Disabled mortician student banned from handicap space at her apartment building because hearses are - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Spherithex;46045396]Wow okay ban for NSFW??i almost had a heart attack! [editline]jokesaside[/editline] Jokes aside though, this is pretty bullshit. What are they afraid of? That a corpse is gonna come walking out and lower property value?[/QUOTE] "Why are you late?" "Sorry, traffic was terrible." "How terrible?" "It was so bad my passenger got out and walked!"

[QUOTE=Riutet;46045821]I can understand why they banned it. It's so spooky that my hearse are standing up on end.[/QUOTE] Dad get off the internet

[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;46045464]ADA lawsuit, owners gonna get fukin owned, end of story.[/QUOte] Is the hearse a disability vehicle or just one she uses because of her practice? They're not banning the disabled from using the spot, they are banning the hearse from it. Doesnt qualify under ADA. She can get another vehicle and still use the spot.

Hearses are awesome, these people are a bunch of paranoid ninnies. Seriously, it's a bloody car. What, do they expect her to be bringing a zombie home in the back of it or something?

[QUOTE=Code3Response;46047086]Is the hearse a disability vehicle or just one she uses because of her practice? They're not banning the disabled from using the spot, they are banning the hearse from it. Doesnt qualify under ADA. She can get another vehicle and still use the spot.[/QUOTE] From what I gather it's her main and only vehicle.

[QUOTE=Crimor;46047103]From what I gather it's her main and only vehicle.[/QUOTE] If she does not want another vehicle, nor afford one, she can continue to use the non-handicap parking or find another apartment to live in. Apartment complex's have significant power of this type of stuff and if people say its scary, they need to act on it so they dont lose business.

[QUOTE=seano12;46045409]What's so spooky about that vehicle? I own one and use it to get to school. I get so many stares, but I don't care because I got it for cheap. Besides, I can sleep in it too.[/QUOTE] One girl I knew from High School had a boyfriend that drove one of these around. Rumor has it that they would fuck in it every now and again.

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;46047148]One girl I knew from High School had a boyfriend that drove one of these around. Rumor has it that they would fuck in it every now and again.[/QUOTE] There's more than enough room And those rails make great handles

Honestly hearses look pretty cool imo.

Even if she wasn't disabled this is fucking stupid.

This shit is way spookier [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Fiat_Doblo_front.JPG[/t] It's like a hears but for really fat midget people their fat will haunt you at night

[QUOTE=Code3Response;46047112]If she does not want another vehicle, nor afford one, she can continue to use the non-handicap parking or find another apartment to live in. [/QUOTE] Isn't that exactly where the ADA/lawsuit comes into play? Once a hearse is taken out of funeral service, it's simply another car. Heck, it's fully possible for a hearse to never even have a dead body in it. There comes a point when you just have to tell people to toughen up. It fits in a regular space, is not currently in service, and appears to be in decent shape. What is the big deal?

[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;46045669]Maybe because they are being discriminated against? Maybe because an Americasn with Disabilities Act lawsuit is completely justified in a case when somebody tries to illegally bar you from a disabled parking spot? Not every litigation is frivolous you know.[/QUOTE] How does it matter if she's disabled, the complaint was about her car and that it was parked nearby.

[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;46045669]Maybe because they are being discriminated against? [/QUOTE] The apartment is making a deal out of it because she's driving a hearse, not because she's disabled. Her being disabled is only relevant because she uses a handicap spot, it's not a basis for discrimination. If she were driving any other car it wouldn't be an issue.

[QUOTE=Un.Hxx.AÃƒÂ©;46047590]How does it matter if she's disabled, the complaint was about her car and that it was parked nearby.[/QUOTE] let me spell this out a girl [b]with a spinal disability that makes it hard to walk[/b], who already signed the agreement and began paying extra to park at the disabled parking spot of her apartment, is being told she not only can't use the handicapped parking spot, but [B]can't park the car anywhere on the premises[/B], aka "you can't even use our parking lot and [B]will have to walk from some other public space[/B]". they're breaking very real discrimination law regulations over a non-issue like this. [B]Random people's fragile sensibilities do not take legal precedence over her condition.[/B] They can buy her a new car or fuck off, she's a med student with a spinal condition [i]that makes it hard to walk[/i] who just signed into a new apartment, where the fuck is she finding any spare money and why should she be obligated to do anything to satisfy anonymous upset neighbors

[QUOTE=dai;46047757]let me spell this out a girl [b]with a spinal disability that makes it hard to walk[/b], who already signed the agreement and began paying extra to park at the disabled parking spot of her apartment, is being told she not only can't use the handicapped parking spot, but [B]can't park the car anywhere on the premises[/B], aka "you can't even use our parking lot and [B]will have to walk from some other public space[/B]". they're breaking very real discrimination law regulations over a non-issue like this. [B]Random people's fragile sensibilities do not take legal precedence over her condition.[/B] They can buy her a new car or fuck off, she's a med student with a spinal condition [i]that makes it hard to walk[/i] who just signed into a new apartment, where the fuck is she finding any spare money and why should she be obligated to do anything to satisfy anonymous upset neighbors[/QUOTE] ADA requires that businesses reasonably accommodate people with disabilities, and by providing a handicapped parking space they're doing that. But the ADA only requires that business owners make accommodations [i]for the disability[/i]. Her choice of vehicle is not part of her disability, and doesn't receive any special immunity from their rules. Allowing a hearse isn't making accommodations for her disability, it's making accommodations for her taste in cars, and they're not required to do that. Again, her being disabled has nothing to do with the complaint, which is that she's driving a hearse, and nothing about her medical condition requires that she drive a hearse. I'd hope that management would be understanding and try to work towards a better solution, but it is not discrimination to apply a rule to a disabled person that would apply equally to everyone else and isn't about their disability.

