So - if this is the general concensus as to disabilities, it may be time for me to leave DU.

[Ms. Toad]

In a thread on disruptions by a special needs child (suggesting a restaurant was right to exclude the child), I posed the question about whether my friend, an adult with CP whose vocalizations would be as "disruptive" as those attributed to the child, should also be treated as misbehaving and excluded. (My friend is a married man, who might occasionally want to go out for a romantic restaurant for a special evening with his wife - but he is unable to control the volume of his communications, so they are louder than is considered "polite" ).

Two out of three who responded said my friend should be excluded from the restaurant because he would spoil the romantic evening for others. The third changed the scenario to a movie and suggested that he should be excluded from the movie because his vocalizations (or those - for example - of someone with Tourette's that might be more spontaneous than my friend's) might disturb others. Not a single person said my friend should be allowed to enjoy a romantic dinner with his wife even though his vocalizations might make others uncomfortable.

To be clear, none of these exclusions are legal under the ADA. But that technicality aside - if the general concensus of DU is that people with disabilities that make others' experiences in places of public accommodations less pleasant should be excluded, DU is no longer a place with which I am compatible.

Here, NOTHING in any of the reports suggested the child was misbehaving. Because of that I was sure that once I reframed the situation to an adult with disabilities, those who just don't think children belong in sit-down restaurants would recognize how they sounded when they suggested that misbehaving children (whose "misbehaviors" are really disabilities) should be excluded would recognize the difference between disabilities and misbehavior. I was wrong.

DU is already uncomfortable enough for me, given the pretty blatant homophobia that masquerades as "anything goes against Trump/Republicans" ).

Frankly, I really thought with this question I was asking a question similar to the one I asked back in the 70s of superintendents of public schools in Nebraska, "If you had two equally qualified candidates for a physics or math position, one male and one female, which one would you hire?" I really didn't expect - even in that era, in that geographic location - that anyone would admit to preference for men. I was wrong - approximately half did. I was equally appalled to find that 3 of 3 DUers who responded apparently believe that people with disabilitiies that make others uncomfortable are better - like children - seen, but not heard. Or - perhaps - not even seen.

So I'm just curious as to whether these opinions are outliers, or has DU really moved to a point that the consensus is that people with disabilities that make other uncomfortable should be excluded from - for lack of a better phrase - "polite society"?

[xmas74]

1. I guess I missed something

I work with DD adults and I take them into the community on a regular basis. They have every right to be in places that serve the public.

[Ms. Toad]

6. It was a thread about a child with disabilities - and there are a lot of DU members

who feel that children (generally) don't belong in sit-down restaurants. But in this situation none of the reports I could find suggested anything other than the child's disability contributed to the "disruption" - so I decided to ask about my friend - fully expecting an "oops" moment. But what happened was three digging in deeper responses.

[blm]

2. Why would you even think a few responses equals a consensus here at DU?

Been here 18years and never ONCE even entertained that thought.

[Ms. Toad]

5. That's why I'm asking - but when 3 of 3 responses in 24 hours suggest

people with disabilities should not be heard (and perhaps not even seen), I have to wonder what the significance is of no voice - other than my own - saying anything to the contrary.

[blm]

12. That usually means the thread dropped as eyes are glued to other matters

That are of current interest on a political forum.

[Ms. Toad]

19. Generally -

but when my response to the first two of the response popped it back up to the front page I got a third similar response (and still no responses suggesting discrimination was appropriate). And no responses suggesting it was inappropriate.

[Chemisse]

102. The responses may have been skewed in that only those with strong 'anti' opinions clicked in

Whereas those who have no problem with it felt no compelling impulse to state that.

Maybe a survey would elicit a more diverse response. People enjoy a well-constructed survey of almost any topic.

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. I understand your concern and how you could see those responses as representative.

Personally I may in my head experience some discomfort with any guest in a public place acting out or unusual or whatever we call it but they all have the same right to be there as I do including obnoxious children.

I never blame the kids, btw, I blame the parents

[obamanut2012]

82. She is right: it wasn't a few responses

And, it was long-time, progressive DUers, not trolls.

[elleng]

3. I'm sorry I didn't respond to the earlier OP with my thought:

Outback, like other restaurants, movies, railroads, buses, etc, are 'public accommodations,' the child, and your friend, are entitled to be there; it's the 'uncomfortable' others who should leave.

[leftstreet]

4. I don't think that's the general consensus here

What I know about DU after many years...you tend not to hear as much from people who agree with you

[Ms. Toad]

13. I truly hope that is the case.

I would not be surprised to get my first hidden post (that would likely stick), because I could not let that commentary pass without suggesting I found the attitude morally reprehensible.

