"nobody else can run the code or access the files stored there."
I just got the image of Star Wars, where Darth Vader is going to use the mind probe on Princess Leia. Ain't it funny how he turns out to be her father, but they never get a chance to talk. It's always Luke this and Luke that.
Gaaaaaaa. My caffeine level is dropping again. I start rambling like that then. Like Grandpa Simpson, eh.
So you would do business with someone who stole your car? What if they had killed or raped someone in your family? Would you still be so considerate? As long as they behave while in your store? Where would you draw the line that you won't let someone in your store even if they are well behaved at the time? Would you insist a day-care or pre-school hire a well behaved pedophile?
It doesn't matter what I think is OK. My personal opinion should not be used to force private businesses to accept customers they don't want. That's all.
As far as throwing out people who don't behave in your private business, the ADA makes that harder to do. The ADA protects drug addicts, kleptomaniacs, psychopaths, and others who have a 'valid condition', even if they are stealing from you or making other customers leave.
I am not advocating Jim Crow segregation. I am simply saying it is not your right to force private businesses to not discriminate. It also makes no sense, because forcing your opinion on racists, bigots, sexists, etc, only make them more hateful than they are to begin with.
I am advocating personal choice, which in the US is supposed to be covered in that 1st Amendment thing. The only law concerning discrimination I would want would be: Businesses have to state their discrimination policy. It must be prominantly displayed on all buildings, websites, mailings, publications, and product packages. Basically it would look like this: DISCRIMINATION POLICY OF THE RSB STORE: Men of Northern European descent and ancestery are allowed to shop here. Persons of African, Asian, Australian, Southern Europe, Middle-Eastern, Pacific Island, North American, or South American descent and ancestery are not allowed to shop here. Women may shop here if they are shopping for their husbands or other male family members, or accompanied by their husbands. Only those who have been to church services during the past month may shop here.
Now here's the kicker. How many people do you think would shop there? How long do you think the store would remain in business? Unless it is a very specific store, it will go broke within a month. I wouldn't shop at it, especially if I wanted to stay with my wife. My wife and her entire family couldn't if they wanted to. You obviously wouldn't shop there, neither would most of the people you know. So rather than forcing the store to accept you as a customer, and helping pay for their cars, homes, and kid's college, I say give the racist, sexist bastards enough rope to hang themselves.
Another person wants to shoot me because I am posting unpopular messages about the freedom of the press. At least the other guy had the guts to actually use his name. And the integrity to say he didn't mean it, really (I hope). And the intelligence to then carry on a real argument with me, even though we disagree on the central theme of the conversation. And the knowledge to back up his arguments. And the character to tell me to learn more.
Yes. A previous post of mine a few weeks ago mentioned this. Hitler simply took the already present anger over Germany's treatment, focused it on a small group, and rode it to power.
First heard this from my high school history teacher. All other accounts I had heard before that glossed over it, and made it seem that he magically made the Germans hate the Jews. He only found a way to direct their hatred, and the Jews were a convenient target.
Did you even read the post? Your entire response is meaningless. It isn't even a response, it's just the same argument you used before.
Why can't you admit that those asians could get food somewhere, just not at the store run by racist bastards? And again, why would they want to give their money to racist bastards anyway?
Why would Canadian soldiers have fought for Germany???
Perhaps he just meant your guys would have had fun on the Russian front. "It's 40 below and I don't give a fuck, eh. Drop a bomb on the lake there and break up the ice a little, I want to go swimming.";^)
You're right. Rather than arresting every journalist that attempts to cross those absurd security lines, the police should simply shoot them. And leave the bodies where they fall as a warning to the rest.
The original post said to travel to Europe and find real proof. Because my only sources of data are books and The History Channel. These don't count as 'solid proof' like first-hand witness accounts do.
My other argument highlights the flaw in your argument.
First, you are the owner of the only store in town, without another store for 200 miles. Replace the group of Asians with a group of petty thieves. This group of thieves was caught stealing your car, tried, found guilty, and served one year in the local jail. Now they are out, and are back to their old ways.
If they come into your store, as it's the only place to purchase food and they need to eat, would you serve them? Or would you tell them to get out of your store?
Do you not allow these scum do patronize your business, thereby ensuring they'll starve to death? Or do you let them know that even though they are criminals, you are willing to deal with criminals, even ones that stole from you personally?
So just because only one person decided to open a store in this town, that store is required to sell to everyone in that town?
There is no flaw in my argument. You just have pre-conceived notions as to what you need. You need to eat to be able to survive. You need to get food to be able to eat. But you don't need to shop at the only store in the town to get the food you need to eat to survive.
