restaurant that serves food from steam tables and self service salad bars. Google image the condition. I wouldn't want to eat in an establishment who allowed people with this condition to handle implements at the steam table. I think their being in the restaurant was a health risk to the general public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SouthernDonkey (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:00 PM

95. If there were any chance of this sort of thing being a public health threat in a

restaurant, there would be regulations in place prohibiting people suspected of having impetigo from patronizing them, or at least letting restaurant management make the call.

There isn't, so there aren't.

And now you'r wanting to ban anyone with scabs or sores?? SERIOUSLY????? Now people with acne can't go to restaurants in your ignorant little world???

Give me an effing break. It's not the patrons who spread diseases in restaurants, it's THE STAFF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #95)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:36 PM

169. +1. And don't forget diabetics who test on their fingers

They're out too. Can't have the unclean mixing with all these liberal-hearted DUers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #169)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:25 AM

227. This whole thread is really unbelievable. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #227)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:18 PM

279. It truly is.

cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #95)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:45 AM

191. Or people with cold sores, or even sunburn

Flaking, peeling skin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #95)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:23 PM

291. Please! Get real!

Stop acting like you'd go in and want to eat out of bowl or plate that someone with open scabs and sores had been rubbing there infectous hands around in. Learn a little something about bacteria and germs before you brand someone as ignorant, idiot! Go back and re read my post. When some ones infected child sneezes, snots, coughs, spits or generally plays in the salad bar they are spreading infections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:59 PM

7. That's truly unfortunate.

It's a difficult call for the restaurant manager, too. He/she has to balance the rights of some patrons against the sensibilities of his other patrons. Such situations occur more often than many of us realize.

Unfortunately, victims of the disorder often develop infections at the sites of the blistering. That complicates the situation. As one site on the condition says, with regard to treatment:

To prevent infection take very good care of the skin, especially if any blistered areas become crusted or exposed (raw). Follow your health care provider's instructions closely. You might need regular whirlpool therapy and to apply antibiotic ointments to wound-like areas. Your health care provider will let you know if you need a bandage or dressing, and if so, what type to use.


And there is the source of a real dilemma for the restaurant manager in a buffet-style restaurant. He/she has no way of knowing whether the children had developed bacterial infections due to the children's genetic illness. So, the manager made a call. Was it the wrong call? I don't know. It certainly discriminated against someone with a genetic condition. However, if the children had bacterial infections, as are common with this condition, there is a safety issue, especially in a buffet restaurant.

A bad situation all around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:28 PM

14. Parents could have alleviated the situation by contacting the manager

beforehand, and scoping it out. It's unfortunate, but for people who are just other diners, it's not possible for them to NOT be alarmed.

It sucks to have a child with such a disability, but sometimes hard decisions have to be made and one decision might be to get a sitter for the children..Mom & Dad eat out and stop for a favorite take out meal to bring home to the kids. Young kids probably would not mind that at all..and after having met with the manager, perhaps a "take out" meal from the buffet could have been arranged to keep everyone accommodated in this one specific case.

This type of disability is different from someone in a wheelchair, or other obvious disabilities. You cannot expect strangers to understand, and probably do not want to make a speech everywhere you go, to get an accommodation.

Most restaurants also display a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"..at least around here they do.

If a food server had this condition, wouldn't the situation be similar? Food servers with oozing scabs would not be allowed to work...and most patrons would not want them anywhere near their food..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:15 PM

59. Carrying documentation would help

The manager's other option was to risk a lawsuit on a verbal representation of an interested party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #59)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:32 PM

86. Who would file the lawsuit?

Since when are restaurant owners responsible for diagnosing the medical condition of their customers?

Let's assume the worst. Let's assume the child was indeed contagious, and the mother lied, and someone in the restaurant somehow came down with the same disease. The MOTHER would be liable, not the eatery. And even then, I bet it would be a very difficult case to pursue.

People with AIDS used to be denied public services, people with cerebal palsy who drooled because "who knows if the drool has something contagious in it?" The ADA was expressly written to prevent this sort of ostracizing on the basis of fear and ignorance.

I'll be curious to see how the court case unfolds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #86)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:48 PM

147. In your hypothetical, the reataurant could be held liable

Lawsuits can have lots of defendants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #147)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:28 PM

149. Perhaps in my hypothetical, but the more I think about this case

the clearer it seems to me that the manager violated the ADA.

The ADA says you can't discriminate against someone based on their disability, and deny them services, unless they pose "a direct threat to the health and safety of others" that "cannot be eliminated through reasonable accommodation." It doesn't say "a perceived threat" or "somebody is worried about a threat" or "maybe there's a threat" or "you think there's a threat"--it has to be an actual, real threat, which in this case it wasn't, because the condition is genetic, not contagious. It doesn't matter what the manager thinks or thought or thinks he thought. That's the law.

You can't successfully sue somebody because they were obeying the law. To give you an obvious example, suppose I ask you to murder someone. You say no, and three days later the guy I wanted you to kill shoots and injures me. I can't go to the court and say, "Your honor, this never would have happened if he'd just murdered the guy like I asked." For someone to prevail, even in my first hypothetical, you'd have to go to a court and say, "Your honor, I'm suing the defendant because he refused to violate federal civil rights law." I don't think there's a court in the land would rule on something like that.

We'll have to see how this case unwinds, but I think the Justice Dept. and this family, from what I've heard, are on pretty solid ground here. We shall see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #147)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:54 AM

183. ah, recommending people violate the ADA

or maybe you aren't familiar with that law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #183)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:39 AM

204. I am certainly familiar with that law

Yah, right, I guess I missed that in the course of raising a child with a disability.