[tblue37]

38. Actua, there have been studied that show that negative feelings motivate more comments

and reviews than positive ones. Good feelings just mellow one out, I suppose, while disgust, annoyance, or anger demand to be expressed.

[Croney]

7. I saw that thread and didn't comment.

I can see both points of view. Personally, I would never call attention to a loud-behaving person of any age if it were obvious that they had special needs. But I might request a change of table for my party.

I'm sorry you've seen homophobic posts here. The only ones I can recall are the ones where people call Trump Putin's cock-sucking bitch, or suggest that a certain Republican might be gay, and therefore a lesser person. I do wish people wouldn't talk about the size of dicks as if having a small dick is a "gotcha" for Trump and others we hate. I mean, really; I doubt if dick size correlates to political affiliation.

No need to leave DU, based on three replies.

[MLAA]

8. MsToad

Your friend and any others with or without disabilities belong in whatever public place they would like to be. And if anyone is bothered by someone with disabilities they should be the ones to leave 🙂

[mshasta]

16. Call me old

It used to be respect for other people around you, in Japan at any restaurant if your kids are very loud even if they are with disabilities they being offer to comeback another time.

[Ms. Toad]

18. My question to the poster (who expressed a similar sentiment)

was - what if it is not a child, but an adult whose disability similarly makes their verbal communications loud.

Would you really exclude the adult (a married man - who might also enjoy a fancy meal in a "nice" restaurant with his wife)? My follow-up (to the answer I expected) would have been, they why would you exclude a child wiht a similar disability whose disability - but not behavior - was making others uncomfortable.

I was completely shocked when I got not only one, but three, responses that suggested the adult with the disability was not welcome in some or all public accommodations.

[TheBlackAdder]

23. My kids and I were at a family Pizza place, and old couple was chastizing a single mom.

.

They were pulling that whole "Children should be seen and not heard" bit.

The young mom was beside herself, getting ready to leave and I approached her and said that this is a family pizza place--attached to a freakin' mall. If the people complaining have an issue, they should leave and go somewhere else. My kids were supportive of her, and I made it a point that those complaining heard my comments--which was not hard since there were just a few tables away. Her young child wasn't really that loud either, it was just a couple of older people who just needed to complain about something. It's not like that the pizza place was quiet, as it was filled with a lot of people. Outback Steak Houses are kind of dumpy and loud. They are like a downgraded Olive Garden--for steaks.


I have issue with certain aspects of Japanese culture, because once I got chastised for replying to an email and one of the people in the reply had left their company and it went to their dead letter queue. All the other people received the email, but they had issue with me sending an email to someone who no longer works there. Quite uptight and stuck in decades old protocol habits. That whole thing revolving around thanking three times and bowing three times, etc.

.

[MLAA]

66. I hear you, as I've noticed that as I've gotten older I have far less patience than I use to.

children really misbehaving in public places is tough. And you don’t know if the child has a disability or the parenting is lacking something. So I try not to get annoyed. But with adults, I think it is easier to tell if they have a condition (Tourette’s etc) and then I don’t get annoyed and instead in my head I silently wish them well.

[LanternWaste]

67. Call me old too.

"It used to be tolerance for other people around you, in my community at any restaurant kids are very loud even if they are with disabilities we accommodate them or comeback another time."

[Kali]

9. sounds like typical modern spoiled "adults"

there is no right to be "comfortable" everywhere you go. life is complex and often difficult. grow up. or stay home in your padded safe room.

I doubt the responses you got represent the majority of DUers but it is possible, I suppose. I never saw the thread.

[Ms. Toad]

20. That's why I reframed it to take the child out of the picture.

I know there are a lot of spoiled "adults" who believe children should be kept out of sight. I fully expected when I took the child out of the scenario there would be some awareness of how inappropriate it was to classify a disability as misbehavior. As I said - I was wrong.

[Hoyt]

10. Definitely against any kind of exclusion or discrimination. Could be any of us or our family,

Last edited Wed Aug 14, 2019, 07:33 AM - Edit history (1)

and just because one is OK today, an accident, stroke, disease could put us there again.

Went on a fall open air train ride last year. There was a 16 or so year old on train with his family, who was a bit loud, and he enjoyed cursing. The car guide told a stupid joke, and the rider, yelled “that sucks.”

Cracked up the whole car and kind of made the whole trip worth it. I wanted to hug the dad and mom, and siblings who obviously loved their brother, for having fun and riding in our car.

[lpbk2713]

11. Thank you.

And please reconsider. We need you here.

[Ms. Toad]

15. The homophobic nonsense is very challenging but - unfortunately not terribly surprising.

The responses in the other thread truly shocked me and - if typical - really do mean that DU is no longer compatible with my world view. So this truly is a request for a reality check (not a goodbye cruel world thread). I hope it was just an obscure thread that didn't generate enough response to get a representative response.

