Support NeoGAF

[Servbot24]

It is a stupid question because it shows a lack of understanding

By their very definition, questions are made from a lack of understanding. Don't shame someone for trying to learn.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

No you have no idea what you're talking about and implying meaning into my post to argue against. Show me where in my post, the one you quoted, where you somehow got the idea that I'm against the Civil rights act of 1964. The one that bans discrimination against protected classes which includes race. I don't remember anything in there about deaf people so please enlighten me.

Now since you're confident that Taco Bell is not in compliance with the ADA act I'm asking you to show me where specifically in the act they are not in compliance. I'm actually curious and would like to be educated.

If you're going to not respond to either of the 2 things I'm asking then at least don't argue against more things that I've never said.




See my above post regarding the Civil rights act of 1964. Protected classes are specifically spelled out. Was there an update to protected class?

The civil rights act is not the only place where protected classes are derived from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

They all fall under protected classes, from various different acts. You have to reasonably accommodate. Telling someone under a protected class that you are going to refuse them service is asking for a lawsuit.

 

[Aeana]

To those saying go inside: okay it's 1am and the inside is closed. Now what?

 

[this_guy]

When they stated they would only serve the customer "one time" at the drive-thru.

Again the customer can go inside if the doors aren't locked. Otherwise if the ADA act has something specific about drive-thrus I'm all ears.

To those saying go inside: okay it's 1am and the inside is closed. Now what?

Is that the original complaint? Was she harmed because she was trying to order at late night hours? She's using for damages so I'm assuming there was harm.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The drive-thru isn't the only way to place an order at Taco Bell. I've ordered inside before.

If they locked the doors on her because she is a deaf person then you can say they denied her access.

So in that case, they could restrict her to using the bathroom and nothing else, right? She's still allowed inside, she's just not allowed to do anything else because of her disability.

To those saying go inside: okay it's 1am and the inside is closed. Now what?

"Fast food isn't a right!"

 

[Sanjuro]

To those saying go inside: okay it's 1am and the inside is closed. Now what?

Have the customer call stating there is poison gas coming from the restaurant that needs to be released.

Again the customer can go inside if the doors aren't locked. Otherwise if the ADA act has something specific about drive-thrus I'm all ears.

Why can't the customer use the drive-thru?

 

[Darth Karja]

I'm in Taco Bells drive through now and they have a sign saying for hearing impaired customers to pull to the window.

 

[this_guy]

So in that case, they could restrict her to using the bathroom and nothing else, right? She's still allowed inside, she's just not allowed to do anything else because of her disability.



"Fast food isn't a right!"

What????? Seriously, what??? Explain your post and how this is a logical argument. She can order inside, which is what my post suggested.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Again the customer can go inside if the doors aren't locked. Otherwise if the ADA act has something specific about drive-thrus I'm all ears.



Is that the original complaint? Was she harmed because she was trying to order at late night hours? She's using for damages so I'm assuming there was harm.

The ADA doesn' thave to have anything specific to drive thrus. The language is pretty clear that people with disabilities have to be reasonably accommodated for goods and services that are offered to those w/o disabilities. You can't tell people you will no longer serve them after a certain time because they are deaf or disabled. That's fucking textbook/open and shut discrimination. Whether or not that was in her original complaint, if that is the policy of Taco Bell, or this specific Taco Bell, they are not in compliance with the ADA.

 

[A Link to the Past]

What????? Seriously, what??? Explain your post and how this is a logical argument. She can order inside, which is what my post suggested.

Your argument is that discrimination is okay. For instance, if a same-sex couple aren't allowed at one restaurant, they can just go to one next door. It's the same thing.

 

[Raticus79]

i wanna know how to sign fire sauce

Two closed fists at the butt, and quickly do jazz hands.

Jazz hands are involved, assuming this is accurate

http://www.handspeak.com/word/search/index.php?id=799
+
http://www.handspeak.com/word/search/index.php?id=4054

 

[this_guy]

Your argument is that discrimination is okay. For instance, if a same-sex couple aren't allowed at one restaurant, they can just go to one next door. It's the same thing.

How does that imply that deaf people can only go to the bathroom?

Reasonable accommodation has to be made, and Taco Bell can still take her order inside.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

How does that imply that deaf people can only go to the bathroom?

Reasonable accommodation has to be made, and Taco Bell can still take her order inside.

