Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
When rights collide, part 2

Posted by maddie_in_ky 6a KY (My Page) on
Sun, Dec 2, 12 at 18:21

At the risk of throwing gas onto a fire, and not wanting to thread-jack the other thread, I would like to know what others think of these two real-life situations.

1) A young, mentally challenged young man was taken into a nicer restaurant here in Louisville for lunch. The place is popular and hence, was very crowded that day. The young man is confined to a wheelchair, and is only capable of emitting high pitched, loud schreeches (almost like a little gril screaming), and loud moaning. The family was seated, and the young man began to schreech, and thrash about in the wheelchair. The family was oblivious to this, and did nothing to try to comfort the young man, or to remove him. Several other diners complained, and after 30 minutes of the noise, the family was asked to leave. They promptly filed a lawsuit, claiming discrimination again their son. A diner filmed part of the young man and his family on his cell, and it clearly shows the noise level, and the family conversing like their was nothing happening. (A family memeber later said that this was normal behavior for the young man, and that the family tunes him out.) So, who's right trumped whos? The young man certainly has the right to be there, but then the diner's have a right to a nice lunch. Thoughts?

2) What about the rights of a pro-life pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control pills/the morning after pill? On one hand, they got into pharmacy knowing that yes, indeed, pharmacies dispense these meds, but they also have freedom of religion. What if it's a small town, and only one pharmacy close, so that's it's difficult to go to another one? Would a Jehovah's Witness ever become a pharmacist? Thoughts?

:)


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

I think the restaurant has the right to ask any diner to leave who is being disruptive - what if a patron started loudly singing and removing his clothing?

The pharmacist who won't dispense certain medications should be allowed to not dispense them. However, he must disclose this prior to being hired anywhere. If the pharmacy still wants to hire him, they need to make arrangements for someone else to fill those prescriptions. If the pharmacist does not disclose during the hiring process, then he has no right to impose his will on the pharmacy and they are free to fire him.

Those are my off-the-cuff, responses. However, I learn much from these forums and I may be overlooking another valid argument.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

What Lightly says makes way too much sense, so I'm reasonably sure someone will find fault with it; we'll see.

In Wisconsin, the behavior of the disabled person would constitute disorderly conduct. I sort of doubt that suit will be anything but a waste of time.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

The first one I am not sure about. How far do disability accommodations will have to decide that one. It is not clear if he was just disorderly for attention or if it was medical condition.

The pharmacist that one I disagree because he is not a doctor it is a diagnosis he is not qualified to make by denying the medicine he could jeopardize the woman's health. If a woman is harmed medically because the pharmacist did not dispense the meds I would be happy to see him/her spend the rest of their life in jail.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

Could this child be taken to movie? Obviously not. Perhaps a child oriented restaurant would be OK. As for the pharmacist, shouldn't he obey the laws of the land in a pharmacy serving the public? Methinks so...


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

I'd hate to be back in the days when severely disabled people were relegated to their homes or worse, an institution. Imo, the restaurant was wrong in asking this family to leave. It may have been disturbing and probably upsetting to other patrons, but it was only a meal for crying out loud.

Quick side story;

DP and I were at Disneyworld a few years ago at the Small World ride. We got in the boat and then older parents with a very disabled son, about 20 years old, followed. Being the cornball that I am, I started to sing. The young man behind us started to sing as well, and it was not an attractive sound (either is my singing, but that's another story). When we exited the ride, the parents of this young man had tears in their eyes and thanked us for making the ride special for them and their son.

Anyway, the OP reminded me of this, carry on.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

If a store that sells alcohol doesn't keep a clerk on hand of legal age to sell, it can't very well operate as it should, right? Therefore, someone who is of age to sell that product has to be kept on the schedule... or patrons will complain, and business will be lost.

Same as thread 1, we're talking about what's legal... or legal vs. private beliefs.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

In public schools, children are entitled to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. Sometimes that means their needs are best met in a small, controlled environment. Because some children cannot control their behavior, and because their behavior is disruptive to the learning environment for other students, the government recognizes (educationally anyway) that some limits ARE appropriate for some children.