I'm probably particulaly sensitive at the moment becuase I'm in the midst of an onboarding process for new 1L law students - and today the dean of the law school announced he projects well enough that he doesn't need a microphone. (We do have at least one hard-of-hearing student who had already thanked me for wearing a mic - and no one should have to "out" themselves to have an accesssible classroom) - and one of the new students described a man kissing other man as weird (and then dug in deeper by talking about gay men having orgies). So (as the dean-in-charge) I had to all-but-out myself today to the entire entering class to make sure the space was safe for the other LGBT individuals I know are present.

[MissB]

14. Outliers

I didn’t check too closely, but I served on a jury for what was likely your reply on that thread. Too bad there wasn’t a WTF button I could hit for the alert.

Anyway, I say outlier. I think that a lot of folks just don’t see enough folks that have disabilities (developmental or physical) and their exposure is just simply lacking. Their humanity should kick in, tho.

[Ms. Toad]

17. Not surprised there was an alert.

I knew it was a risk when I posted. I debated tempering my language, but ultimately I was not willing to let the sentiment of the post pass without being clear about how I viewed it. I did try to be clear it was the sentiment I was commenting on, not the poster.

Thank you.

[obamanut2012]

83. Nope

[Bettie]

93. I too have wished for a

WTF button at times on jury duty!

[pnwmom]

21. I didn't see that thread, Ms. Toad, but I would have strongly been on your side of the argument.

And also on the side of not mocking Trump or Graham or anyone else with homophobic insults.

I am sorry some people here think any of this is okay.

Please stay. Your voice is important.

[Ms. Toad]

28. Thanks - I really was just testing to see where DU is, after a rough day in real life

in connection with similar issues. The responses truly shocked me - and the lack of response other than my own to the opinions expressed did, as well. If they are representative of where we are now, DU has left me - and it is time for me to just accept that and move on. I left one faith community for similar reasons. Their version of Quakerism suited them, but it just wasn't compatible with mine. No hard feelngs - just an acknowledgement that we are in different spaces.

As to LGBT issues, DU clearly has left me. When I alert on a homophobic post I consider it a good day when I don't get a 24-hour alert time out. But I don't tend to be a single issue communty member (any more than I'm a single issue voter). But these responses (without dissent) crossed a line I had not expected DU to cross. This thread is more positive.

[sheshe2]

22. No.

Don't go.

Fact is we all have disabilities. Some more apparent than others. Hard of hearing. Blind. Elderly. Overweight. All of which are disabilities of sorts. Then you have CP, dementia and more. Then you have loud children. You can't lock them all away. They are part of us.

[Ms. Toad]

24. It's been a challenging day in real life

Then I found the first two responses suggesting pretty extreme intolerance on DU - and when my post popped the thread up the only thing that was accomplished was to generate a third intolerant response.

I'm not looking to leave - but if those responses are representative it is more that DU has left me and I need to acknowledge it and move on. So far, this inquiry suggests they are not representative, for which I'm grateful.

[Demovictory9]

32. just block them.

[EllieBC]

25. Please don't go. People with disabilites are not "others".

I have a child who has ASD, ADHD, SPD, and anxiety. For years I was always worried about her melting down in public. Then I realized I have to deal with neurotypical adults with no disabilities who are often loud or rude or drunk in public.

My child has every right to be in spaces where other humans are allowed. So do you, Ms. Toad. And I'll die on that hill.

[JimGinPA]

26. While I Understand Your Frustration...

I don't think a few responses to a thread (or two) is representative of the opinions of the majority of
DUers.


I hope you decide not to leave.

[Ms. Toad]

33. That is what I was hoping to confirm by asking the question outside of the thread.

It is the uniformity of the responses (without opposing comment) and the fact that when I responded to the first two (popping the thread back up), all it generated was a third similar response that raised red flags for me.

[pbmus]

27. Whatever the fuck polite society is...fuck them

[wasupaloopa]

29. You have your opinion and others have theirs.

That is the way it is here. This not the world and the posters here do not have some kind of special incite nor are they more intelligent than the rest of the country. (Though I know some think highly of them selves and their opinions.)

Let it go. It is not worth it.

[pnwmom]

35. That's not necessarily true. Non-Trump voters are more highly educated than Trump voters,

in general. And higher education tends to correlate with intelligence.

And DU is full of non-Trump voters.

I think Ms. Toad ran into a few intolerant apples.

[wasupaloopa]

57. I have been here since the selection of George Bush

Under various names.

I have seen and read so many times the posters opinion that DU is some kind of special higher educated intellectual board.

I do not accept that especially when there is so much importance on sticking to the official DU opinion of things and situations.