In order to violate it, you have to know the person is disabled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #204)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:43 PM

269. well the disability was explained to the person who made the decision

but you take the side of discrimination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #86)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:49 AM

206. It's going to unfold the way most lawsuits do

It's going to settle. Practically nothing goes to trial. Whatever the restaurant's insurer decides is going to determine that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #59)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:47 AM

192. Who else should carry papers -- AIDS patients? Albinos?

Who else would freak out ignorant people?

Should gay people? I mean, we do freak out some bigots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #192)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:46 AM

205. When you have a condition easily mistaken for something else?

Believe it or not, having encyclopedic knowledge of every known medical condition is probably not a required qualification to be the owner of a chain restaurant.

People who are not blind, but who have assistance animals, for example, will often have something objective to demonstrate their need for the dog in places where dogs are otherwise not allowed.

It is frequently helpful for deaf people to have something written down which says "I'm deaf" so that people will stop shouting at them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #59)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:37 PM

259. So if you "look sick", your papers, please?

Fuck that. Right in the ear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:30 PM

67. 'Reserving the right to refuse anyone" doesn't allow them to discriminate

on any basis covered by law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #67)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:48 AM

193. Thank you -- it amazes me that people think that's allowed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:00 AM

185. you had to type a lot because it takes more words to explain BS

than to simply cite the law that you obviously haven't heard of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:48 PM

17. Well, would the manager have thrown out someone who sneezed?

I very much doubt so. And despite the presence of a "sneeze guard" on the buffet, you can be fairly sure that the sneezing person touched their face recently.

There's a far greater danger of infection from rhinovirus than a bacterial skin infection. The latter requires the 'victim' of the infection to have an open sore themselves. The former requires the 'victim' to breathe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:50 PM

18. Most likely not. I've never seen that happen.

As I said, it's an unfortunate incident. As for your question, that is one reason I do not eat in buffet restaurants unless I have no choice. I also don't visit salad bars in restaurants. It's my choice to avoid exposure to common viral respiratory illnesses.

I made that choice after watching an eight year old kid put his fingers in a salad dressing container, lick them, then put them in again. That was the end of my visits to salad bars and steam table buffets. It's risky enough eating in restaurants. I don't expose myself to buffets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:58 PM

20. So why is it ok to toss these kids out?

First, they'd have to actually have a skin infection at the time.
Second, they'd have to touch the food or utensils with the infection.
Third, a victim would have to come by with their own open sores - who also wasn't tossed out by management due to his danger of infecting others.

Vs. someone with a cold who will be spraying virus everywhere, even if they cover their mouth and nose when they sneeze.

The "what about getting people sick?" excuse just doesn't fly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:24 PM

39. Where did I say it was OK?

I said it was unfortunate, and that the manager of that restaurant had a decision to make that was a lose-lose decision.

I am not in his or her position, and will never be. I did not say it was OK. I said it was a difficult decision that someone was forced to make. I then added some factual information about the condition.

You are reading into my post something that is not there, I'm afraid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:38 PM

70. Back up in post #7

And there is the source of a real dilemma for the restaurant manager in a buffet-style restaurant. He/she has no way of knowing whether the children had developed bacterial infections due to the children's genetic illness. So, the manager made a call. Was it the wrong call? I don't know.


If it's not ok, how would you not know if it's the wrong call?

ETA: I'm saying the manager was right to ask about it. The manager was wrong to throw them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:27 PM

40. Are you being serious?

The condition mimics any number of extraordinarily contagious and even potentially deadly diseases.

Someone who appears to be, for instance, suffering the worst cast of chicken pox one has ever seen is not in the same category as a person sneezing.

This condition makes people look like they have an incredibly bad and incredibly infectious disease.

Most conditions that lead to children being covered with pox, blisters, open sores and scabs are serious infectious diseases.

It is indeed unfortunate that a genetic condition mimics such symptoms.

But a restaurant manager does have an obligation to the health of all the patrons that is not easily dismissed. Based on the information in the OP, there is not much about this case, ethically, that is *obvious*

If this case is so easy, would they or should they have been allowed into a public swimming pool, and why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #40)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:41 PM

73. Your complains would be the reason to ASK what's going on. Not throw them out.

And the manager did, which was good.

It was explained to him as a rare genetic disease, and not infectious.

At that point, he should have backed down - there wasn't any risk to the other customers.

He didn't. He threw them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:14 PM

58. A sneeze is much less likely to result in a serious infection

than some forms of blistering rashes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #58)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:43 PM

74. Because the manager knows the health status of all customers in the restaurant?

So....he's supposed to know that no one in his restaurant is immunocompromised in any way, or suffering from any other condition where a "cold" could turn into a life-threatening infection, thus making it safe for the 'sneezer' to stay

But he's not supposed to know about this genetic condition, even after it was explained to him to be a genetic, and not contagious condition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #74)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:47 PM

76. A sneeze is usually a one-off. No customer who arrives later will even notice.

It often comes as a complete surprise to the sneezer, and it's usually caused by either a cold or something even less serious.

This is a poor example to use as a comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #76)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:55 PM

79. Not when someone is suffering from a cold

which was the example I'm talking about.

This is a poor example to use as a comparison.

Only because your justification really doesn't make much sense.

Someone with a runny nose who's sneezing repeatedly is just fine to seat. Potential health risks to other customers be damned.

Someone with a genetic condition must be thrown out due to the potential health risks to other customers, even after it's explained to be a genetic condition.

You're trying to justify the situation using logic that refutes itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #79)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:43 PM

173. “Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes

let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ As long as they have the disease they remain unclean. They must live alone; they must live outside the camp."