I think the family knew exactly what would happen and is trying to play the system. I'm guessing the child was over stimulated by the environment (as the family knew he would be) and that the family is looking for a quick cash settlement. Perhaps not for the first time. If his symptoms are partially controlled by medication, I wonder if it was given to him.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

Nik I agree I think the parents should be penalized. They hurt the child doing what they wanted to do. You should know the limitations of a disability and do not put them in that position.

It is the same thing as taking them out of a wheelchair and try to make them walk if they are unable to walk. It is stupid and selfish of the family.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

I don't think anyone has a right to either. No one has a "right" to a nice lunch. We can hope, we can expect, but it's not a "right". Otherwise I could sue every time a nasty waitress or dingbat host made a meal unpleasant.

Everyone had the "right" to say something... to the restaurant, or to go up to the other table and respectfully ask for them to take their child outside. If I had a screaming baby, I'd take her outside. It's common courtesy. These parents lacked that, and made one meal miserable for others. There will be other meals ;) The persons ability or disability should have nothing to do with it. If I had a guest at my table screaming, I'd ask them to step outside with me too.

Agreed on the pharmacy/alcohol comparison. A person walking into a pharmacy has the reasonable expectation that their prescription will be filled. The pharmacy can hire whomever they like, but their public should be served without interruption due to someone else's belief system.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

What ever happened to the old idea of "Do Unto Others as you would have them do unto you?"

How would these people feel if someone did something that would make their mean unpleasant? They knew what the chances of the boy misbehaving were. They didn't care.
It's not just about rights, it's common courtesy.

It's like your right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. You have the right...but you have to bear the results of having that right.

Yeah, I think they were looking for a chance to make a little extra money.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

interesting questions.

Re 1, the restaurant owner has the right to ask the family to leave and it's sad the family chose to file a lawsuit alleging discrimination but shame on the restaurant patrons who complained, assuming it was clear the child was suffering from a mental problem. It was just one night out of their lives and whereas the night might not have gone as nicely as they would have liked, at least they had the luxury of walking away from the situation. Facing those circumstances, I would hope to have the grace and charity not to make a bad situation worse.

re 2, I feel strongly that the pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions, not to pass judgment on what is being prescribed. Pharmacology is a licensed profession in all 50 states, which means the state has the right to dictate the terms upon which the profession is practiced and the licensing requirements and as such, an individual pharamcist should have no reasonable expectation of getting to determine which rules he/she will follow and which rules he/she, as a matter of conscience, will not follow. If a person can't handle this, then he/she needs to pick another profession.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

The restaurant had every right to ask the family to leave. They have other patrons to consider. The parents were being selfish thinking that is it their right to bring an unmanageable son into a quiet restaurant where other people are spending money to have a quiet meal. No brainer there.

Any person should expect their RX to be filled at any time regardless of the beliefs of the pharmacist. He should pick another career if that's a problem.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

I think it's a question of "the many vs. the few" type of thing.

While no one has an actual legal right to a nice lunch in a public restaurant, it's more of a reasonable expectation. Should the owner ask one family to leave because of a disruption? Or should he insist they stay and all other patrons either deal with it or leave?

I would agree that common courtesy... or the Golden Rule... seems too often forgotten these days. People seem determined to push boundaries for monetary gain... if such is the case.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

For the sake of fleshing out the argument, is it just during a meal that people would have the right to have it uninterrupted by a mentally challenged man?

On a bus, in a grocery store, shopping at a mall... any number of places that one might get annoyed having to listen to a mentally challenged man moaning and squealing.

This is kind of the question I was asking in the other thread (good topic, by the way)... where is the line drawn? Someone mentioned up thread... do we just have the "annoying" mentally challenged people stay confined to their houses? Or do we stay quiet and put up with a squealing and screeching mentally handicapped person next to us at the restaurant because goodness knows they and their caregivers deserve some time out of the house.

What if it was a physically disabled person, and they brought their dog into the restaurant? I've had a foster child in the past who was so allergic to animals that just WALKING past one would set them off. Sitting in a restaurant with one for an entire dinner would be out of the question. Certainly a serious allergy is more than just an annoyance.

Are blind people just looking to file lawsuits?

Does it make a difference if the person has a mental handicap rather than a physical one?


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

I am thinking....., Everybody cannot do what they want.