[QUOTE=catbarf;46048221]ADA requires that businesses reasonably accommodate people with disabilities, and by providing a handicapped parking space they're doing that. But the ADA only requires that business owners make accommodations [i]for the disability[/i]. Her choice of vehicle is not part of her disability, and doesn't receive any special immunity from their rules. Allowing a hearse isn't making accommodations for her disability, it's making accommodations for her taste in cars, and they're not required to do that. Again, her being disabled has nothing to do with the complaint, which is that she's driving a hearse, and nothing about her medical condition requires that she drive a hearse. I'd hope that management would be understanding and try to work towards a better solution, but it is not discrimination to apply a rule to a disabled person that would apply equally to everyone else and isn't about their disability.[/QUOTE] Her taste in cars shouldn't determine whether or not she gets treated fairly. Dai's right, they are required by law to let her use the handicapped space and whether or not they're required to accommodate her vehicle is irrelevant. She has a very real case against them should she choose to sue because the management of the apartment decided random peoples' opinions were worth more than [I]the law.[/I]

[QUOTE=catbarf;46048221]ADA requires that businesses reasonably accommodate people with disabilities, and by providing a handicapped parking space they're doing that. But the ADA only requires that business owners make accommodations [i]for the disability[/i]. Her choice of vehicle is not part of her disability, and doesn't receive any special immunity from their rules. Allowing a hearse isn't making accommodations for her disability, it's making accommodations for her taste in cars, and they're not required to do that. Again, her being disabled has nothing to do with the complaint, which is that she's driving a hearse, and nothing about her medical condition requires that she drive a hearse. I'd hope that management would be understanding and try to work towards a better solution, but it is not discrimination to apply a rule to a disabled person that would apply equally to everyone else and isn't about their disability.[/QUOTE] Nobody has any legal standing to bar her legal vehicle, with a legal handicapped status, from parking in a legally designated handicapped spot. Period. I do not know what you are finding so difficult to understand about this!

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;46045384][IMG]http://tribktla.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/hearse.jpg[/IMG] BOO[/QUOTE] spoked me guts of

[QUOTE=Explosions;46045443]With every post you become a bigger and bigger weirdo.[/QUOTE] Whenever I read his posts I think to myself 'he can't get any stranger, can he?' I have always been proven wrong.

Using a hearse as your every day car even if it is your profession is pretty goth

I'd fucking get a hearse if I could find one, all that space in the back would help a fuckton :v:

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;46048368]Her taste in cars shouldn't determine whether or not she gets treated fairly. Dai's right, they are required by law to let her use the handicapped space and whether or not they're required to accommodate her vehicle is irrelevant. She has a very real case against them should she choose to sue because the management of the apartment decided random peoples' opinions were worth more than [I]the law.[/I][/QUOTE] The law requires that they provide a handicapped parking space in addition to regular parking as part of the requirements for accessibility, but beyond that it doesn't infringe on their basic private property rights. For example, if a person with a disability parks in front of a store in a car with racial slurs painted in neon yellow on the sides, or in an oversized truck that is causing issues for other people trying to park, they can legally be asked to park somewhere else. Telling someone to leave because they have a vehicle you don't want on your property is legal and it's not discriminatory, regardless of how inconvenient it may be for the driver, unless your reason for telling them to leave is based on their being handicapped. By the same token, if you're handicapped and you park in a handicapped space on a parking lot marked for a specific business, and you leave it there and don't use that business, they can have you towed just the same as any other car. You're being towed because you didn't follow the rules on private property, and if you try to go to court to argue that you had a right under the ADA to park there so you could go to the business next door, you will lose. The business is following the ADA by providing handicap parking, but the fact that it is convenient for you to park there to use a different business does not supercede their right to tow anyone who uses their parking lot. Because an apartment complex is considered a residential dwelling, only the publicly accessible areas (usually parking, leasing office) are directly subject to the ADA, and the terms of their use are subject to the rules of the business. If there is a clause in her parents' rental lease that gives management the right to require vehicles parked on their property to abide by any restrictions set by management, then they can legally do that. If the lease, on the other hand, guarantees parking for all personally-owned vehicles, then they can't and this is grounds for a lawsuit. But that's a rental rights lawsuit, not an ADA or FHA one. [QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;46048415]Nobody has any legal standing to bar her legal vehicle, with a legal handicapped status, from parking in a legally designated handicapped spot. Period.[/QUOTE] That is absolutely wrong, because it is private property and as long as she is a tenant in the complex she is subject to their rules regarding parking. If their rule is no hearses, then they can enforce that rule and the ADA doesn't override that. If she takes them to court it will be over a breach of lease (if the lease guarantees parking), not over an ADA violation. Most residential complexes, actually, do not allow long-term parking of commercial vehicles. You can't park a commercially registered semi truck long-term at most apartment complexes, even if you get a handicap tag for it. Legal vehicle, legal handicapped status, legally designated handicapped spot- and plenty of legal standing to tell you to move it or get towed. A handicap pass is not carte blanche to park wherever you want whenever you want in whatever you want, you're still subject to the same restrictions as everybody else on private property, except that you can park in a designated spot. That's all it means. The decision to ban the hearse is not based on or influenced by her handicap status. It's because it's real creepy to the other tenants for her to be parking a hearse (with a coffin in the back, even) in front of their apartment, and whether that's fair or not the apartment complex can take action. The ADA is to protect people from being discriminated against on the [i]basis[/i] of being handicapped, and it is meant to provide basic standards for accessibility so that everyone can use public and commercial facilities. It is only meant to impose on the rights of property owners when absolutely necessary, not when it's merely convenient for the handicapped individual. Having a seeing-eye dog is necessary for daily life and can supercede policies that ban pets under the Fair Housing Act. Having a specific variety of commercial motor vehicle for no reason other than because you like it is not necessary and doesn't supercede policies that might ban it. If you don't want to take my word for it, I can give you plenty of precedent. I suggest you start with [i]Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett[/i], since it established the 'attitude' of the ADA regarding reasonable accommodation. I worked a few months last year on rotation in a federal office handling ADA, FHA, and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 701) compliance so I have plenty of notes. The law is not clear-cut, but through successive interpretation the limitations of the ADA have been set, and I'm pretty sure this falls outside the scope of what the ADA considers discrimination. Is it a dick move? Absolutely. Grounds for a lawsuit? Maybe. Discrimination? Probably not, and it's not so blithely simple that you can just slap DISCRIMINATION on any dispute involving a protected group.

[QUOTE=catbarf;46049672]a car with racial slurs painted in neon yellow on the sides[/QUOTE] Sorry, but I just can't take you seriously after you compared a fucking hearse to this. It's a fucking slightly longer stationwagon.

[QUOTE=Crimor;46049705]Sorry, but I just can't take you seriously after you compared a fucking hearse to this. It's a fucking slightly longer stationwagon.[/QUOTE] It's a car that a private property owner doesn't want on their property. It could just as easily be a Hummer taking up multiple parking spots, or the entire Westboro Baptist Church in a slogan-covered van, it doesn't make any difference. What it is and why they want it gone is not relevant. Are you going to address the rest or just get incredulous over what I thought would be obvious as an extreme example?

[QUOTE=catbarf;46049737]It's a car that a private property owner doesn't want on their property. It could just as easily be a Hummer taking up multiple parking spots, or the entire Westboro Baptist Church in a slogan-covered van, it doesn't make any difference. [highlight]What it is and why they want it gone is not relevant[/highlight]. Are you going to address the rest or just get incredulous over what I thought would be obvious as an extreme example?[/QUOTE] are you even trying to pay attention to your own points anymore They'd be fine to claim issue with cars that are: > covered in hate messages or targeted material because that's direct action aimed at others. It's pretty scummy to be throwing hate speech around as it stands, and on a lower note you need permission from locations if you're going to be leaving a car with messages like advertising on them on their premises for extended periods, IE parking while you're at home. You usually sign a contract for that. A business can take up issue with any messages written on vehicles because that's not a normal "just a car" thing. > vehicles taking up multiple parking spaces, [B]because that's exactly what you're not supposed to do with parking spaces[/B]. They're breaking a law. It's a direct action of asshole drivers, who can be asked to stop doing it or take themselves elsewhere. a tan sedan with a leather top is not a form of hate speech, advertising, and she isn't parking like an asshole. Anyone who takes it as a message are paranoid elderly people thinking the grim reaper is watching them. As a private establishment they reserve some rights to tell people not to park there, but it has to be with legitimate reason and all this bullshit will get overturned if taken to court. On top of that, they had already signed a contract with her regarding the handicapped parking space and she is renting from them. The complaints were about the hearse being right up front, so the decision was made entirely on the grounds that parking in the handicapped space was the issue, and they took it a step farther to say she couldn't park ANYWHERE in the lot. It was an indirect result of her handicap that had people noticing it so often, and the breech of contract plus the terms of where she now has to [i]walk from with a spinal condition that affects her legs[/i] brought about by this fact, are violations of her agreement to live at the location. It's discriminatory, not in some blatant way like someone didn't like handicapped people, but through the fact they're ignoring contract and conditions to play fashion police over a legally fine choice of cheap college student vehicle.

[QUOTE=Crimor;46049442]I'd fucking get a hearse if I could find one, all that space in the back would help a fuckton :v:[/QUOTE] well, get a fullsize SUV? I mean an american one. Or a van. My boss has a van that I can literally stand in. it's pretty friggin nice.