Who knew DUers were so into Old Testament law?

(Sorry, this was actually supposed to go at the bottom of the thread!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #76)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:38 PM

170. How about coughing people?

Is it a smoker's hack or the flu, better throw 'em out right? Or is it just the ones that offend your eyes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #76)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:45 AM

247. Except for all the people who walk through the droplets in the air, get influenza and then

pneumonia causing in loss of time at work and school (best case) while home sick or die from influenza or influenza aftermath respiratory issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:13 PM

252. I agree

In retrospect, the correct action would be to seat them in a private room or out of the view of other diners, and appoint someone to wait on them, even though it's a buffet. That in my opinion would be a reasonable accommodation of the disability and the concern of other patrons.

However, you can hardly expect a buffet manager to be able to make that decision on the spot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:10 PM

23. I would have compromised here...

If it is a buffet I would have let an unaffected parent fill plates for the kids, but not allow them contact with the buffet.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:17 PM

31. Ah! Finally a post worthy of a toast!

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:51 AM

194. Which is discrimation

It would be no different than barring someone who has AIDS from using the buffet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:13 PM

27. Some compromise could have been worked out.

I can see the reason for the parents' outrage, but at the same time is the restaurant manager supposed to just accept the parent's word for it when it comes to public health issues?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:23 PM

38. Yes, he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:33 PM

43. purity trolling or are you serious?

Is a restaurant manager also required to accept a cook's representation of his condition?

If not, why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #43)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:47 PM

48. I assume that the cook

would be employed by the restaurant and would indeed have to follow whatever rules/regs, including OSHA would have to say. Much the same way that many employers ask sick employees for medical releases to return to work. Not so with customers. And is he going to ask everyone if they have a contagious disease, or just some?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:53 AM

195. Yes, s/he legally is

And, an employee is an EMPLOYEE, and is governed but certain public safety laws hat a patron is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:22 PM

37. Nice to see such compassion here

Sarcasm intended.

So, how often do you think the staff at restaurants wash their hands after toileting? Trust me---not many. Have you seen a kitchen in a restaurant-- not many are very clean.
There are many contagious disorders/infections that are "invisible"-- remember Typhoid Mary?
This owner was concerned over how the children looked. That is discrimination. Any other patrons upset, they can leave the restaurant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:12 PM

57. How do you know that manager wasn't concerned about the spread of disease?

So what if some other restaurants are more lax in their hygiene than they should be?

And, yes, other patrons might very well leave because they won't know if the blistering lesions are contagious. (The manager can't announce that the lesions are genetic to every customer who walks in the place.) You don't think that's a concern of the restaurant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #57)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:32 PM

87. He wasn't worried about spreading germs

because the mom had already told him that it was not genetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #87)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:00 PM

126. Other restaurant patrons won't know this.

If the manager believes the woman, that doesn't mean he won't be losing other customers.

It's a sad and difficult situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #126)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:08 PM

128. what does it matter

what the other customers believed? Were there even any complaints about this child? If you have a disability, you can't go through your life worrying about what others think. And parents of children with disabilities know this all too well. It is a lesson they teach their children early on. The lesson- you are an individual. You are unique. You have rights just like everyone else. You get to experience the world.

Maybe someday our world will be better at this. That day is not here yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #128)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:42 PM

137. It matters to the restaurant if other customers leave. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #137)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:54 AM

197. Too bad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #126)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:54 AM

196. That doesn't matter

Someone;s ignorance and bigotry does NOT trump the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #87)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:53 PM

142. Hi Katyman,

It is genetic, not contagious. Just wanted to point that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #57)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:50 PM

92. people often feel justified in their prejudices. does not mean they are justifiable.

People use to fear black people. People use to fear people who have AIDS. People use to fear all kinds of things. Have you ever seen someone with a mask over their face out in public? I know I have. I don't know what they have. Maybe they have the cold or flu. Maybe they have pneumonia or emphysema. Maybe they have tuberculosis or bird flu. Whatever the case, I don't run from building screaming in fear or insist they leave. I just go about my business and leave them be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #92)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:59 PM

94. well said and many times

when you see someone with a mask, it is to protect them from our germs. Usually worn by immunosuppressed individuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #94)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:15 PM

99. I'm sure you're quite right about that.

The majority of them are probably just trying to protect their immune system and avoid our germs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:43 PM

89. my sentiments exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:34 PM

167. Sounds like lots of DUers would have me thrown out of places too

for having psoriasis on my hand. Goes to show that it's easy to call oneself a liberal, and maybe believe it, but when push comes to shove...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #167)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:55 AM

198. I actually thought of psoriasis or eczema

Some people have that those really badly on their face, neck, and hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #167)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:32 AM

216. sadly you are probably correct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #167)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:35 AM

218. It sound like a lot of DUers don't believe anyone makes honest mistakes

It sounds like a lot of DUers are simply looking to condemn anyone over what may be a sincere misunderstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #218)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:06 PM

287. You win the thread.

Everyone is either a paragon of virtue or an evil monster. No one ever fucks up or has an accident, there isn't a person alive doesn't know everything there is to know about everything, ergo everything unfortunate that happens as a result must be malicious, callous, or grotesquely negligent.

because you know someone reading this is going to need it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:32 PM

42. And, hypothetically, if the mom was lying about her children's condition...

how would the manager ever know? This is hardly a situation on which to take a chance.

