A hate crime....

Daredevel7 said:
Everything has negative consequences. Honestly, it's a matter of which way/choice has less consequences. Would we have been better off without the ADA? What should have been different?

By the way, I think you made a mistake in the bolded. Did you mean unemployment rate increased? or the employment rate dropped?
Click to expand...

Yes thank you, Daredevel7 I meant to say employment!
 
DaveM said:
Creating a harsher punishment for firing someone like me, has prevented employers from taking the chance in the first place. It's true. Employment went down for the disabled after ADA was passed.

Lawyers refer to it as "rolling lawsuits."

That's not to say that there aren't good parts to it, which there are.

But sometimes the unintended negative consequences of a well meaning law outweighs the positive.
Click to expand...

There is no harsher punishment for firing someone like you under the ADA unless it is done specifically because you are disabled. That was illegal before the ADA.

Employment went down across the board about the same time the ADA was passed. Sorry, you have shown no cause and effect relationship.

There are millions of diabled persons who now hold jobs that would never have been given the opportunity were it not for the ADA and the assistance it provides employers in making accommodations for the diabled worker.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Everything has negative consequences. Honestly, it's a matter of which way/choice has less consequences. Would we have been better off without the ADA? What should have been different?

By the way, I think you made a mistake in the bolded. Did you mean unemployment rate increased? or the employment rate dropped?

Edit: Wanted to add more... have you checked the employment rate of the disabled TODAY? Is it still lower than before the ADA days?

Edit Again: Okay maybe not TODAY since unemployment rate in general is very high, but before the recession.
Click to expand...

Right. You can't use a simple timeline to show cause and effect.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Personally, I find it extremely strange that this man got a lot of flak from the gay community for being conservative. I definitely have encountered a lot more straight people who have complained about gay Christians than gay people complaining about gay conservatives/Christians. In fact, this is the first time I've ever heard of a gay person being upset over a gay Christian. Confused? Yes. Upset? Nope.

Honestly.... I think there's more to the story. (Isn't there always?)

However, I think it's awful that he got a beating. Hate crime? Sigh... I am pretty sure I know where you are going with this. If someone says "No it's not a hate crime." Then you obviously are waiting in the bushes to come out going "AH HA!! HYPOCRITE!!!" You probably do have another response if someone does answer "Yes, it's a hate crime". pfft.

That's why you are not answering the "yes or no" questions now. You are waiting till people respond so that you can "prove" something.

Don't feel like answering your question. :D
Click to expand...

Did you see how I am in the affirmative with DaveM? I see it as a double jeopardy type of situation calling it as a "hate crime." I've repeated this before.
 
kokonut said:
Did you see how I am in the affirmative with DaveM? I see it as a double jeopardy type of situation calling it as a "hate crime." I've repeated this before.
Click to expand...

Hate crime laws do not create double jeopardy.:roll:
 
jillio said:
Right. You can't use a simple timeline to show cause and effect.
Click to expand...

Jillio, I quickly searched for a chart showing unemployment rates. I purposely picked this from 90-95 to take the current recession and the earlier one out of the equation:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n1/deleire.pdf

It's a good and interesting read, even if you disagree.

And in all fairness it does come from the libertarian think tank CATO institute, so you know there is a small government bias. But the employment numbers are legit.
 
Last edited:
DaveM said:
Jillio, I quickly searched for a chart showing unemployment rates. I purposely picked this from 90-95 to take the current recession and the earlier one:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n1/deleire.pdf

It's a good and interesting read, even if you disagree.

And in all fairness it does come from the libertarian think tank CATO institute, so you know there is a small government bias. But the employment numbers are legit.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't hurt to have more up to date info, though. Last week I helped a friend write his Masters thesis on percentages of certified and non-certified teachers who quit after their first year, and I used the years of 1999 to 2001 since that was all I could find. I fear the prof will notice. :lol:
 
DaveM said:
Jillio, I quickly searched for a chart showing unemployment rates. I purposely picked this from 90-95 to take the current recession and the earlier one:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n1/deleire.pdf

It's a good and interesting read, even if you disagree.

And in all fairness it does come from the libertarian think tank CATO institute, so you know there is a small government bias. But the employment numbers are legit.
Click to expand...

You see a disproportionate number of disabled being shown as unemployed simply because they are disproportionate in the population of working age. Likewise, the numbers do not separate the permenantly unable to work disabled from the employable disabled.

Employment drops for any number of reasons. Unless you did an in depth, controlled statistical analysis on all of the social and economic conditions that could have been responsible for a drop in employment overall, there is no way that you can determine cause and effect for the claim that the ADA caused employment drops for the disabled. The disabled may have shown a drop for the very same variables responsible for drops overall. You simply do not know without the extensive statistical analysis.
 
Beowulf said:
It wouldn't hurt to have more up to date info, though. Last week I helped a friend write his Masters thesis on percentages of certified and non-certified teachers who quit after their first year, and I used the years of 1999 to 2001 since that was all I could find. I fear the prof will notice. :lol:
Click to expand...

