I am sure we have had this topic in the past...of which my last post was ignored, but will copy and paste the information I used here...

"UK law draws a distinction between Equality of Provision and Equality of Outcome, particularly in respect to disability rights. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Equality Act 2010 make it clear that treating two people identically may not be sufficient to guarantee that they have been treated equally in law if the task, physical environment or service does not offer them equality of outcome. The law provides for disabled people to request the provision of 'reasonable adjustments' to ensure that they are able to access employment, services and the built environment with the same potential as non-disabled people."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination)

Saying rights are equal doesn't make it so in practice....you used women as an example, but I still believe their wages are less than men in the same positions...

I get the point you are trying to make, and the disabled was just the specifics given, but there is a difference between Equality of Provision and Equality of Outcome...saying it is fair, and putting the responsibilty on others to conform to expectations, differs from providing a situation that has equal oppurtunities.

I know disabled people have different requirements, but other groups have other requirements (such as women needing maternity leave, religious groups requiring prayer time, and this one I love because I have seen it in every job I work, smokers taking half a dozen breaks throughout the day to smoke [although that may not be a perfect example]). It is about giving people these requirements whilst not disadvantaging them.

I know, I only copied that section because it refers to the difference between equality of provision and equality of outcome...I am trying to point out, that by trying to treat people completely equal, it creates further problems...

Think about something like homeless people...lets say that the homeless shelters became open to everyone, and they provide food to anyone including the wealthy. Right there, you have equality in who they provide to, but what happens is that the homeless people in need no longer get as much (because the supply is being given out to more people). This doesn't create further problems, but what about employment services? Say everyone gets the opportunity to use these services, which mean they get flooded by everyone looking for work). This means the services become scarcer for homeless people, which means they will find it harder to get work, which means they struggle to provide for themselves. Does that homeless have equal rights, and being treated equal to everyone else? Some people have disadvantages that need to be overcome, whether it be through upbringing, genetic or religious, they have disadvantages that by treating them "equal" to everyone else means they have disadvantages that need to be overcome...I get what you are saying, and to an extent, I agree that it may have gone to far...employment for example, setting quota's isn't great....but things like charities or organisations that work towards helping those who need help should be encouraged (like trying to encourage a certain group with clearly lower tests scores improve their education...otherwise you are saying, "you cant have a job because you are too dumb" and then potentially denying education because they come from a poor family...it is counter-productive)...

Another example, and this one is being pulled straight from protecting minorities...China's One Child Policy (which I am not going to get into a debate on this here, it has its reasons, deal with it) allows for minorities to have 2 children in order to protect enthic diversity. Without this exception, ethnic minorities would be bred to extinction over time.

I would also like to ask how you deal with discrimination without having laws to protect groups against prejudice?

> The Yell wrote:

> ADA was stupidest law in American history

ordered all employers in USA to provide reasonable accomodation to the disabled

without defining reasonable accomodation

or disability

the courts eventually have by now, at huge cost and delay and conflicting rulings in different states, which could have been avoided if Congress had done its damn job in 1991

I think it is important to leave the language somewhat vague, because providing specifics would allow employers to manipulate the language to their advantage either by altering job descriptions or by applying a subjective bare minimum. It would be impossible to describe every type of disability and every type of job and the accommodation required. Putting it in the hands of judiciary was the right way to go.

> The Yell wrote:

> " It would be impossible to describe every type of disability and every type of job and the accommodation required."

That's what the courts had to do, point by point, with the Supreme Court eventually dragged in several times to throw out some districts and uphold others. For instance -

Person with 12-hour shift 3x a week job gets heart trouble.  Doctor says she can work 8 hour shift 5x a week.  Employer says he can't give her 8 hour shift and hire 4 hr temp 3x a week.  Fires her. She sues for violation of ADA.

Is somebody who can work 40 hours a week "disabled"?
Does the employer have to hire temp or assign some 12-hour shift worker a 4-hour shift or convert to 8 hr shifts for everybody as "reasonable accommodation"?

Supreme Court finally said such a person is "not disabled".  in 2004 I believe. Over 10 years after ADA was passed.  And they took on this issue because one appeals district in the South said "no" and one in Midwest said "yes".  The answer depended on whehter you lived in Chicago or Atlanta.  And what about that plaintiff, who sued in district court, and appeals, and finally landed in the Supreme Court?  Wouldn't her life had been better if she'd been told "no" by the lawyers she talked to in the first place, because Congress had already said "if you can work 40 hours a week you're not medically disabled"?
------------------------------------

This scenario, though arduous and extreme, is still preferable to having no protection for disabled people, and is preferable to "if you can work 40 hours a week you're not medically disabled" being part of the law - because that would mean any paraplegic who could put in 40 hours behind a desk is not disabled, for example. This scenario also set a precedent that will prevent the situation from repeating itself. Legislation cannot predict it's own impact on every real world scenario and be written to address every incident, and it is often necessary for the judiciary to adjust the application of the law in the face of unusual or extreme situations such as above.

Racist government policies cannot combat racism. That's retarded. The end.

Stop being racist while you complain about racism.

It's not that hard. You, too, can stop being a racist. Try it some time.