You want to go out sometime but you have a mentally challenged individual.
but.........
The people at the other table cannot get out often because of transportation or illness. Maybe they have a serious illness and this is could be their last time with dinning out with their family,

In life you cannot do whatever you want.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

You want to go out sometime but you have a mentally challenged individual.
but.........
The people at the other table cannot get out often because of transportation or illness. Maybe they have a serious illness and this is could be their last time with dinning out with their family,

Again, what about the blind person with a guide dog?

Maybe the person at the next table has an allergy to animals... does your answer still stand if it is a physically handicapped person rather than a mentally handicapped one?


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

The dog or the disable should not be allowed to come interrupt the others.

The reason is this is not a necessary issue. If it is medical it is necessary. Eating at the restaurant is a want. They can eat without harming others.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that the gentleman in # 1 is in his mid/upper 20s. if that makes any difference. :)

I think that Hamiltongarden summed it up quite nicely: where is the line drawn? Do we give more leeway to the mentally challenged young man and the screaming child than the party of drunken (whomevers)? I am trying to remember an old saying.... 'your right to swing a fist ends at my nose'. Is this appro? I am curious as I could never come to a conclusion.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that the gentleman in # 1 is in his mid/upper 20s. if that makes any difference. :)

I think that partly influences people's answers. There have been several threads about children in restaurants and very few people here are tolerant of having to put up with other people's children in public places.

Not that I blame them. An ill-mannered child should be properly dealt with by the parents. They have the ability to control themselves.

I assume the man in your example is not able to control his outbursts, thus the reason I question the verdict of "throw him out".

Has anyone ever seen the movie "Front of the Class"?


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

My ex-wife and I go out to an upscale restaurant 2-3 times a year. We anticipate a great meal in a quiet atmosphere. I'm going deaf and the ability to hear without being distracted is tantamount. We have grandchildren and they were always taken outside immediately even in a cheap place if they became noisy. Common courtesy to the other diners. Within a minute, in situation #1, we would be leaving, after telling the management why.
Situation 2: If I have a prescription from my doctor, you bet your butt it will be filled. Like others said, if the pharmacist won't, then he chose the wrong profession.
I think sometimes patience is an overrated virtue.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

The dog or the disable should not be allowed to come interrupt the others.

Marquest, here's the relevant part.

Having the guide dog or the screeching young man in the restaurant disturbs our enjoyment of our meal. I completely agree with you and would not like to find myself in a restaurant next to either one. In fact, a few years ago we could not have stayed in that restaurant with a dog because of those allergies. In my mind, that is even worse than sitting next to someone making noises. One is annoying, the other is life threatening.

But the law does not allow discrimination against the physically disabled by kicking out their dog...at least not here. I'm not sure about different laws in the USA. It's discrimination against the disabled. So if they don't allow discrimination against the physically disabled (who can also keep others from enjoying their meal) then will it allow discrimination against someone who is mentally disabled?


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

My ex-wife and I go out to an upscale restaurant 2-3 times a year.

Tangent:

Your ex-wife? None of my business, sorry. Just caught me funny.

Perhaps one of those situations where it's soon to be wife again?


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

I think the family knew exactly what would happen and is trying to play the system. Maybe I missed it, but how exactly did they profit here?

I know a couple with a severely autistic kid that has to be accompanied all the time. The kid, he must be 14 yrs old now, if he doesn't get his way, will start screaming. They try to find sitters, family members, etc. but some times, they just have to have the kid along with them when they travel and go out to restaurants.

Its a mess all around. But should they be relegated to fast food drive-through throughs? Its hard enough on them as it is.

That said, I'd be pretty annoyed if I was paying $80 for a nice meal and had to sit by a screaming kid for the duration.

Maybe if the family with the mentally challenged handicapped kid were to ask the restaurant manager for a quiet table in the corner or something.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

HG, not going to happen. Great friends and we are together a lot. Today, I worked on her heater, lawn mower and hauled away lawn waste. Tomorrow, she'll probably be over here.
Been divorced for 35 years and get along great, but it is good that we each have our neutral corners (houses) to escape to when the inevitable argument arises. Besides, the kids and grandchildren have fun speculating and enjoying our different lifestyles: I garden and she is the ultimate housekeeper. I haven't used a pesticide or strong cleanser since 1984, and sometimes I won't enter her house because of the chemical smells.
Compromise doesn't suit either of us but we do have fun together. True love is forever.
Sorry about the derailment.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

True love is forever.
Sorry about the derailment.

