7 Dec 2012 3:37 am
Using your logic it would be acceptable for the business owner to require the patron or employee to cover the costs of "reasonable" accomodations. Because sometimes, reasonable is in the eye of the beholder, that being the government bureaucrat who has no skin in the game. Now most people would just go along and let grandpa get the bottom bedroom. I'm fine with that. I still hold open doors for women and sexy old ladies. Cause all old ladies be sexy. But there's a big difference between the rules of the household, property owner, and government, who does not own the property in question. By the by, I hold the same position on the Civil Rights Act. Fine if it only applied to government. Using ANY logic the patrons pay for those accomodations. Only the very ILLOGICAL would ever assume otherwise. Of COURSE patrons pay the costs of doing business - and a little something on top, called profits. And we have agreed, as a society, to foot that bill. We are family, son. And we have decided. And the difference that you tout is really an illusion. The truth is, some folks make rules that other folks don't agree with. Your mistake is an unhealthy fixation on so-called property rights. You don't really have any, since you're a dot in time and a nothing in the grand scheme - dust in the **** wind, son. How old is the world? We don't even KNOW. Who "owned" your real estate 10,000 years ago? Again, we don't know - and it's not relevant. What you think is going to be likewise irrelevant in the blink of an eye. Every vestige of your existence will be erased, soon. Your cherished property rights will mean nothing a century from today. There are human rights - granted by the Creator of the universe. And there are property rights - created entirely out of thin air by social agreement. Why you would elevate one above the other is a mystery to me.