I think after having it cleared by a medical professional, the family ought be welcomed back, but for the first time, I definitely agree that caution (even extreme caution) was warranted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #42)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:56 AM

199. The law doesn't work that way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #199)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:40 AM

219. You think lawyers give a shit about the law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #42)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:26 AM

213. This concept of the mother lying about it

Just seems so unlikely. As if the mother would say "I want to take my infected child to a buffet restaurant, where I'm likely to be questioned about it. If I am, I'll just lie and say it is genetic." There are some crazy people out there, but that kind of crazy does not seem likely. If the kid had an infectious disease, most mothers would be at home worrying about the kid and taking care of the kid. Taking the kids to the doctor. Someone coming to the restaurant with a gun and shooting people seems more likely in the comparison of rare events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:43 PM

47. The restaurant was most likely trying to err on the side of caution.

 

I can see any restaurant manager being very worried about the possibility of some contagion outbreak that could carry much greater consequences (think several or more, other customers being infected by some condition and perhaps even more lawsuits from them.)

Plus, as others have mentioned, how could the manager have known that the parents were really telling the truth when they said that the condition was not contagious? It wouldn't have been very practical to call in a doctor from a nearby hospital to verify it.


The restaurant was really stuck in a very difficult dilemma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:57 PM

51. I'm sure SOMEBODY must have been able to use Wikipedia on their smartphone. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #51)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:08 PM

56. And when other customers quietly walked out after seeing them -- just to be on the

safe side -- would it help the manager that he had already checked out the name of the disease on his cell phone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:48 PM

91. Sorry, but this same argument was used

to justify "whites only" signs in southern restaurants during Jim Crow. "I'm not a racist, but I'll lose customers if you force me to serve THEM!"

It used to be routine for people in wheelchairs to be denied entrance into restaurants. Ditto people with AIDS, people who drooled, people who were Deaf or blind, people who had speech disabilities. That's precisely why the ADA was passed in the first place.

We'll see how this case unfolds, but it's important that people understand that prejudice and ignorance, either of the public or of those providing public accommodations, should never be used as a justification for discrimination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #91)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:57 AM

200. It was used against AIDS patients

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #51)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:17 PM

60. Because chain restaurant managers are trained in wiki telemedicine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #51)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:19 PM

62. Did you just say Wikipedia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:25 PM

65. I think so too, but I think a doctor's letter that the mother could take with her could solve that

To be honest, a school would not allow those children to attend without a doctor's clearance. Why should a restaurant?

It's not right to discriminate against kids who are not infectious, but it's also not right to run risks with public health (and the health of the staff).

Since the mother has already had her children diagnosed, why did no doctor think of this? It was doomed to happen, surely?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:51 PM

78. And that would be a reason to ask.

Plus, as others have mentioned, how could the manager have known that the parents were really telling the truth when they said that the condition was not contagious?

In what universe would a parent manage to come up with a rare genetic disease to explain away a highly contagious disease so that they can eat at a very crappy buffet restaurant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #78)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:56 PM

80. You've apparently never been to the Golden Corral in my area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #78)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:12 AM

178. Great post!


"In what universe would a parent manage to come up with a rare genetic disease to explain away a highly contagious disease so that they can eat at a very crappy buffet restaurant?"

Nicely put!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:30 PM

66. I personally know a family with this condition.

The mom and the daughter both have it, they're in our special needs playgroup and mother's group. Yes, the daughter has scabs (the mother may as well, but she might just be better at covering them up), but geez...she doesn't look like she's diseased or infected, at least not to me.

Maybe it's because I'm a special needs mom myself. Maybe it's because I know this family personally and so it affects how I see them. Maybe it's because I'm a nurse. I don't know. Whatever the reason, I really really really find this quite shocking, and would honest to God be shocked if this ever happened to my friend and her child in a public place. I know good and well that she takes her family, including her daughter with all her scabs, out to eat in public places. I never once thought "oh my gosh how disgusting, what a public health risk."

I guess that's just because my reality is different. I'm used to seeing kids with feeding tubes and wheelchairs and other "obvious" differences, and to see them participating in normal, everyday things is sort of an expected thing for me, not an exception to the rule.

I can't judge the situation, I wasn't there, and I didn't see this particular child's skin condition or what it looked like. I don't have any idea how it should have been handled best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Butterbean (Reply #66)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:39 PM

88. fear of the unknown plain and simple. The problem with that is that it leads to prejudice and

discrimination. It's usually only when we do know someone personally that we can overcome those prejudices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:45 PM

90. There is no right and wrong here. Unfortunately the many over the few wins in this situation. The

restaurant could lose diners who had a loss of appetite. Should the manager get on the loud speaker and make a general
announcement that these people are not contagious?

This is a lose/lose situation for everyone involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pisces (Reply #90)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:02 PM

96. in this case there is a right and wrong

because the restaurant owner apparently violated the ADA. The mom educated the manager on the disorder. He still didn't get it. We have a long way to go in this world on how we treat people with disabilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #96)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:44 PM

139. The manager is just suppose to take her word for it and not believe his lying eyes? You are faced

with some people that look like they have chickenpox at best ebola at worst. The other diners must be taken into consideration.
This manager was in a tough spot. Maybe a private room would have sufficed if this was a restaurant that had one.

I am simply stating that regardless of what the ADA manual says, there are still no winners in this situation. The world has
always treated people with disabilities terribly. In days gone past these children would have been left on the hillside for wolves
if they were born with a deformity. I think people go out of their way to treat the disabled as best they can. This situation
is unfortunate and I feel for both parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pisces (Reply #139)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:58 AM

201. Yes, he legally is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:07 PM

97. This is for all those who cite the manager having to worry

about other customers getting worried, offended, disgusted, and walking out, as a reason for denying this family service.

Prejudice, squeamishness, and ignorance are no excuse or justification for discrimination.