Drive Thru's are offered out of convenience, so that people don't have to go inside if they don't want to. That convenience should be reasonably offered to every one of their customers. It's fast food, taking her order at the window, asking her to wait off to the side (like many fast food drive thrus including Taco Bell do any damn way on larger/longer orders) is not unreasonable in the least. Telling her she can't use the drive thru is unreasonable.

 

[this_guy]

The ADA doesn' thave to have anything specific to drive thrus. The language is pretty clear that people with disabilities have to be reasonably accommodated for goods and services that are offered to those w/o disabilities. You can't tell people you will no longer serve them after a certain time because they are deaf or disabled. That's fucking textbook/open and shut discrimination. Whether or not that was in her original complaint, if that is the policy of Taco Bell, or this specific Taco Bell, they are not in compliance with the ADA.

Technically, isn't the restaurant closed? This is a weak argument (but not as weak as most of the posts arguing against me).

Drive-thrus also don't take orders when people walk through the drive thru but no one bats an eye. Now of course they car-less people aren't a protracted class so they can't use.

But she's using for damages, so was she trying to order at those late night times?


* I'm arguing against this lawsuit because I think it's meritless. I don't care for Taco Bell, but the drive thru during late night hours is a valid argument.

 

[A Link to the Past]

How does that imply that deaf people can only go to the bathroom?

Reasonable accommodation has to be made, and Taco Bell can still take her order inside.

Reasonable accommodation is "all services offered to all people."

Technically, isn't the restaurant closed? This is a weak argument (but not as weak as most of the posts arguing against me).

Drive-thrus also don't take orders when people walk through the drive thru but no one bats an eye. Now of course they car-less people aren't a protracted class so they can't use.

But she's using for damages, so was she trying to order at those late night times?


* I'm arguing against this lawsuit because I think it's meritless. I don't care for Taco Bell, but the drive thru during late night hours is a valid argument.

So your argument is essentially that deaf people don't have equal rights to order fast food late at night?

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Technically, isn't the restaurant closed? This is a weak argument (but not as weak as most of the posts arguing against me).

Drive-thrus also don't take orders when people walk through the drive thru but no one bats an eye. Now of course they car-less people aren't a protracted class so they can't use.

But she's using for damages, so was she trying to order at those late night times?


* I'm arguing against this lawsuit because I think it's meritless. I don't care for Taco Bell, but the drive thru during late night hours is a valid argument.

What are you talking about? You are just rambling now. You are stuck on this one woman's specific instance. The point is that in a lot of these kinds of cases, it's shining a light on a greater problem, which is either Taco Bell as a company or this specific Taco Bell's policy on serving the deaf. This is why peopla are bringing up things like the restaurants hours. IT's really simple I'm not sure why it's so hard for it to stick with you: They need to offer the same level of service to disabled people as they do to anyone else. Apply this to whatever scenario or hypothetical involving late night hours or bathrooms or whatever you want.

 

[besada]

No you have no idea what you're talking about and implying meaning into my post to argue against. Show me where in my post, the one you quoted, where you somehow got the idea that I'm against the Civil rights act of 1964. The one that bans discrimination against protected classes which includes race. I don't remember anything in there about deaf people so please enlighten me.

I never said or implied you were against the Civil Rights act of 1964. I drew a comparison between one sort of protected class minority and another. Anything else you read from that was in your imagination.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not the end of civil rights, nor did it list all future protected classes. The federal protected classes have been changed multiple times, based on new civil rights legislation, of which the ADA is one piece. When it passed in 1990, disabled people became a protected class.

As I've already said, the ADA requires restaurants to "Make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures that deny equal access to individuals with disabilities, unless a fundamental alteration would result in the nature of the goods and services provided. " (from Title III of the ADA).

Furthermore, as I also pointed out, there has already been a court ruling on this specific issue (mentioned on the first page of the thread), which makes it pretty clear that Taco Bell is in the wrong here. You can find it at http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/985/165/1569414/ if you're really interested.

Finally, this lawsuit isn't just about not being able to use the drive-through, it's about Taco Bell management giving her a hard time at multiple stores, on multiple locations, including yelling at her and talking to her as if she were a baby at the window, and eventually just refusing to fill her order. All of this is in the initial article, although it does leave out the video she took of the manager being a giant asshole.

 

[this_guy]

What are you talking about? You are just rambling now. You are stuck on this one woman's specific instance. The point is that in a lot of these kinds of cases, it's shining a light on a greater problem, which is either Taco Bell as a company or this specific Taco Bell's policy on serving the deaf. This is why peopla are bringing up things like the restaurants hours. IT's really simple I'm not sure why it's so hard for it to stick with you: They need to offer the same level of service to disabled people as they do to anyone else. Apply this to whatever scenario or hypothetical involving late night hours or bathrooms or whatever you want.