*

I'm not--it was a nice diversion.

True love is forever and I'm glad you have it figured out!


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

True love is forever.
Sorry about the derailment.

You are an adult and figured it out that is love it is also respect.

If is not a derailment it is what this subject really gets down to respect for someone other than yourself. You can have a disability but accepting that your disability does not give you any more rights than others.

Get take out or cook at home and set your table with your best china, turn the lights down, turn on some soft music and make all the noise you want or have your dog at your side that will not hurt someone else that also has a disability.

My daughter has breathing problems and perfumes can set off a bad asthma attack. We have been in a restaurant and someone has on a lot of perfume. We ask to have the meal boxed for take out we go and sit in the car until the meal is ready.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

As far as the pharmacist, would it make a difference in your support for the pharmacist's right to not fill a perscription if he was a fully committed and sworn American Nazi (or one of the life style groups that follow those beliefs) and the pharmacist refused to fill a perscription for sickle cell anemia treatment or taysacks treatment.

So I say no, a pharmacist should not have any choice in filling perscriptions. Doctors decide what a patient should have, not pharmacists. And the pharmacist knows nothing about why morning after or birth control may have been perscribed


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

As far as the pharmacist, would it make a difference in your support for the pharmacist's right to not fill a perscription if he was a fully committed and sworn American Nazi (or one of the life style groups that follow those beliefs) and the pharmacist refused to fill a perscription for sickle cell anemia treatment or taysacks treatment.

So I say no, a pharmacist should not have any choice in filling perscriptions. Doctors decide what a patient should have, not pharmacists. And the pharmacist knows nothing about why morning after or birth control may have been perscribed


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

I garden and she is the ultimate housekeeper. I haven't used a pesticide or strong cleanser since 1984, and sometimes I won't enter her house because of the chemical smells.

You know, there are very good all natural non-toxic cleaners. This coming from a clean freak that switched to all natural cleaners years ago.

Sounds like a good match to me -- clean house, beautiful yard!

Just saying...maybe there is a way ;-)

But, seriously, it's wonderful for you both and your children and grandchildren that you have a good relationship. Kudos to you both!


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

Just saying...maybe there is a way ;-)

I swear, it's a female instinct to try and play matchmaker. We get so hopeful at even the most remote possibility of a couple getting together...


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

Not me, sounds perfect!!! LOL


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

We get so hopeful at even the most remote possibility of a couple getting together...

Not me either. It happens more than not. There was a study awhile back about couples that lived separate. I know two couples that are living apart.

Financially it can be better as well as mentally depending on the couple. I have one friend that said she is Miss Piggy and he is Mr Clean so they cannot live together but they are a perfect couple that have been together for 40 years. Financially they get a larger retirement check and pay less taxes because they are not married.


 o
RE: When rights collide, part 2

"But the law does not allow discrimination against the physically disabled by kicking out their dog...at least not here. I'm not sure about different laws in the USA."

Same here with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Unfortunately, with regard to service animals, the honor system brings out the worst in some people.

FTA: When is a service dog not a service dog?

"By definition, service dogs are trained to perform specific tasks for people with disabilities. Service dogs assist people with physical and mental impairments, whether by guiding the blind, pulling a wheelchair or alerting an owner to an impending seizure.

However, some pet owners bring their non-service dogs into public establishments like restaurants and grocery stores and easily get away with it.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 grants specific rights and prohibits discrimination related to service dogs.

There are no requirements for licensing, certification or identification of service dogs, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. The animals are not required to wear special collars, vests or harnesses. The ADA makes it unlawful to require proof of a disability or identification for the service dog.

When dealing with so-called service animals, businesses are only allowed to ask two questions of dog owners:

Is the dog required because of a disability?
What task or service has the dog been trained to do?"

Article continues below. Obviously, without some form of official ID, there is no way for a restaurant owner to know if a dog is a genuine service animal, or a pet with an irresponsible and dishonest owner who is making a mockery of the law.

If I have allergies, I probably take medication that limits my symptoms, and I can ask to be moved as far as possible from a service dog.

I think there is a big difference between accommodating a person with a service animal, and a person whose behavior creates a chaotic, unpleasant environment for everyone else.
One is a reasonable accommodation. The other is completely unreasonable.

Here is a link that might be useful: Fake Service Animals


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here