The same sort of reasoning ("I might lose customers") was used to justify Jim Crow, and was used historically to deny people with all manner of disability access to public accommodations, including restaurants, public pools, motels and hotels, etc. In fact, there used to be laws in some cities (Chicago, for instance) denying people with particular disabilities the right to be out in public at all. And it wasn't all that long ago that the general public was freaked out just at the sight of someone in a power wheelchair, or someone with a guide cane, or someone using American Sign Language. People who drooled, people who were missing limbs, people with speech disorders were routinely denied service because "you're disgusting to look at and you'll drive my other customers away."

This is precisely why the ADA was written and passed--to put an end to discrimination that came out of superstition, ignorance, fear.

I don't know how this particular case will be resolved, but it's very important, I think, that people understand that just because the sight of a particular disability makes you or others uncomfortable is no reason to discriminate against someone with that particular disability or illness.

The ADA does contain provisions dealing with infectious diseases, so I assume the court will have to decide, on the basis of testimony and the law and established precedent, whether this particular manager violated the law or not. But in general, being "unsightly" (the term often used) is no longer a valid excuse for denying someone the right to a public accommodation.

Best wishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #97)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:30 PM

104. I don't think that business considerations are the issue for anyone discussing the point here.

The issue is; "would a reasonable person have suspected that the kids posed a public health risk?"

I don't know what the managers' motivations were, but I think some benefit of the doubt is justified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #104)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:36 PM

109. A resonable person

who was educated by the mother should have made a better judgement call. But perhaps I am looking for enlightened persons. Sadly is low supply these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #104)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:53 PM

120. Several people have posted expressing

sympathy for the manager because his other customers, seeing the children, might have walked out.

THAT is the reasoning I'm posting about. As to the manager's own motivations, I have no way of truly knowing.

And as for the substance of this particular case, we'll have to see. The ADA contains specific provisions relating to contagious diseases and the general public. As I recall, the wording was put in at the express request of the restaurant and food industry. I would think any restaurant franchise would have an ADA compliance policy, and would educate its managers about it, just as managers are supposed to be educated about health codes and fire codes and sexual harassment policies and such. It's all part of running a business that serves the general public.

The ADA is 23 years old. It isn't as if these issues haven't been raised before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #120)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:57 PM

122. Agree! :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #120)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:11 AM

224. my husband is legally blind. You would not believe how many employees are not educated on ADA.

Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)

right now he is having a problem getting restaurant and other building managers to put Braille signs on their bathroom doors. To the building managers this is considered low priority. I wonder how many ladies would like my husband just walking into the ladies bathroom. He doesn't want to, but with no Braille on the doors he has to go get someone to show him which door is which.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #224)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:56 AM

249. You may have already thought of this

but if you haven't: has your husband contacted either the local chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, or the American Council of the Blind? They might be able to provide some good advice on how to proceed with this.

Also, your state probably has a Commission for the Blind or some such office. You might want to contact them as well and see what they tell you.

Best of luck with this issue. Like I said elsewhere here, it amazes me that almost a quarter of a century on, people are still ignorant--or pretend to be ignorant--of their obligations under federal civil rights law.

Best wishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #249)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:59 PM

263. oh, he has the contact information of the building manager

and they have been put on notice that if something is not done in a timely manner he will be contacting someone regarding an ADA violation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #104)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:41 PM

171. girls were kicked out

does that weigh in on your opinion?

disability doesn't seem to matter in your mind. you don't seem to care about that. but that you don't know it means that your posts here are an embarrassment to you and because they are heartless backed up by ignorance of the law, they are also an embarrassment to DU.

but that girls are involved and you are advocating against them is not a huge surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #97)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:30 PM

105. Thank you so much

for this post. We were just discussing this at our house- I just can't believe some of the comments on DU. This child was not infectious, the manager was informed of this. I agree completely that you cannot "dismiss" someone because of disfigurement. Where will it end.... you have red hair.....your are fat, your BMI must be 40......you only have one leg....you have serious burns on your face....what's up with that tumor......

We all have something that is unique about us. To insinuate that this child cannot ever eat out in public is so backwards, that I can't even find the words for it. I thought we were better than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:08 PM

98. I don't think it is okay to make excuses for this Restaurant. The children suffering this condition

no doubt suffer enough isolation. Should we not be advocates on the side of those who have no voice? No doubt many restaurants in the old south were owned by proprietors who personally had nothing against black people - but simply did not want to lose customers and no doubt they would have. No doubt there were many, many customers who really believed that they could not relax and enjoy their meal if black people were sitting next to them. But all that changed, fortunately. Would it not be a much better world if no one had to experience this kind of degradation regardless of the reason - especially little children?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:20 PM

101. I think the suit is a poor use of federal Justice Department resources.

 

If the federal government really wants to offer something constructive in this situation, how about some mediation instead of going for money? If it wants to prevent future discrimination, how about some education? This is a teachable moment.

I don't feel that the restaurant management did anything morally wrong. Their ignorance of the nature of that particular skin condition is perfectly understandable.

The family certainly could have handled the situation better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #101)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:34 PM

107. what else could the family have done?

The mother did educate the manager on the disorder.

How can you assert that this child needs to be hidden away because we (collective we) are uncomfortable? How backwards is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #107)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:36 PM

108. They could have cleared it in advance with the manager, or...

 

...simply gone somewhere else to eat when it became clear that the manager wasn't comprehending or believing what the mother was saying.

Nobody has a right to eat in a restaurant, and the restaurant management does have the right to refuse to seat or serve anyone for any reason.

The family is literally making a federal case out of a minor incident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #108)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:39 PM

110. You are wrong on many levels

So, the parents need to clear all social engagements first, explain that their child has a disorder? Well, let's all those with any disorders do that. To single out this child is indeed discrimination.