She's using for damages so her specific case would apply.

 

[this_guy]

Reasonable accommodation is "all services offered to all people."



So your argument is essentially that deaf people don't have equal rights to order fast food late at night?

It's that deaf people can only use the bathroom. You still haven't properly explained yourself.

I've said not being able to order late at night is a valid issue like other posters have brought up. Her specific suit is for damages though.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

She's using for damages so her specific case would apply.

She is suing for damages to bring the suit. And I'm not saying her specific case wouldn't apply, I'm saying it's not the end-all/be-all. It's bringing attention to either this restaurant chain, or this specific restaurant's policy on serving disabled people. Saying "she can just go inside" is not only not a defense in terms of the ADA, and not really address the problem (i.e. what about late night hours?) but also incredibly shitty.

 

[Volimar]

this_guy I want to believe that you're not being purposely obtuse, but maybe you should step back from the thread for a bit, maybe reread what others have written. You're not on the right side of this.

 

[A Link to the Past]

It's that deaf people can only use the bathroom. You still haven't properly explained yourself.

I've said not being able to order late at night is a valid issue like other posters have brought up. Her specific suit is for damages though.

What makes it okay to limit her in the way that you propose (ie drive-thru), but not in the way I propose (bathroom)?

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I've said not being able to order late at night is a valid issue like other posters have brought up. Her specific suit is for damages though.

So what you are saying is that Taco Bell should figure out a way to accommodate her deafness via drive thru during the late-night hours, but can't apply this same policy during the day so that deaf people can use the drive thru even if the restaurant is open, for the same reasons anyone else would rather just use the drive thru (speed, convenience?) This makes no sense.

 

[johnny956]

The ADA doesn' thave to have anything specific to drive thrus. The language is pretty clear that people with disabilities have to be reasonably accommodated for goods and services that are offered to those w/o disabilities. You can't tell people you will no longer serve them after a certain time because they are deaf or disabled. That's fucking textbook/open and shut discrimination. Whether or not that was in her original complaint, if that is the policy of Taco Bell, or this specific Taco Bell, they are not in compliance with the ADA.

I'm amazed people don't understand the basic concept of this

 

[this_guy]

this_guy I want to believe that you're not being purposely obtuse, but maybe you should step back from the thread for a bit, maybe reread what others have written. You're not on the right side of this.

I think the not being able to order late night is a valid point. I also don't think it's unreasonable to go in and order when the doors are open. (I also think it's unreasonable for someone to order 6 value meals in the drive through but that's besides the point).

Since she's making a lawsuit out of this that's why I'm asking if she was trying to order at night and hence she was "harmed". The straw man arguments being brought up are quite ridiculous.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I think the not being able to order late night is a valid point. I also don't think it's unreasonable to go in and order when the doors are open. (I also think it's unreasonable for someone to order 6 value meals in the drive through but that's besides the point).

Since she's making a lawsuit out of this that's why I'm asking if she was trying to order at night and hence she was "harmed". The straw man arguments being brought up are quite ridiculous.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to tell a certain group of people that they aren't allowed to order through drive-thru while others are.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I think the not being able to order late night is a valid point. I also don't think it's unreasonable to go in and order when the doors are open. (I also think it's unreasonable for someone to order 6 value meals in the drive through but that's besides the point).

Since she's making a lawsuit out of this that's why I'm asking if she was trying to order at night and hence she was "harmed". The straw man arguments being brought up are quite ridiculous.

And you still haven't answered why it matters? If they can or should figure out a way to serve deaf people at night (as it seems you do believe) why can't they apply this same policy during the day?

 

[this_guy]

What makes it okay to limit her in the way that you propose (ie drive-thru), but not in the way I propose (bathroom)?

She can still order. Your argument about the bathroom would be if Taco Bell forced her to per outside.

 

[A Link to the Past]

She can still order. Your argument about the bathroom would be if Taco Bell forced her to per outside.

So she has the exact same rights to order as every other customer?

Seriously, you are being entirely daft. There is more than simply food that is offered by a restaurant. There's also services - like the drive-thru.

 

[Soroc]

...The stupid, it burns.

Some people just lack empathy for the deaf woman, she did nothing wrong and it's Taco Bell who are in the wrong in failing to accommodate her needs.



