Main > Everything Else

Blind people sue Target because they can't access Target's website.

<< < (18/33) > >>

leapinlew:

--- Quote from: shmokes on October 04, 2007, 07:17:22 pm ---You are really having trouble with this. 

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: shmokes on October 04, 2007, 07:17:22 pm ---leapinlew, does it occur to you that maybe the reason you can't seem to come up with a ridiculous example that actually works here, is that the present case isn't actually ridiculous?  Just a thought.

--- End quote ---

Has it ever occurred to you that I actually am having a hard time understanding the reasoning behind this suit? The reason for my "ridiculous" examples is because I'm trying to actually understand? To me, it looks like a frivolous law suit, but thanks to some articulate explanations - it's becoming more clear. Based on your previous explanations - I thought my youtube and video game examples made sense.

So, while I appreciate the informative response, your pompous attitude can sit-n-spin.

shmokes:
Okay . . . pull the injured bird card.  On the previous page you likened this suit to an archery group suing target cos their logo makes them shoot arrows at their computer screens.  You can say you were kidding, and I believe that you were inasmuch as you don't really think that the archery group would win that suit.  But the underlying message was that these blind people are ---smurfing--- retards.

I'm sure you'll give me a small amount of latitude for not realizing that your interests in this thread had suddenly become purely academic.

You might also notice that I treated your YouTube question with plenty of respect.  I even took the time to read the law for you (though it's only a google search away if you want to know more).  But you might notice, if you read through the thread, that there have been quite a few examples like that one thrown out already, and I'm not the only one who keeps saying, "That is a product.  Products don't have to be ADA compliant!"  In fact, one of your previous examples was about a piece of software -- not too far removed from a video game if you ask me.  If Tommy asks if shoe manufacturers are liable to people with no feet, and someone points out that products aren't covered, and then Psik0tik, in a sudden fit of originality, says this is just like glove manufacturers getting sued by people with no hands, and someone points out that products aren't covered, and it's been pointed out numerous other times in this thread that the law does not require that products be ADA compliant, eventually, I'm sorry, I have to say, "Products are not covered by ADA.  You know what a product is.  Bringing up example after example of items that are clearly products is ridiculous."

patrickl:
Still, the target site IS accessable. I'd say it's a crappy site, but that's true both for seeing and non seeing people. No discrimination there.

KenToad:

--- Quote from: patrickl on October 04, 2007, 08:56:23 pm ---Still, the target site IS accessable. I'd say it's a crappy site, but that's true both for seeing and non seeing people. No discrimination there.

--- End quote ---

It seems premature to suggest that it's a frivolous lawsuit, i.e. "No discrimination there," just because you can't see the point.  I can't see the point either, but I'll continue to suspend my judgment at least until I hear a few of the points made during the actual decision.

shmokes:
Yeah . . . I'd be interested to see the plaintiff's complaint.  I wouldn't be surprised if I could get it from Lexis/Nexis or Westlaw, but my school (unlike almost every school in the nation) feels the need to torture 1Ls by teaching us to do all our research the old-fashioned way, by book in the law library, before giving us electronic access to everything.  C'est la vie.  Only a couple more months.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version