Perhaps this family is making a statement. We have a child with a disorder and we are not going to hide him/her away. This child deserves to experience the world, same as any other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #110)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:43 PM

112. I think it's unreasonable for the family to expect every business manager to have knowledge...

 

...of a rare medical condition.

Why should they take the customer's word that the disease isn't contagious?

You are wrong on many levels

Are you claiming that restaurants don't have a right to refuse service to people?

If they were systematically refusing to seat Asians or LGBT people there would certainly be a case. But an isolated incident involving a child with a scary-looking skin condition? I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #112)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:45 PM

113. are you missing the part about the mother educating the manager?

And it is not OK to discriminate because something makes you uncomfortable. Scary looking or not. It's not OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #113)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:46 PM

115. Why should the manager be expected take the word of a stranger?

 

A stranger who hasn't presented medical credentials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #115)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:48 PM

117. Because he asked her

How are you not getting this? How can you be OK with saying "Lock him away--I don't want to look at him"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #117)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:50 PM

118. OK, you've wandered into Straw Man territory.

 

How can you be OK with saying "Lock him away--I don't want to look at him"?

I'm not, and your response suggests you aren't interested in a rational discussion.

I think you are just looking for a fight in this thread. I hope you find one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #118)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:57 PM

123. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do think it's unreasonable

to expect the family to call the restaurant in advance. Just speaking from the position of special needs mom, that's just plain unrealistic and for a reason I can't quite articulate yet (it's the end of the day, my brain isn't working that quickly...sorry), the idea that they should have to do such a thing makes me really cringe.

One of my best girlfriends has a severely developmentally delayed child who can sometimes have public outbursts and do inappropriate things. My girlfriend does try to have a developmental therapist remain with her child when she has to run errands or go out, because it genuinely upsets her child to have to leave "her" space. However, life happens and sometimes there is no DT and my friend has to take her child with her, and predictably, her child erupts and acts out. Should my girlfriend have to call ahead to every place she is going to go to on her errands to warn them about her child? The tantrums can be quite violent, and strangers have approached my friend when her child was mid-tantrum and made very ugly comments to her. Still...this is her life. She can't spend her life walking on eggshells around other people because of her kid's disability, kwim?

I dunno. I'm taking this all too personally, which means I just need to step away, methinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #112)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:12 PM

130. Sorry, slackmaster, but since 1990

restaurants do not have the right to refuse to serve people with disabilities just because they're disabled. Just as, since 1964, they have not had the right to refuse service to people because of their race or ethnicity. And I for one am hoping for the day when GLBT people are protected as well.

"A scary looking skin condition" is not a legal reason to exclude a child from being in public, restaurant or not. People who drooled used to be refused service. People who looked like they had AIDS. People who walked or talked funny, because "who knows if it might be contagious?"

That's precisely why the ADA was passed. The family has every right to make this a "federal case" and not just an i"solated" incident. The manager may have violated federal law, and if he did, the family is well within their rights to call him on it.

The ADA was passed 23 years ago. A restaurant manager is required to know about the ADA just as they're required to know about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a host of other laws--fire codes, health codes, sexual harassment policies, tax withholding, etc. etc.

Civil rights aren't decided on the basis of whim. "Oh, you have a scary looking problem, sorry, you aren't allowed in." That's why we have laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #108)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:40 PM

111. "the restaurant management does have the right to refuse to seat or serve anyone for any reason. "

How'd that work out for Denny's?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #111)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:45 PM

114. See reply #112. Racial minorities are specifically protected groups under federal law.

 

A single child with a rare skin condition that is unfamiliar to most people probably isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #114)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:47 PM

116. Read the American for Disabilities Act

Certainly the child is protected under federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #116)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:51 PM

119. Only to the extent that the restaurant manager could be reasonably expected to know that.

 

That's where the case is likely to break down.

An ADA suit is a ridiculous over-reaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #119)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:56 PM

121. Do you not think

that the restaurant manager knows the American with Disabilities Act? I am not sure if that is what you are saying. Because ignorance of the ADA is not an excuse--

Bottom line- he didn't like how the baby looked. Bottom line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #121)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:58 PM

124. I'm open to the possibility that the manager may have feared that the child had Hansen's Disease...

 

...or some other active, contagious infection that would have put the employees and other customers at risk.

I am not willing to pass judgement with such scant information. It will all get worked out in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #124)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:23 PM

132. A child running around with untreated and contagious

Hansen's Disease? Really? Wouldn't the children in that instance have been walking around with bells on? Wow, a family of lepers, out in public! Unclean! Unclean!

In any case, for someone "not willing to pass judgement with such scant information" you certainly seem to have no problem concluding that the family were in the wrong and that the case is "ridiculous" and "an over-reaction."

From where I sit, this seems an entirely appropriate use of the ADA. This is precisely why we have an ADA, why we have courts, and why we need a more informed public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:50 PM

141. Some parents have been known to misrepresent their children's illnesses

I have personally witnessed a woman drag two young children with her to a restaurant - young children who were obviously miserably ill, and obviously ill with pertussis (whooping cough). There is no other sound like it, and once heard, it's not forgotten. These children, who should have been resting in a warm bed, were instead out and at the right height to cough copiously into the 'grab and go' sandwich and drink case. The manager did pack their food to go and asked them to leave, despite the mother INSISTING it couldn't possibly be pertussis since that wasn't a real disease anymore and they just had colds. All the time while her suffering kids were making that horrible, unmistakable sound and looking about as sick as kids can look.

