Trigger Warning: Mentions of assault
It's not that hard.
In the United States of America, an event, location, etc which is open to the public (there are certain exceptions for religious institutions, which I am aware of, but that is besides the point. I'm talking about places where the ADA does apply,) needs to be accessible. Business, in particular, need to be accessible. There are, once again, some exceptions for unreasonable burdens, which are calculated in terms of monetary cost, not in terms of how much of a pain it is to do something. Remember, financial cost.
That means that "Turn your camera flash off" is not an undue burden.
That means that "Put up this sign I made letting people know to turn flashes off, here's some tape" is not an undue burden.
That means "Avoid one specific person with your camera" is not an undue burden.
If it really goes that far, it means "Just don't hire a photographer" is not an undue burden, because that's actually cheaper. It shouldn't have to go that far, since turning flash off isn't hard. Really, it's not. The good cameras don't come with flashes anyways, you have to buy them separately. Which means that not having a flash to begin with is actually cheaper, once again.
Yeah, it's not an undue burden to not have a flash on a camera. (Portland Lindy Exchange, I am looking at you right now.)
Access isn't that hard. I've had people do it, and properly, on sufficiently short notice that I wouldn't have held it against them if they had been cobbling together not much of a much. (By that, I mean they didn't even know there was an issue until after I melted down in front of them, we were in India, and they still met my needs, which were, much like "turn flash off," free to meet. I know from experience. It's not that hard.)
And it's not just physical disabilities.
And saying that we should just stay in our homes all our lives isn't any more OK than it is to say to any other group of people. Disability rights are human rights. Would you tell a person that in order to avoid being assaulted with deadly weapons on a regular basis, they need to remain in their homes, or would you ask what's so wrong with their environment that they are being assaulted with deadly weapons on a regular basis and make some attempt at fixing it? Would you defend the assault as within the rights of the attacker?
(Hint: The answer is that you wouldn't defend it as being within the rights of the attacker to assault someone with a deadly weapon. If that's not your answer, you have some human rights issues to work through, like right to life.)
Do you think that disability ends with physical ones? It doesn't. Epilepsy, autism, sensory issues, dyspraxia, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities... there are a lot of disabilities besides visible physical ones, and none of them are allowed to make a place inaccessible. That's the law. That's just how it is. You don't even have to like it, you just have to do it.
It's not that hard.
In the United States of America, an event, location, etc which is open to the public (there are certain exceptions for religious institutions, which I am aware of, but that is besides the point. I'm talking about places where the ADA does apply,) needs to be accessible. Business, in particular, need to be accessible. There are, once again, some exceptions for unreasonable burdens, which are calculated in terms of monetary cost, not in terms of how much of a pain it is to do something. Remember, financial cost.
That means that "Turn your camera flash off" is not an undue burden.
That means that "Put up this sign I made letting people know to turn flashes off, here's some tape" is not an undue burden.
That means "Avoid one specific person with your camera" is not an undue burden.
If it really goes that far, it means "Just don't hire a photographer" is not an undue burden, because that's actually cheaper. It shouldn't have to go that far, since turning flash off isn't hard. Really, it's not. The good cameras don't come with flashes anyways, you have to buy them separately. Which means that not having a flash to begin with is actually cheaper, once again.
Yeah, it's not an undue burden to not have a flash on a camera. (Portland Lindy Exchange, I am looking at you right now.)
Access isn't that hard. I've had people do it, and properly, on sufficiently short notice that I wouldn't have held it against them if they had been cobbling together not much of a much. (By that, I mean they didn't even know there was an issue until after I melted down in front of them, we were in India, and they still met my needs, which were, much like "turn flash off," free to meet. I know from experience. It's not that hard.)
And it's not just physical disabilities.
And saying that we should just stay in our homes all our lives isn't any more OK than it is to say to any other group of people. Disability rights are human rights. Would you tell a person that in order to avoid being assaulted with deadly weapons on a regular basis, they need to remain in their homes, or would you ask what's so wrong with their environment that they are being assaulted with deadly weapons on a regular basis and make some attempt at fixing it? Would you defend the assault as within the rights of the attacker?
(Hint: The answer is that you wouldn't defend it as being within the rights of the attacker to assault someone with a deadly weapon. If that's not your answer, you have some human rights issues to work through, like right to life.)
Do you think that disability ends with physical ones? It doesn't. Epilepsy, autism, sensory issues, dyspraxia, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities... there are a lot of disabilities besides visible physical ones, and none of them are allowed to make a place inaccessible. That's the law. That's just how it is. You don't even have to like it, you just have to do it.
Yes - it SHOULD be that easy. I'm particularly disturbed by the flash and the strobe issue. They're everywhere!
ReplyDelete