> make special amendments for some people?

This one. You make reasonable accommodations for people who can't follow the normal rules. This is how the ADA is worded - employers have to make reasonable accommodations as long as it doesn't prevent the person from doing their job.

How do you define reasonable?

How do you justify making accommodations just for some people? Why not for all? Rights should be equal, not based on any discriminatory criteria.

So are you against handicap parking?

You define reasonable by using reason. You examine the situation and try to see if you can make an accommodation for the person that lets them do their job while not sacrificing performance. If you can, you do it.

You justify making these accommodations because you realize that there are some people who have conditions that make following the same routines that most people do impossible. We also realize that if you let everyone have those accommodations, it will not be sustainable, so you grant special rights to certain people based on this.

The handicap parking is a perfect example. Or pre-boarding flights for people in wheelchairs. Obviously you can't give everyone handicap parking, because that is the same as giving no one handicap parking. Some people can't travel as far, so we let them get the spots up front.

Same with pre-boarding. If everyone pre-boarded, it would just be boarding. But we also know that some groups need more time and space to board, like people in wheelchairs. So we let them board early.

I never understand this attitude that we aren't allowed to accommodate people who have hardships because it is unfair on people without those hardships. Like, what? The unfair part is that they HAVE the handicap in the first place, we are just trying to make it a little more fair.

Life isn't fair, so we make laws that are a little unfair in the opposite direction to try to even it out.

You're comparing two different things though. Not everyone can have the closest parking space, but couldn't everyone attend the meeting remotely?

If you add the capability to do it then I can give you a thousand reasons why someone should need it. They could be photosensitive and need to avoid sunlight, or agoraphobic, or have children they can't leave home alone, or follow a religion that requires them not to look upon an uncovered woman who is not their wife. They could be poor and unable to afford the travel, or live far away from the meeting place.

By the time I'm done listing reasons, there won't be anybody left without one.

The same is true for parking spaces, but giving everyone the closest parking space is not an option. How is allowing anyone to attend remotely not an option?

For this particular case, I don't know. Someone who set the policy would have to articulate why they thought it was important. Once they have articulated that, we can decide where the line should be for who gets the exemption and who doesn't.

It is not an absolute formula. You have to use judgement, and sometimes you are going to get it wrong on the boundaries.

That's the "all lives matter" argument. The problem with it is that rights are not distributed equally, they are biased towards the privileged. Making special accommodation for someone with a disability isn't giving them special rights, it's leveling the playing field that is tilted against them.

Reasonable in this case means providing a way for them allowing them to do their job in spite of their limitations. The "privilege" they are being granted is being able to work at all, which is a privilege most people have naturally and take for granted.

It's not discriminatory to meet someone's disability related needs. You don't have those same needs. It gets old seeing people without those needs say "it's not fair". Nobody would choose a disability to get some some perceived "perk" which is nothing of the sort in reality.

> How do you define reasonable?

The courts do it. And they’ve been doing it ever since the ADA was passed. It’s a system that seems to work quite well.

No no no.

You want to make disabled people unfit? OK, change the Wisconsin Constitution. (Even if you did, I'm pretty sure it'd be illegal under ADA? But I might be mistaken about that?)

In any case, until you do, if the people vote in a disabled person, then that person is the lawmaker representing those people. Full stop.

We don't just get rid of someone else' lawmaker because we don't like something about him or her. The law likes something about that person, and that's the fact they were elected.

You can't tell people who they can and cannot vote for. Or rather, you can, but you have to do it explicitly in the Constitution. (At least in Wisconsin you do.)

The right and obvious solution is to make special accommodations for people with special needs.

That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious.

The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.

You have the same right to accommodation when/if you are ever disabled as anyone else. If you aren't disabled and don't need the accommodation to function normally or without medical complications then you aren't being deprived of anything.

What are you gaining from removing disabled people from "everyone"? You're against protections for these people because it's not fair to you? Ever consider that your way is not fair to them and potentially any other arbitrarily defined group of people?

I gain a backbone. People with disabilities are a noble cause, but not an argument for inequality of rights. Consider that being equal is not discriminatory against any "arbitrary defined group of people", exactly opposite to your arbitrary rights.

Being equal can easily discriminate against anyone because your definition of equality does not match everyone else's. So, in your case, being equal means that handicapped people aren't treated equally. What if you set your arbitrary equality definition to only apply to white people? Now you're being equal by your personal standards again but you just regressed to the 1800s.

Your version of equality is worthless, your backbone is just an excuse to make yourself feel better.

Why can't we reverse your argument and say that "equality of rights is a noble cause"? Sure, we would of course prefer that, but barring that, I would absolutely prefer well-reasoned compromises for disabilities than nihilistic idealism.

Everyone enjoys the right that if you are unable to fulfill your job due to a disability, and a reasonable accommodation could be provided which would allow you to fulfill your job, you’re entitled to the accommodation.

"entitled" is starting an alarm to me. I know and lived some history.

Obvious failure modes of "equal treatment to everyone" include six year olds joining the army.

Oh oh oh. Can I play?

Everyone is entitled to enter a restroom or no one is. I can get behind that. No more multi-toilet rooms with stall gaps.

While I am strongly opposed to child labor and military conscription, a six year old can do a LOT of damage. I'd not want to face a squad of them on my best day.

Omg dude read about the ADA. You seem to have a deep misunderstand of things in the U.S.

I am not from or in US, I am from and in Europe. We see "equal" as it in the dictionary, not bent backwards.

https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1137 The current EU govt. appears to disagree with you. Care to give an example?

Wisconsin is in the US so US laws and regulations are what apply. Moreover it seems Europe also has similar legislation/protections for people with disabilities. This is equality. No bending necessary.