All food in the case was destroyed; the case washed with bleach, and at least one customer had to be put on prophylactic antibiotics despite getting regular DPT boosters (that was me).

So I'm sympathetic to the manager and the kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #141)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:50 PM

152. In a case like that you should call

child protective services, and maybe the police. The mother was obviously endangering the health of her children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #152)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:21 PM

158. And those around her and them.

I'm not sure if the manager did; she may have called Public Health. I'm immunocompromised so I was mostly skedaddling.

Oh, the mgr was pregnant too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:54 PM

143. I'm going to go out on a limb here...

...and say that if it looks like an infectious disease, such as chicken pox or measles or mumps,... I'm going to treat it like an infectious disease and ask the family to leave the premises, until the child is no longer showing symptoms

If they can show a doctor's order which declares that the child is 'contagion free' I might reconsider.

How could a competent restaurateur be expected to do otherwise?...???



TYY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeeYiYi (Reply #143)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:00 PM

154. I agree. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeeYiYi (Reply #143)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:33 PM

166. Yeah, better keep him inside locked away from the normals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeeYiYi (Reply #143)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:20 AM

180. i think he is adorable

my only concern would be for any pain he feels .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #180)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:28 AM

214. +1

I don't see how it "looks contagious" either. Chicken pox and measles are more uniform if I remember correctly. These lesions are all different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #214)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:35 AM

238. When my kids had chicken pox

it didn't look like that at ALL. And anyway, once you are scabbing with chicken pox you are no longer contagious. My one daughter had a severe strep rash once too, and it was nothing like that picture. I'm seriously shocked at this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #238)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:39 AM

239. I agree

I would feel bad for that kid but it would never strike me as contagious run for the hills stuff. I'm not a mother even. Maybe to each his own, but just looking at that kid, it does not look contagious to me - I would feel bad for him first, maybe wonder what it was, but running for my life would not come into play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #180)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:13 AM

225. Look at that smile. You are right. He is adorable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeeYiYi (Reply #143)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:32 AM

187. I agree.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeeYiYi (Reply #143)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:57 AM

189. thanks Dr. Frist

you fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeeYiYi (Reply #143)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:48 AM

203. The manager's position was understandable.

Mistaken, but understandable. I am not convinced the manager is a mean person or an "asshole" as a lot of DUers are calling him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #203)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:33 AM

217. Many DUers lack the ability to recognize simple misunderstandings

There are frequently stories about personal conflicts which, at bottom, are simply misunderstandings and mistakes.

There is a huge contingent at DU of the most unflinchingly judgmental unforgiving folks than you will meet at any church picnic. They come here with a fair amount of personal dissatisfactions simply looking for someone to take it out on.

Of course, you see, not only was this manager fully aware of this medical condition and its consequences, but he was raised in a household from an early age to simply hate people who have it - and that's why he asked them to leave. It could NOT possibly be that this manager - no doubt a Stanford valedictorian, as is typical among chain food management - was mistaken, and did not believe the explanation. It's just not possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #217)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:26 AM

229. yes those of us who know someone with a disability get tired of seeing them discriminated against

Just like we are all tired of seeing black people, gay people, women, and other minority groups discriminated against. So, sorry if I'm not forgiving enough for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #229)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:27 PM

268. I don't know anyone with a disability, is that what you are saying?


You assume much, and wrongly.

So, let me understand this.

The manager, prior to this encounter, knew about this condition. Not only did he know about it, but he has always disliked people with this condition, and that is why he asked them to leave.

Is that an accurate statement of what you believe happened here.

Because, and I hope you live by your words, when someone comes up to you on the street and starts cussing you out, I gather you smile and say, "Before I respond, I would like to know whether you have Tourette's Syndrome, or whether you are simply an asshole."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #268)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:35 PM

270. yes, the manager was informed of the condition and kicked the kids out for other customers' comfort

and as for how you sound?

the poster is making the point that you sound like someone who doesn't know or care about the rights of the disabled.

which must insult you because as you stated upthread, this is something you deal with in your family.

yet your posts indicate that you are quite hostile to these rights in practice.

i have no doubt that you are a good advocate for your daughter and her disability, i just have a sense, based on your posts, that your advocacy seems to stop at your own family unit and the individual disability you are familiar with.

because you've all but supported the actions even TSA is apologizing for (and you've done this before too), as well as the actions of the restaurant in this story.

in other words, yes, you do write like you have no familiarity with the disabled, nor their rights.

with perhaps just one personal exception that doesn't seem to have affected your thinking elsewhere. sadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #270)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:45 PM

272. Well I'll tell you something from personal experience

My daughter is very good at getting around.

So good, in fact, that she often leaves her cane behind and doesn't take it with her.

The consequence of that fact is that people do not often immediately know she is blind.

Now, in Pennsylvania, if she walks out into a street and is hit by a car, the way things work out liability-wise is that if she didn't have her cane on her - it's a reflective red and white foldable cane - it is a hell of a lot harder to hold the driver responsible than if she does have her cane with her.

As a practical matter, we do tell her to take the cane when she goes out. It folds up and is not a big deal anyway.

Because she needs it to get around? No.

We have her do that, because it says to people around her "I'm blind, so please don't bump into me." Or, if she does bump into someone or something, it keeps other people from assuming she is just clumsy and beating her up.

Because if you are standing on a sidewalk, and someone comes barging right into you - and she moves damned quick - your first reaction is normally going to be "Hey asshole, watch the fuck where you are going." If that person has a candy-striped cane in their hand, your reaction is going to be quite different.

Yes, she has to acommodate the "disability" of sighted people who do not immediately perceive that she is blind.

But your disgusting habit of condemning others is, I understand, untreatable.