Hi deaf person hear and yes I can actually drive.



It is a stupid question because it shows a lack of understanding and as for sirens you do know that they have flashing lights as well so we deaf people use our common sense to move over.

Plus I observe my surrounding so when I see emergency vehicles I check to see if other cars are moving to allow access.

Ha, I knew I would be shunned for asking the question. Well thanks anyway for educating me on the matter since I've never known a deaf person.

 

[this_guy]

And you still haven't answered why it matters? If they can or should figure out a way to serve deaf people at night (as it seems you do believe) why can't they apply this same policy during the day?

I've said ordering late at night is a valid issue. I've also said I don't think it's unreasonable for her to order inside. The ADA requires reasonable accommodations, and I think ordering inside is still reasonable. Others see this as unreasonable and this is where we differ. (Except the late night ordering which Taco Bell would need to address).

I don't agree with her lawsuit for damages unless she actually was damaged. Telling her to order inside is not harming her if the restaurant was open. I know you're going to ask "but what about if it was closed?" Well that's why her specific instance matters because if she was there during the day then I don't agree with the lawsuit. If it was late night ordering then sue away and let the chips fall where they may.

Taco Bell will have to address the issue of serving deaf people late night. Some of you people are expecting me to come up with the solution for Taco Bell.

 

[A Link to the Past]

"Reasonable accommodation" does not translate to "fewer rights arbitrarily."

Are you suggesting that it's okay that a deaf person in a hurry should not have convenient access to the drive-thru lane? Why should a deaf person have to do more than all other people do?

 

[this_guy]

So she has the exact same rights to order as every other customer?

Seriously, you are being entirely daft. There is more than simply food that is offered by a restaurant. There's also services - like the drive-thru.

She has the same "rights" as everyone else. Her disability will cause her experience to differ from others, and at this point it's up to whether Taco Bell has met reasonable accommodation expectations. Since everyone on GAF is a law expert and says they haven't met reasonable accommodation expectations I guess that's the way it is.

And please don't try to insult people when you brought up a straw man argument that was ridiculous. Equating anything I've said to "only allow deaf people to use the bathroom and nothing else" is daft.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I've said ordering late at night is a valid issue. I've also said I don't think it's unreasonable for her to order inside. The ADA requires reasonable accommodations, and I think ordering inside is still reasonable. Others see this as unreasonable and this is where we differ. (Except the late night ordering which Taco Bell would need to address).

I don't agree with her lawsuit for damages unless she actually was damaged. Telling her to order inside is not harming her if the restaurant was open. I know you're going to ask "but what about if it was closed?" Well that's why her specific instance matters because if she was there during the day then I don't agree with the lawsuit. If it was late night ordering then sue away and let the chips fall where they may.

Taco Bell will have to address the issue of serving deaf people late night. Some of you people are expecting me to come up with the solution for Taco Bell.

Holy shit you are dense. If they can come up with a solution for serving deaf people during late night hours, WHY CAN'T THEY APPLY THIS SAME SOLUTION DURING THE DAY? There would be nothing reasonable about them trying to say "Well we do this certain thing at night, but we can't do it during the day"

 

[A Link to the Past]

She doesn't have the right to go through drive-thru, that's actively a false statement on your part. Your argument essentially rests itself on declaring that the drive-thru isn't a right.

Also, the comparison is valid. You still haven't explained why it's okay to limit rights in one way, but not another. Why can a person be excluded from one service, but not another? Or instead, why can a person be excluded from only one service, but not many?

 

[this_guy]

"Reasonable accommodation" does not translate to "fewer rights arbitrarily."

Are you suggesting that it's okay that a deaf person in a hurry should not have convenient access to the drive-thru lane? Why should a deaf person have to do more than all other people do?

Deaf people already have to do more than others. It's almost as if, get this, they're at a disadvantage versus others. So businesses have to make reasonable accommodations. Ordering inside is reasonable to me as I've ordered inside many times before. Reasonable accommodation is subjective.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Deaf people already have to do more than others. It's almost as if, get this, they're at a disadvantage versus others. So businesses have to make reasonable accommodations. Ordering inside is reasonable to me as I've ordered inside many times before. Reasonable accommodation is subjective.

Wow

That's, wow

That's something that bad people say. "They already have it hard, it's okay to make it harder." Cool, cool cool cool

Seriously, that's legitimately mortifying.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Deaf people already have to do more than others. It's almost as if, get this, they're at a disadvantage versus others. So businesses have to make reasonable accommodations. Ordering inside is reasonable to me as I've ordered inside many times before. Reasonable accommodation is subjective.

