On 4 Jun 2005 19:46:38 -0700, JamesStep@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Besides, how did he know you were not disabled?
>> Not all disabilities are visible.
>
>The larger size of handicapped stalls and the stall's grabbars are
>mainly designed to benefit those in wheelchairs or those who use a cane
>or walker. Those kids of disabilities are usually pretty obvious.
>
>A person with a non-visible disability -- such as a heart condition --
>can generally use a standard restroom stall without any problems.
>
>I think it's common courtesy to avoid using a handicapped stall if
>others are available. But if the only one available, and no handicapped
>people are waiting, I think most folks would go ahead and use it.
>
>Jim
No. Nothing to do with courtesy unless there is a queue for
stalls.
Disabled parking spots - yep, no argument. Never park in
one. But disabled toilets - I see no reason at all why it's
not just another toilet. The only difference that I would
offer is priority to the disabled person if there is a
queue.
I would not have physically assaulted the complainant - but
he would certainly have been left in no doubt as to my
opinion. Unless his disablement affects his bladder I see no
reason to support your contention. I didn't deny him use -
just a requirement to hold things in for a short period like
everyone else has to.
Cheers, Alan, Australia |