Probably not. Government statistics are usually 10 years behind in publication.
 
Wow! Somehow I have gotten off track with the whole big government or the ADA thing.

My main problem with a "protected class" in hate crimes is that the crime of "hate" becomes independent of the original act of violence.

There are so many unintended consequences of that. One being that the act of say using the first amendment to say things that are awful, but still protected, can be a crime in and of itself.

I am a first amendment purist. There is nothing more important than free speech. Even when we disagree.
 
DaveM said:
Wow! Somehow I have gotten off track with the whole big government or the ADA thing.

My main problem with a "protected class" in hate crimes is that the crime of "hate" becomes independent of the original act of violence.

There are so many unintended consequences of that. One being that the act of say using the first amendment to say things that are awful, but still protected, can be a crime in and of itself.

I am a first amendment purist. There is nothing more important than free speech. Even when we disagree.
Click to expand...

I am agreed on that one even when i get answers I don't want to hear.
 
DaveM said:
Wow! Somehow I have gotten off track with the whole big government or the ADA thing.

My main problem with a "protected class" in hate crimes is that the crime of "hate" becomes independent of the original act of violence.

There are so many unintended consequences of that. One being that the act of say using the first amendment to say things that are awful, but still protected, can be a crime in and of itself.

I am a first amendment purist. There is nothing more important than free speech. Even when we disagree.
Click to expand...

It was a pleasure reading your posts. Welcome to the madhouse.
 
DaveM said:
Wow! Somehow I have gotten off track with the whole big government or the ADA thing.

My main problem with a "protected class" in hate crimes is that the crime of "hate" becomes independent of the original act of violence.

There are so many unintended consequences of that. One being that the act of say using the first amendment to say things that are awful, but still protected, can be a crime in and of itself.

I am a first amendment purist. There is nothing more important than free speech. Even when we disagree.
Click to expand...

Again, hate crime laws do not create a protected class. We already had, and still have, a protected class. That is why the inequities that occur based on that protected class have to be addressed remedially through laws that cover things like hate crimes.

Re: the First Amendment...I am a firm believer myself. And disagreement does not have to create censorship. It is perfectly possible to disagree and remain civil while engaging in intelligent debate.
 
jillio said:
You see a disproportionate number of disabled being shown as unemployed simply because they are disproportionate in the population of working age.
Click to expand...

No. 10% less AFTER the passing of the law. That's a problem.

That means that before legislation that was supposed to help equalize the workplace, more disabled folks had jobs. And after the legislation was signed fewer and fewer disabled were able to find work.

If I tell a potential employer I have epilepsy prior to an interview, chances are he will pass me over because he/she now must accommodate me and if I am a poor worker I am very hard to fire.

And if I am fired, the employer is subject to a discrimination lawsuit.

So it becomes in the employers best interest to not hire me in the first place. I become a hassle.

It's not right, but unfortunately it's how it has become.
 
DaveM said:
No. 10% less AFTER the passing of the law. That's a problem.

That means that before legislation that was supposed to help equalize the workplace, more disabled folks had jobs. And after the legislation was signed fewer and fewer disabled were able to find work.

If I tell a potential employer I have epilepsy prior to an interview, chances are he will pass me over because he/she now must accommodate me and if I am a poor worker I am very hard to fire.

And if I am fired, the employer is subject to a discrimination lawsuit.

So it becomes in the employers best interest to not hire me in the first place. I become a hassle.

It's not right, but unfortunately it's how it has become.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid many in the Deaf community would be rather skeptical of that one. Unemployment is higher than in the average population.
 
DaveM said:
No. 10% less AFTER the passing of the law. That's a problem.

That means that before legislation that was supposed to help equalize the workplace, more disabled folks had jobs. And after the legislation was signed fewer and fewer disabled were able to find work.

If I tell a potential employer I have epilepsy prior to an interview, chances are he will pass me over because he/she now must accommodate me and if I am a poor worker I am very hard to fire.

And if I am fired, the employer is subject to a discrimination lawsuit.

So it becomes in the employers best interest to not hire me in the first place. I become a hassle.

It's not right, but unfortunately it's how it has become.
Click to expand...

But again, that does not separate the numbers of permanantly unemployable disabled individuals from employable disabled individuals. That fact alone artificially inflates the numbers.

A discrimination lawsuit regarding employment can be filed by those without protection under the ADA. Anyone can claim discrimination. Proving it under law is another story.

He has committed just as illegal an act by not hiring you based on your disability as he would be firing you because of it. That risk is the same.
 
jillio said:
Again, hate crime laws do not create a protected class. We already had, and still have, a protected class. That is why the inequities that occur based on that protected class have to be addressed remedially through laws that cover things like hate crimes.

Re: the First Amendment...I am a firm believer myself. And disagreement does not have to create censorship. It is perfectly possible to disagree and remain civil while engaging in intelligent debate.
Click to expand...

Jillio, I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one:lol:

I certainly understand your point.

I disagree because I feel that government is often more of a nuisance than a help in these matters.
 
Back
Top