politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Listen, I get that you don't like what this woman is doing. I really do. But the solution isn't to invalidate testers as a legal concept, that's what you're not getting. The solution is for Congress to amend the ADA to allow for some sort of curing mechanism on notice issues. Not for the Court to issue some overly broad ruling that invalidates the "tester" concept that's proven so crucial to proving racial and gender discrimination, which this plaintiff has built her case atop. Maybe there's a way for them to thread the needle to smack her down and keep that legal concept alive, but I'm not counting on it with this particular Court.
The nation, and you as a disabled vet who benefits from ADA protections, benefits more if she prevails or the case is mooted, than it and you would if the Court decides to undermine the legal concept of a tester. You have to think beyond your initial revulsion over her suing where you think an email would do, the ramifications are bigger than that.
In the meantime, sounds like you have an idea to needle your Senators and/or Congressman about updating the ADA. Seems like the rare bit of legislation where the business lobby might be onboard with helping the little guy instead of fighting it tooth and nail.
Maybe because I'm not saying that should happen?
I'm saying there needs to be a process (or at least a single step) between checking random websites and suing small businesses...
I don't know why people aren't getting that, but I get the feeling continuing to explain isn't going to help
I don't think anyone disagrees that there should be an intermediate step.
That's just a problem for Congress to solve, not the Court. The Court is not going to add that step in (nor does it appear the Defendants have asked for that). Congress could end this woman's trail of lawsuits ~~tomorrow~~ as soon as the House picks a new Speaker.
What the Defendants are arguing is that because she had no intention of staying at the hotel, there is no harm. If you buy into that, then by the same principle, someone who inquires about an apartment to prove that a landlord is racially discriminating can have no standing because they weren't actually looking to move at that time. I know you probably don't see those as the same, but that's the concept the Defendants are arguing against.