[pnwmom]

59. 538: Education, not income, predicted who voted in Trump in 2016.

As a group, the less well educated voted for Trump and the more well-educated, for Hillary.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

[Ms. Toad]

36. True - but

since DU is the place I hang out with people of similar progressive opinions, if DU has reached the point at which is is not only acceptable to hurl homophobic insults at Republicans - but also acceptable to relegate people with disabilities to the closet, it no longer serves that purpose for me. The thread truly is an attempt to see where a more representative sample of DU than responded to that thread are on the issue.

[tblue37]

30. I suspect that your respondents were a non-representative self-selected group. Those

who feel differently might not have been as moved to reply as those who have strong negative feelings.

[Midnightwalk]

34. They are wrong

People who are uncomfortable around someone with disabilities should toughen up. People who make people with disabilities feel uncomfortable or excluded should be excluded themselves.

It’s hard enough for them to be in society polite or otherwise and there is plenty of self exclusion that they or their care givers already have to overcome.

As in most things I can think of counter examples but people should start with having empathy and cutting disabled people some slack. Lack of empathy is usually where the problem lies.

[Ms. Toad]

37. Thank you. n/t

[onecaliberal]

39. People with disabilities have every right to live their lives like everyone else.

[Iggo]

40. I had to hide that thread.

Last time this happened (when they were making fun of the little girls with bad haircuts) I lost quite a few old-timers.

This time, I'd rather not know.

[Ms. Toad]

42. And that's almost as much of a problem

If threads expressing non-progressive opinions are so common/acceptable that DU members hide them (but otherwise tolerate them) - meaning there is no feedback loop that they are out of the main of DU opinion, then those of us not hiding them get the feedback (from the lack of response) that DU, more generally, finds such opinions acceptable.

[Iggo]

61. I usually wade right in, but this one was too close to home.

My 3-yr-old nephew has autism.

He can get loud.

We eat in restaurants.

[Ms. Toad]

70. I hear you.

I have a nephew (slightly older) with autism - and before he was diagnosed a lot of people were pretty publically shaming his mom for not making him behave.

[people]

41. Public spaces and persons with disabilities

That child and your friend, of course, have every right to be wherever anyone else is. I think part of some peoples' discomfort around people with disabilities is simple fear - on some level they think what if that happened to me or to my child? I think it's very important that people with apparent disabilities (as opposed to most of us whose disabilities are invisible) be out and in public, not only for them, but for everyone else. We are all more human when we understand how varied we are. Thank you for bringing this up.

[Buzz cook]

43. Didn't read the thread except to see that

it was Outback.

Outback is a shit restaurant with pretensions to adequacy. When its crowded it is quite loud and that help distract from the food.

Outback is also a favorite of sports teams. When they are there celebrating their middle aged sports ball achievements it is louder still, and much more obnoxious.

If an adult or child is too loud for Outback, where's the harm? Its not like people go there for a quiet romantic evening.

So I say take the stick out of your ass, show some joie de vivre, and eat you over seasoned mid quality animal flesh.

[Ms. Toad]

44. I haven't been to Outback more than twice -

I can only specifically remember once - but that would be my general opinion as to the level of noise - and the likelihood of selecting it as a romantic rendevous. Which makes the responses I got even more out of place

[Tech]

45. It was a sincere question. I used to be in retail and restaurant management. I was

interested in the responses you got. I found most people accepting of differences in those around them. I had occasions that people wanted to be sat in the no kids section (no such thing of course) I had people request white servers. I had people upset at those who spoke spanish. I had people who did not want gay servers. These requests and complaints were not often, and a simple no would suffice. They may not come back in, but that was ok. I never had anyone complain about someone who was special needs in any way.

As to intolerance here, I don't think people mean offense when they react in a less than pc way. I usually ignore it, sometimes I will post something. I know I have slipped at times. I have biases as do most. But I have cheered those who call out others. And I have learned from others. But human nature is many feel better about themselves by putting down others.

I guess I now look at du as a cross section of society. And yes, I have seen fat shaming, gay bashing, elder as well as youth intolerance. Some people still like to bash smokers, fast food workers, and anyone who knows less than the 6 languages they know.

But I find most who post here to be sincere in their concern as to what is happening in our country and the world. There are people here you may not like. I started using ignore in the past couple of months. I do not want those few people to drive me away from here. And a few may be trolls. Some may have put me on ignore, and I applaud them for doing so. I am not every person's cup of tea.

I do hope you stay, you have much of value to add. Or take a break. It helps. And thank you for making us all a little more aware.

[rufus dog]

46. My take - and I didn't even venture into that other thread

Shocked that it has stayed up top for so long.

But I read the topic and thought, who fucking cares.

1. It is Outback, not a quiet place to begin with.
2. So some kid is making noise, if it was a kid misbehaving then maybe I would care, likely not. Since it is a special needs kid I would just smile, eat my bad steak, and throw back of Fosters.


So you are listening to the 20% of the people who want to make a big deal out of something. Focus on the 80% who are fine with a special needs kid going out to dinner at a chain sit down restaurant.

p.s., if I had a choice between Olive Garden and Outback, i would likely pick Olive Garden!

[myohmy2]

47. bravo...

...for your enthusiasm, but where do you draw the line...

...if someone with special needs was defecating at the table next to you in a restaurant, would that be okay?

...and if you drew the line anywhere, why would where you drew the line be better than anyone else?

...no one has a God-given right to offend...(except maybe trump)

...

[jberryhill]

48. One thing I've noticed over a long period of observation

...is that DU is a magnet for persons of a certain ilk peddling alternate realities which superficially appeal to persons of generally leftish political orientation, but if you scratch beneath the surface on one or another social issue, they expose themselves as remarkably reactionary.

And, no, I will not elaborate.

[still_one]

55. +++

[zaj]

49. "should also be treated as misbehaving and excluded"?

I would say "might be justified to be treated as disruptive (but certainly not misbehaving)" and "might be justified in being excluded."

It's a business that serves customers, who can go somewhere else if they, collectively, find the behavior overwhelming. It all depends on the details of the situation.

The owner, and manger have a job to do to keep the business attractive to the customers.

[Ms. Toad]

88. And here it is - right here in this thread.

First - legally - you are wrong. Places of public accommodation must accommodate people with disabilities, and they cannot withhold accommodation based on others' discomfort.

If my friend with CP is too disruptive because (1) his vocalizations are louder than average, (2) his vocalizations are somewhat explosive at times, and we'll even add that (3) he cannot always prevent drooling - the restuarant "might be justified in excluding him" in order to keep other customers.

You are aware that is the precise reasoning used to exclude blacks from places of public accommodations, women from all male spaces, etc. right?

It is illegal to exclude people with disablities (especially based on ohters' discomfort) and offensive - to suggest they should be excluded.

Once again - I'm appalled to see this belief being expressed on DU.

[zaj]

92. Not trying to appall you...

I accept your comments.

I'll start by saying that I'm sure most situations we might come across will rarely rise to a point of a business owner considering the possibility of kicking a person out. At least that's my operating assumption in my mind.

The situation I'm imagining an extremely rare scenario, I admit.

But I propose it to force the discussion to the interesting and challenging point. One where the regular function of the place is in a near constant disruption when this customer is there, to the point where customers are leaving... And it's a recurring situation because the individual has repeatedly come in for dinner, each time causing similar disruption.

Which is to say, it's feeling like a dangerously unmanageable issue for the business.

With that admittedly *rare* context clarified...

What is the solution to the situation?

I don't think it's to ignore the problem, even though that's the fairest and kindest seeming act for the person with the disability.

Thoughts?

[Ms. Toad]

95. The legal solution - under the ADA - is that the customer cannot be

refused service - ESPECIALLY - because his disability disturbs others. The law not only prohibits refusing accommodations to people wtih disablities, but also to those perceived to have a disability if the reason for the discrimination is the perceived disability.

And, from where I sit, it is morally reprehensible to suggest it would be OK - in the same way it would have been morally reprehensible to suggest that an owner shoudl be allowed to exclude blacks because their constant presence was disturbing to the white customers.

The owner is free to try to find creative solutions short of excluding the person with a disability - or treating him differently. But the very premise of the law is to counter the temptation to cater to the majority's discomfort at the expense of individuals with disabilities.

[zaj]

98. That's not a solution...

I completely respect your defense of this issue and I accept your criticisms.

But your post doesn't address the problem.

What creative solution can you offer to help example owner keep from damaging his business under a "not kicking him out" scenario?

[Ms. Toad]

99. It absolutely is the solution (not only "a," but "the" solution)

The law is the law, the owner of the establishment is obligated to comply. Period.

Any creative solution must comply with the law, but the details will depend on the circumstances: the customers involved, the restaurant's physical configuration, the acoustics, etc.

If there is a private dining space, they could offer complaining customers the private dining space. If acoustics are good, they could offer complaining customers a space on the opposite side of the restaurant, or around a corner.

What they cannot do is exclude the person with a disability from the restaurant or provide them with less access because of the disability.

If they don't feel like being creative, they can turn themselves into something other than a public accommodations so their paying members don't have to be bothered by someone they perceive as "rif-raf." A private (paid) membership club that is not open to the public is not a public accommodation, and is not covered by the ADA. They can discriminate to their heart's content.

[zaj]

103. So here's an example...

(and thank you for your own example solution)

... You could argue that you aren't removing the person for the disability, but for the loss of business. Same way that Hooters can refuse to hire men to be servers.

The nature of the businesses and resultant failure would allow for the business to claim an exception from the law.

I'm not sure how feasible that would be legally, but if Hooters can make exceptions for excluding men for employment, there would be at least an argument to be made in this sort of case.


For the record, that is merely a legal argument. And it easily could be argued that it a morally bankrupt argument.

[Ms. Toad]

104. It is not a valid legal argument.

A number of years ago, I helped write the first draft of casebook on the ADA (Based on the author's current publication list, she does not appear to have published beyond the law school where it was used as a casebook for several years) In that context I gained more than a passing familiarity with the ADA. The entire purpose behind the ADA (as to places of public accommodations) is to ensure that people with disabilities cannot be excluded from places of public accommodations because of their disability - claiming that it isn't really because of the disability - it is because of the loss of business is no more legally sound that excluding blacks using the argument that is not because they are black, but because of the loss of customers (who refuse to share the same air space with blacks).

There is no valid legal argument to be made on that basis - it would be a pretextual argument. Those work in traffic stops, but not discrimination.

Gender discrimination - and employment discrimination - fall under a different body of law (civil rights act) and apply different standards than apply to access to public accommodations. However tenuous the argument seems, Hooters gets away with hiring only women as servers because it has been deemed is a bona occupational requirement. Rights to a particular job are less protected than rights to public accommodations. (Incidentally - people with disabilities have somewhat less protection as to employment - but that's not what the discussion is about - this discussion is about access to public accommodatiosn.)

[eShirl]

50. Don't you know us better than that by now?

try not to let a few grumps ruin your day

[WePurrsevere]

51. So basically they were saying, "We don't want 'your/that kind' around here"...

Their discomfort with someone's disability (no matter WHAT IT IS) is THEIR issue just as much as it is if their 'discomfort' came from being near a same sex couple holding hands, a woman wearing a hijab, a Latino family speaking Spanish to each other over dinner in a restaurant, a young black man in a hoody taking a short cut through an apartment complex, etc.

Instead of judging others and complaining about their 'discomfort' maybe they should take a good look inside themselves and try using a bit more empathy and strive to understand not judge and condemn.

I'm sorry that I missed that thread or I'd have spoken up sooner.

[Elmer1007]

58. Competing disabilities perhaps

I am 69 and wear hearing aids. When loud noises occurs, the hearing aid magnifies it as well and it becomes very painful. . A number of older friends now wear hearing aids. What do you do in the face of competing disabilites

[WePurrsevere]

69. My husband is in his kid 60s and is legally deaf now...

he's also disabled and in constant varying degrees of pain which tends to make him a touch snippy at times and yet I know for him, especially if it was a disabled child, the answer would be to turn his hearing aid down or off.

In a perverse twist of fate, I have hyper sensitive hearing and both very loud and high pitches cause me physical discomfort. I use ear plugs to help when in loud situations.

In the case of 'competing' disabilities for my husband and I the answer would be to figure out a compromise or be gracious and deal or get our food 'to go' and leave quietly. This is especially true when it's a disabled child involved. For us the feelings and needs of a disabled child will always take priority over our 'wants'.

[Ms. Toad]

72. It should be handled in a way that accommodates both parties,

with the least amount of disruption.

If the family (or adult with a vocalization disability) is there first, and you recognize it as you are being taken to a nearby table, you can ask to be seated in a different - less noisy - section because you need a lower background noise level to be able to hear. You can also be proactive - when you arrive at a restaurant you can ask to be seated in the location that will have minimal back ground noises - and (if possible) to not have later-arriving customers seated near you if it is apparent that they might be noisier than average.

My mother always sits in the indoor "patio" section of her retirement community's dining hall because the back ground noise inside the dining hall makes it impossible for her to hear the conversations at our table.

[obamanut2012]

84. That is what they said

If those kind cannot keep their mouth shut and be still, they need to stay home. It was appalling.

[handmade34]

52. stay...

I did not see your thread... I am vaguely aware of the issue and am dismayed that we are not a more patient, understanding society... we all need to help each other, not exclude or discourage

[Ilsa]

54. Outliers.

Most DUers are tolerant people. I have a special needs adult child like the one in the other thread.

I can't imagine a restaurant that markets itself to families being a romantic place. If you go to a family restaurant or any place kids are welcome, why would you expect an adults-only atmosphere? Sure, kids can learn to behave, but they are still kids, autistic or not. That chain restaurant was wrong to treat that family that way.

[Freedomofspeech]

56. I'm on your side with this...

Do not leave. This is my lifeline.

[ismnotwasm]

60. Didn't even open the thread

Having a special needs child in my life is a fairly recent occurrence. One of my grandsons has autism. He can get loud, throw fits, is just recently potty trained is mostly preverbal and is a big kid for his age, about 7. (His behavior is different than say, certain other types of special needs that can cause the verbalization needed for communion to be loud, which I’m guessing is the situation with that other thread)

There is nothing wrong with his intellect, he has autism.

He’s aware of how people respond to him.

My daughter doesn’t take him out among people very often, because many people suck. They’re judgmental, offer inappropriate advice, or flat out say shitty things. Going to a restaurant makes him
miserable. In settings where he sees the same people, over and over like church, he does a little better, although my daughter says people can be shitty there as well.

I adore that kid. I want to protect him from the assholes of the world, but I know I’ll not be able to.
It’s not just DU. It’s human kind. My daughter lives in a rural Trump voting redneck area.

I do know when I see a special needs kid or adult in public, I concentrate less on their behavior and more on my reaction, because I don’t want to be a shitty, selfish person. I want to be inclusive, not exclusive just because I get inconvenienced

[demmiblue]

71. This

I do know when I see a special needs kid or adult in public, I concentrate less on their behavior and more on my reaction, because I don’t want to be a shitty, selfish person. I want to be inclusive, not exclusive just because I get inconvenienced

[Ms. Toad]

73. People can definitely be judgmental.

Nothing I can find about the incident in question suggested misbehavior, but the "don't take your child to sit-down restaurants if they can't behave" meme is out in force.

That's why I tried to flip the scenario to being about an adult - expecting that - of course - no one would exclude an adult with similar vocalizations from a restaurant. It never occurred to me that people would also suggest an adult with disabilities that caused louder than normal vocalizations should be excluded. But they did - every response. It was only 3 responses, but since I had expected none it was quite a wake-up call.

[ismnotwasm]

75. It's very sad

My grandson will run off if he’s in distress and one of us will chase him. My daughter got so tired of unsolicited advice she relies on his level of discomfort, not anyone else’s, whether she stays or goes.

Adults with certain disabilities can also have hearing problems, which can cause loudness. People can be huge jerks

[Ms. Toad]

89. That's pretty much what my great-niece does with her son

Although his running off is not necessarily in distress. We try to keep an eye on him and gauge whether the distance is distress or just self-accommodating.

And - it's both my niece and her son's level of discomfort that determines whehter they stay or go.

[ismnotwasm]

96. +1

[stevil]

62. I don't think so

Even here at DU there are contrarians and insensitive people. My Mum worked with "special needs" (that was the term back in the day) children for a huge chunk of her life. I was a restaurant Manager most of my life and any guest with disabilities was accommodated and respected, just like all of my guests. I didn't click on that thread because when I saw it and the number of responses I knew someone was probably stirring shit. I trusted DU to right the wrongs, you should too.

[stevil]

64. I searched and read the thread you mentioned

There was quite a lot of shitty replies. Agree with you.

[SouthernProgressive]

63. I don't think the child or your friend should be excluded.

I trust the management of the places I go enough to feel comfortable they would remove anyone causing a disturbance.

[Lucid Dreamer]

65. Stick around, please.

This is selfish. I like reading your stuff.

[loyalsister]

68. I didn't see it

If I had I hope I would have offered support for you but I don't always speak up when I should.
I have seen as much casual ableism, homophobia, racism, misogyny, and religious bigotry here as I have in my local progressive circles. Whether it's ignoring accessibility needs or subtle disregard for the value of people by reinforcing a narrative of natural superiority based on bodily features and functionality having generally progressive ideas does not always mean that someone is going to get everything right.
I have found myself way outnumbered many times. The sentiment of discomfort as reason to ban people from public space was the basis for ugly laws. When it comes to including people with disabilities, we have not come very far.

[MicaelS]

74. I want to profoundly apologize for my post.

I was one of the three mentioned in the other thread.

I realize my post there was bigoted and completely ignorant. I was obviously not thinking clearly. I will leave it up to show how stupid some people can be.

[Ms. Toad]

90. Thank you!

I am always in favor of listening, learning, and growing. Thank you for taking steps to acknowledge and move forward!

[SlogginThroughIt]

77. Thanks for generalizing?

[Ms. Toad]

86. I'm not generalizing - I'm asking.

The responses in that thread, frankly, shocked me. And it shocked me even more that there was not a single WTF response after two individuals flat out said that my adult friend with CP did not belong in a sit-down restaurant if he could not keep quiet. The third response was, at least more measured - he didn't belong in a movie or other theater if he couldn't keep quiet.

The thread was on the front page for at least two separate time periods, including one after my responses to the first two offensive posts popped it back up (which garnered a third less offensive, but still offensive post) - and not a single response supporting the right of adults with disabilities to be present in whatever place of public accommodations they choose to enjoy (let alone the kid's rights).

I'm not sure what to make of that - other than to wonder if DU is compatible with my values any more. So I started a separte thread - sort of my own WTF thread just to see if that thread was an aberration, or an indication DU has left me - and it's time to acknowledge it and move on.

The responses in this thread raise a different kind of concern - a significant chunk of people advocating for either adults or children with disabilities who are too battered by the typical DU response to even speak up any more. Which is kind of where I am with LGBT issues.

[arthritisR_US]

78. If the manager had gone to the parents

table, he/she could have asked them if everything was ok and was the boy ok. They would have readily informed him/her of his condition. The manager could then have imparted that information to each of his/her staff in the back and then any complaining patrons could be informed of the boys condition. If they choose to not be understanding or even entertain decency and compassion, feck them, they’re sods plain and simple.

Disabilities teach us, they enlighten us and quite frankly they elicit compassion and respect for the challenge these people face daily and with dignity. Those made uncomfortable by being exposed need to check their humanity at the door because it appears to be lacking and it’s only showing them to be wankers, IMO.

[scarytomcat]

79. this topic comes up from time to time but disabilities is a new twist

ignore it
DU has so much more than discussions about parents and children acting up

[Bettie]

80. I suspect that the response would have been very different had

the disabled person involved not been a young child.

There are a LOT of people here who believe that children should never, ever be seen in public, much less heard.

I don't think it is a majority feeling on DU, but there are a very vocal minority who tend to pile on about stuff like that.

Disabilities are not always easily visible and disabled people shouldn't feel compelled to stay home because someone might feel uncomfortable.

I too was surprised that people were so angry, but I shouldn't have been. I think there is a lot of hostility out there in general lately and it doesn't always express itself in ways that are constructive.

[Ms. Toad]

85. That is precisely why I asked about my ADULT friend with CP

The responses that shocked me - and the reason I started this thread - were that even when talking about my adult friend, the ONLY three responses were 2 that flat out said my adult friend didn't belong in the restaurant, and a third that said he didn't belong in a movie or other theater.

[Bettie]

87. They are wrong

but there are always going to be people who think that their personal comfort is far more important than anything else.

It will be a terrible shock to them some day to find out that there are things about themselves that people find annoying or uncomfortable.

Your friend belongs wherever he chooses to go as does that child and family.

My personal opinion is that people who declare (usually dramatically) that their evening out was utterly destroyed by X, Y, or Z at a nearby table have made a choice to have their evening ruined and would have found another excuse in any case.

(I didn't see the part about your friend...I was skimming)

[obamanut2012]

81. I was appalled by that thread

And shocked at the people saying the things appalling me. And how the huge majority agreed with those views. They should all be ashamed, educate themselves, and apologize.
.
I am not disabled, but I agree with you. People basically were saying disabled people who can't keep their mouth shut should stay home and not disturb the public.

I also hope the family of that young man sues the fuck out of the Outback.

[demmiblue]

91. There were a couple of people who tried really hard to excuse their bigotry.

Totally not surprised at all by their comments.

When one spends years on FR... this is what they become.

[treestar]

94. Can't one stay on DU and still talk about it?

It is not needed for DU to have solid positions on everything. And there are many different issues. Why leave do to failure of total lack of agreement on one? And you could be mistaken as to the weight of such opinion on DU due to time of day/night, particular interest to respond to a particular thread. DU is full of liberals who sympathize with the disabled and I would doubt those are fewer in number than people who have the opinions you ran across. It is likely not possible to really poll that issue on a board like DU.

[Ms. Toad]

97. If advocacy of blatant discrimination is acceptable on DU

Then DU is no longer a place that is remotely aligned with my values. While I engage all the time with people who are not progressive in places other than DU. However - part of the reason I participate here is that it is a place grounded on some basic common values. One of them being that we don't think blatant discrimination is acceptable.

There may be places around the edges where we disagree as to whether an act is, in fact, discrimination. That is not the case here. People flat out said the restaurant should have the right to remove people with disabilities if their disabilities made other customers uncomfortable.

[kcr]

100. I didn't even go into that thread.

I knew it would be ugly. I totally understand. I think DU is just about the best it could possibly be when it comes to expecting understanding and compassion too, which is a sad and horrifying commentary on the world.

[guillaumeb]

101. Recommended.

Speaking as the father of a special needs adult, we take him nearly everywhere we go.

His taste in movies runs to animal movies and things generally of interest to the 4-7 year old age group, so when we go to movies that we want to see, we go when he is in his day program, but we always took him everywhere with us when we had family outings.

My response to those who suggest that they might be uncomfortable in the company of a special needs person would be:

What does that say about you?