LMAO the deaf person is not the one that has to make an accommodation. The restaurant sayign to deaf people "You have to order inside" is not an accommodation. The restaurant saying "When we get deaf customers coming inthrough the drive thru, we will take their order at the window and then ask them to pull off to the side and walk their orders out (which is a practice we do anyway) is an accommodation. Telling a deaf person they cannot use the drive thru and should just go inside is them reasonably accommodating the restaurant, not the other way around. How is this so hard to understand?

 

[A Link to the Past]

What if it's a deaf person who is paralyzed from the waist down

Nah, they don't need drive-thru.

 

[malfcn]

To those saying go inside: okay it's 1am and the inside is closed. Now what?

I answered on the first page.

Taco Bell has an app that lets you order and pay and pick up in drive thru. Just have to roll up and say your name.

I do it often, because you can customize the order and there are normally discounts.

Assuming people have smart phones.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I answered on the first page.

Taco Bell has an app that lets you order and pay and pick up in drive thru. Just have to roll up and say your name.

I do it often, because you can customize the order and there are normally discounts.

Assuming people have smart phones.

Does everyone have to do this?

 

[Demoskinos]

The app let's you order, pay and pick up inside or in drive through.

Bingo.

 

[malfcn]

Does everyone have to do this?

Nope. They should be able to help at the window.

I'm was just answering with a particular solution.

 

[A Link to the Past]

LMAO the deaf person is not the one that has to make an accommodation. The restaurant sayign to deaf people "You have to order inside" is not an accommodation. The restaurant saying "When we get deaf customers coming inthrough the drive thru, we will take their order at the window and then ask them to pull off to the side and walk their orders out (which is a practice we do anyway) is an accommodation. Telling a deaf person they cannot use the drive thru and should just go inside is them reasonably accommodating the restaurant, not the other way around. How is this so hard to understand?

To answer your question, it's hard to understand because the poster couldn't even begin to understand what it's like to be discriminated against.

 

[thedan001]

I've been deaf since birth due to genetics, I'm 31 now. This Taco Bell is in violation of the ADA, sad that it has to end up in a lawsuit but it happens sometimes.

I've been using the drive-thru for many years, I use the app almost always but sometimes when the app is unavailable for whatsoever reason (app down for maintenance or the location not servicing the app) I've tried to be reasonable with the coworkers because I'm aware about time restraints. The least I can do is meet them halfway and let them know I can wait in the parking lot and have them bring it out to me outside. (I write this down on a note and give to them at the window) This usually occurs because the dine in lobby/ counter is closed but the drive thru is still open.

9/10 times the fast food workers are pleasant and understanding of me being deaf and I've always shown my appreciation because it isn't easy when I'm denied services or left out on something that is easily accessible for hearing people, it gets frustrating.

Someone already pointed it out, my Taco Bell has a sign saying to pull up to the window if you are hearing impaired, this Taco Bell is either misinformed or ignorant, it happens.

On another note, technology advancements have been awesome for deaf people, I can freaking order a pizza myself online with Internet or apps and have it delivered when in 1990's I had to ask someone to call for me.

 

[malfcn]

The location, franchises etc. are clearly clowns. My first suggestion was the app, but if she is writing her order down for them (as article says), then what is the problem. Sounds like unreasonable assholes.

I am in retail and have several deaf customers that I interact with. I try to be as polite and patient as possible. If I listen carefully I can usually understand what they are saying. If not, either of us will write out or text things back and forth. I've also learned their names for our rewards system.

It's not hard to treat someone else like a human being.

 

[Two Words]

I think they should just take the order and bite the bullet that it is going to probably hurt the pipelining of their workflow.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

On another note, technology advancements have been awesome for deaf people, I can freaking order a pizza myself online with Internet or apps and have it delivered when in 1990's I had to ask someone to call for me.

As a developer this makes me happy.

 

[The Faceless Master]

yep. i can totally believe that people are defending this.

smh.

i really hope she wins and after them losing tons of money all major restaurants take notice and train their employees that they're not allowed to be assholes to deaf people.

 

[TheSeks]

By their very definition, questions are made from a lack of understanding. Don't shame someone for trying to learn.

I'll jump in. Me being an asshole is mostly due to being frustrated because I literally get asked that sort of question near daily. It's gotten tiring.

It's like asking a blind person "do blind people have sex?" Uh, yeah... just like you.