Quote:
Originally Posted by Etoile
...For the second part...no, of course it is not okay for a legal interpreter to provide "some" access. However, personally I cannot compare legal interpreting to religious interpreting...like I said, I do not know enough about religion. For me, it is not the same thing...a legal case is different from a religious service. However, I understand that many people feel being in Hell is just as bad (or worse) than being in prison. So for some people, it would be equally important. It just isn't a comparison that makes sense to me....
|
Is is "OK" to provide "some" access in
any setting (legal, religious, medical, educational, etc.)?
There are two separate aspects here.
1.
Ethically, from the consumer's viewpoint, it is never "OK" to provide partial or substandard access.
Ethically, religious settings should voluntarily hold the highest standards for interpreting.
2.
Legally, from the ADA viewpoint, not all settings are equal. The ADA, IDEA, and other legal entities have no jurisdiction over religious settings. In the eyes of the law, it's "OK" for churches to provide substandard access.
In my opinion, it doesn't even matter whether or not the interpreters think a particular setting or situation is less important. If the consumer feels that it's important to have full access, then
it is important.