And, if I have time later on, I can tell you about getting through the TSA with her and her girlfriend with MS. Much longer story, but a little understanding goes a long way toward addressing conflicts instead of escalating them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #272)


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:13 AM

179. I am with the manager - people lie - I had to touch someone and asked about their scabs

they said they were not contagious and a week later I had whatever it was

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:25 AM

181. Golden Corral is for fat rethug rednecks

fuck them anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #181)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:55 AM

244. Well, if that's the case....

....uh, fuck this family too then???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:59 AM

184. What the fuck is wrong with people? What do you want? Leper colonies to return?

I hope this franchisee is driven out of business, fucking asshole, as for the rest of you fucking wanna-be Republicans, go pound sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #184)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:06 AM

211. well that's a little stronger I would put it..but yes some of the attitudes here are fucking sick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #184)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:31 AM

215. I agree with you

People's attitudes on this thread suck. I guess some people just can't learn the lesson of compassion unless they themselves are the one's suffering. Sad state of affairs when democrats can't understand compassion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #215)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:28 AM

231. maybe society itself has become so utterly depraved that siding with power and privilege

has now become instinctive to a lot of people even in ostensibly liberal circles? This is one of two thread I have found within the last 48 hours with utterly twisted, sick and depraved attitudes widely expressed. The other was about how someone may have been fired from their job for expressing at their work place that they had voted for Obama. There were a number of posters who instead of being alarmed at the attack on the right of ordinary people to casually and informally express their opinions in the world where they live and work - there were several posters who thought that people should just shut up and not make waves. In both threads we are seeing people who call themselves liberal or progressive completely willing to differ to power and walk down the road to a dark and sinister future where privilege and power decides right from wrong and there is only room for winners. But all that pontificating aside anyone who does not see the wrongness of excluding the sick and disabled from open participation in society has a perverted sense of fairness It is a good thing that many of the great social advancements of the 20th century have already been established - because I don't think in this current sick society they would be enacted today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #231)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:34 AM

237. the ADA treaty vote failed just months ago --so your point is correct

and your statement righteous and correct.

and i'm grateful that you posted it because it's a theme among a consistent minority of DUers who justify these types of things at every opportunity.

and worse, some justify it on the basis that they know or are related to someone disabled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #237)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:47 AM

243. just knowing someone who is disabled doesn't mean you know what they are going through

I live with two disabled people and still cannot completely relate to what they go through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:16 PM

254. The manager shows what we know to be true about America.

Appearance is more important then reality. It is slowly killing us as a nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #254)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:54 PM

262. So true Rex,

I was working at a hospital in VA/ I walked into the cafeteria one day and the inspirational message of the day? "Remember, if you LOOK GOOD, you are GOOD!" I almost Sh*t myself. A frigin hospital with cancer patients and trauma patients that were hugely disfigured promoting that sick message in a place that was open to the public. It is a message that should not have been displayed at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scruffy Rumbler (Reply #262)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:22 PM

267. Wow, yeah that is horrible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:24 PM

255. Meanwhile, in restaurants across America...

Patrons are sitting eating their meals and have to tolerate or try to stomach other patrons with dirty feet in flip flops, smelly, sweaty armpit hair sticking out because they're wearing a sleeveless top, dirty, greasy hair that doesn't look like it's been washed in weeks, loud children running around unsupervised causing a disturbance, etc.

You can't do much about a genetic skin disorder other than treat it as recommended by a physician, but you can do something about the other things, yet it's tolerated.

There was a time when people had respect for others, and cared about their appearance enough to clean themselves up before going out in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyA (Reply #255)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:52 PM

261. how about just minding our own business and not worrying about what other people look like

I live in an affluent area where the women always look like they just stepped out of a salon. And for those whom it makes feel good I say go for it. I have never been that kind of person. When I have things to get done, I leave the house and get them done. I don't have time to get ready so that I can impress people I don't know. I know I'm probably getting funny looks for not looking perfect, but you know what I don't care. I have far too many things to get done to worry about what other people think of me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #261)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:00 PM

264. There's a big difference between dressing to impress and basic hygiene

When you can smell body odor or dirty hair on the person sitting behind you, it can be nauseating to some. When they sit down when you're mid-meal, it's not a matter of minding your own business, it's more a matter of keeping your food down.

People should be a little more respectful and considerate of others, it would go a long way toward solving some of the problems we have in the world today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:01 PM

265. I just can't take the disgusting posts on this thread anymore. this is going in the trash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:20 PM

280. the lack of compassion displayed by some posters in this thread is absolutely appalling...

Next time you see a leper make sure they are wearing a hood and bell, okay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:28 PM

281. I wore long sleeves and pants in South Florida

The first year I lived in Florida, I had blisters all over me and even on my eyelids. I worked in a public school with little children and I didn't want anyway questioning me, or shunning me. I went to doctors, including dermatologists, who ruled out Lupus, Psoriasis, allergies, etc. They called it "contact dermatitis". From my experience in NY, where I only got this to a small degree ONLY in summers, I knew it was "contact" with HEAT. I got them also if I made water too hot in the shower. However, it can get very, very bad if I don't keep COOL, and soak in cool baths of sea salts. None of the meds, from steriods to cortisone, that doctors gave me helped.

I can understand what this family is experiencing. What I have also is definitely NOT contagious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #281)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:55 PM

285. Cool bath with sea salts...

That works for my eczema.

I grew up on Long Island and my dad would take to me to the beach all year long to keep it a bay.

Now that I live in Austin, far from the ocean, it has flared up again. I have to periodically take baths with the salts to keep it at bay. Nothing works like the ocean though.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread