H.I.V. 2 year old barred from pool (Right or Wrong?)

Started by Bardock427 pages

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is horrible that a two years old has that sort of sickness.But I can see why they ban him.I am not sure but it can spread if he is sharing the same water right?JM
No

Originally posted by Creshosk
Dude, I'm the one who's trianed to clean up that stuff, unless you're saying that people with medical training that came in and talked to us are wrong and that I'm supposed to take some schmuck(you) on a message boards opinion as truth. So what's your agenda? you got aids yourself, and desperatly want what you say, which contradicts the medics who talked to us, to be the truth?

Sorry kid, I'm going to listen to the people with the medical degrees, not someone I know nothing about.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I believe that the people who came to talk to you, told you to treat every circumstance as if you could get infected with HIV. I do not believe they told you it was actually at all, in the remotest sense likely.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Is there a chance to get HIV if you both have an open wound and those wounds touch each other?

United States Department of Vetrans Affairs National HIV/AIDS Program

Transmission via wound-to-wound contact, although theoretically possible is highly unlikely given the improbability of such a scenario and the small concentration of virus that is likely to be present . . .

Originally posted by Bardock42
[edit]Why the hell do I even argue that. The owner of the pool should have the right to not give service to whoever they choose. Especially if souch a case can be harmful for business.

The federal Americans with Disabilities Act protects people with disabilities, including HIV, from discrimination in every state.

For public services, not private I believe.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act protects people with disabilities, including HIV, from discrimination in every state.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can't comprehend what gives government the right to dictate to people who they can and can't provide service to

oh wait, they have the guns...

Remember, the thread is a question of morality, not of strict legality

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act protects people with disabilities, including HIV, from discrimination in every state.

What Ush and inimaly said...

Re: H.I.V. 2 year old barred from pool (Right or Wrong?)

Wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
For public services, not private I believe.
Correct. It also protects in matters of employment. Businesses still reserve the right to deny services to anyone for any or no reason. It is after all PRIVATE property and the Governemnt can not force you to do business with any given individual.

Alot of people forget that these protections we have is from the government. The freedom of speech for example protects you from government censorship. It does not give you the right to say whatever you want where ever you want for example.

If there is no way to contract the disease by letting the baby in the pool then it's wrong, but if there is, well I think it's right. I wouldn't want the people in my pool to catch the deadly disease.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
For public services, not private I believe.
Originally posted by Bardock42
What Ush and inimaly said...

Originally posted by Creshosk
Correct. It also protects in matters of employment. Businesses still reserve the right to deny services to anyone for any or no reason. It is after all PRIVATE property and the Governemnt can not force you to do business with any given individual.

Alot of people forget that these protections we have is from the government. The freedom of speech for example protects you from government censorship. It does not give you the right to say whatever you want where ever you want for example.

Department of Health: Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS

The Americans with Disabilities Act guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, government services, and telecommunications.

* A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, dentists' offices, hospitals, retail stores, health clubs, museums, libraries, private schools, and day care centers.

Discrimination is the failure to give a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use or enjoy the public accommodation's goods, services, or facilities. Examples of ADA violations would include:

[list][*]A dentist who categorically refused to treat all persons with HIV/AIDS.

[*]A moving company that refused to move the belongings of a person who had AIDS or that refused to move the belongings of a person whose neighbor had AIDS.

[*]A health club that charged extra fees to persons who were HIV-positive, or that prohibited HIV-positive members from using the steam room or sauna, or that limited the hours during which HIV-positive members could use the clubs facilities.

[*]A day care center that categorically refused admission to HIV-positive children or the children of HIV-positive mothers.

[*]A funeral home that refused to provide funeral services for a person who died from AIDS-related complications.

[*]A building owner who refused to lease space to a not-for-profit organization that provided services to persons living with HIV/AIDS.[/list]

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Shouldn't be that way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Shouldn't be that way.

It seems fair to me.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It seems fair to me.

Why? If you were the dentist being forced to provide services to anyone you don't want? I mean...it's your skill and business.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why? If you were the dentist being forced to provide services to anyone you don't want? I mean...it's your skill and business.

One forgoes this right by offering a public accommodation.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One forgoes this right by offering a public accommodation.

BULLSHIT

the needs of the state are not the motivation for the action of an individual.

really, what system rewards people who acquire skills by forgoing their individual rights?

Ethically I cannot support the idea of discrimination agaisn't HIV patients. On the other hand...I cannot also risk the safety and health of others in my property...even if the risk is minimal.

I'm split on this one.

Offering public accomodation is always an exception to the rule as I pointed out when specifying that place that was wanting to exclude non-gays was not a hotel.

But Adam's points are spectacularly irrelevant as this place that the thread is concerned with was not doing any such thing, and the general rule that the DDA does NOT apply to private businesses remains intact. Reading the text of it makes it very clear that it is mostly concerned with public services and access to facilities. In fact, I do believe Adam has carefully snipped out the part of the definition of 'public accomodation' that specifies this. Not good when you do that.

Despite the reference you quote above, Adam, the chances of prosecution or redress for this incident are zero. The fact of the matter is that many such organisations are not really covered by the act.

(Though they should refund the money that was paid to get in there. if you are going to refuse service, give the money back)

Clearly it's wrong to ensure that the other people using the pool don't get AIDS.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That's PUBLIC not PRIVATE institutions.

In case you didn't know federally owned things are PUBLIC. If owned by an individual it is a PRIVATE thing.

If an institution is owned by the state or government then its public. However as the pool was owned by a PRIVATE individual the ADA does not have authority here.

I'm disabled, I have temporal lobe epilepsy caused by brain damage.

Originally posted by Creshosk
That's PUBLIC not PRIVATE institutions.

In case you didn't know federally owned things are PUBLIC. If owned by an individual it is a PRIVATE thing.

If an institution is owned by the state or government then its public. However as the pool was owned by a PRIVATE individual the ADA does not have authority here.

I'm disabled, I have temporal lobe epilepsy caused by brain damage.

Hehe, brain damage, hehe, as if we didn't know.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One forgoes this right by offering a public accommodation.
Private businesses always have the right to deny ANYONE service for ANY reason.

You really need to learn the difference between Public institutions (those owned by the state) and Private institutions (those owned by private citizens).