In your example the asians have several options for getting food: 1. Shop at the only store in town 2. Open their own store 3. Buy food from their neighbors 4. Beg/borrow/steal food from their neighbors 5. Drive to another town to buy food 6. Hunt wild animals for food 7. Grow their own food 8. Starve to death
The situation you propose rules out #1, due to discrimination. You also rule out #2 as not feasible, timewise. The same probably also holds true for #7. #4 is probably not feasible for social reasons, which include not wanting to be sent to jail.
So we are left with #3, #5, #6 and #8 as possible solutions. You probably would have included #8 with #2 and #7 above, as not feasible. But it is very feasible to starve to death, just not desired. #6 would be difficult if they had no prior planning or training in the subject. So we have two solutions, which I would recommend those asians decide quickly which one they want to implement.
Sorry for the rant, and this is not meant to be a troll, but tell your friend he's nuts.
You are right about that. He is certainly a little nuts. I just don't have solid proof he's wrong. And I can't afford to go to Europe to verify for myself.
Hey, maybe Slashdot should have been on the list too. This exchange we have had certainly would boost it's 'freedom of the press' numbers.
As I said, I don't doubt the official story, but I certainly feel grown people should be able to discuss it like this, without worrying about being arrested. As far as why would my friend's Jewish friends lie back then, many people do what their leaders tell them to. Of course they could be lieing now instead. I don't know, either way.
And the (sp?) was not a problem. "Hooked on Copy-and-Paste" worked for me.
Oh, good freedom of the press there. Shoot people for having an unpopular opinion.
I don't doubt the Holocaust happened. But I wasn't there, nor do I know any one who was there. So it is all heresay of hearsay, or history books and The History Channel. This is an example of the former: One of my friends claims to personally know Jewish men who were in the concentration camps, and who say the Holocaust stories you heard about are lies. My friend says these Jewish men were told to make up the terrible stories, they were told to do so by Jewish leaders who were never in the camps, and they had to make up the stories so that the world would give the Jewish leaders whatever they wanted, which was power.
I am not making this up. I don't know if my friend was making this up, but he seemed really sincere.I don't know if the Jewish men he knows were making it up either. But if I published this anecdote in Germany, I would be arrested for it. Rather than having other Jewish people who were also in the camps convice me of the Holocaust, I would be locked up. Or shot by you.
Give me American freedom of the press anyday.
Oh, and President Clinton was "was a genius (sp?) in rethorics and speach," too, but I don't consider that a redeeming quality. The ooze that comes out of a zit has more going for it than that, for the exact reason that the ooze won't brainwash millions of people to support it.
"all the rich capitalists who run the company are secretly left leaning liberal socialists who want to pay more corporate taxes. "
You mean like all the millionaire congresscritters that still want income taxes to be at the 50% level for millionaires? All the liberal socialists that want everyone to be covered for all the medical coverage they need, so they keep uping the money collected from their own pockets for Medicare?
Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they don't want to give all their money to the government. It just shows how stupid some rich people are, where they would rather give their money to the government, to be squandered, rather than giving it to the needy who actually could use it.
Do you also have Middle Earth News. I'm trying to find out what happened to Merry and Pippin. Damn that INN (Isengard News Network), they don't tell you anything.;^)
As long as you don't dispute the official story of the Holocaust, don't say anything that can be considered anti-semitic, never say Hitler had any redeeming qualities, and don't try to sell you grandfather's old medals and uniforms in the paper.
None of the above applies to me, but at least in America, if I wanted to be an idiot, racist, insensitive jerk, I have the right to make it known. How many poeple in Germany are in jail for one of the above offences?
Yes, I don't care about hiring practices and all the rest.
No, I don't think market forces fix everything.
But it isn't the government's job to make sure my boss pays me a certain wage, or that my boss is my boss to begin with. I can't be forced to shop at a certain store, so why any store be forced to allow me to shop at it?
I can't understand why this is even an issue. If a black man wants to work in a law firm, and is told he can't work there because they only hire white guys, why would he want to work for the racist bastards anyway? Do you want to make a profit for someone who devalues you? Would you buy a car as a gift for someone who thinks you are worth less as a person? By working for that person, you are paying for their house/car/kid's college/etc. If you shop at that person's store, you are doing the same thing.
So I ask you, why do you want to support a business that wants to discriminate? Why are you so willing to give money to a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a homophobe, or a heartless bastard who doesn't want blind people looking at his website? Which businesses do you patronize that discriminate, and why do you still want to give them money? Or do they only discriminate against those who are white, straight, male, christian, AND between the ages of 20 and 50, so that's OK by you? (By the way, I don't fit in that group.)
I've stated before, the only law about discrimination should be that companies have to be honest and upfront about it. Then let the customers and employees decide if they want to make the management rich. It is called personal responsibility, which is lacking on both sides of the debate right now.
And finally, blacks, asians, latinos, women, the disabled, homosexuals, jews, muslims, buddhists, the elderly, and all other groups you want to impose on people are free to do the exact same thing to any other group. Discrimination cuts both ways.
No. Websites offering a public service are when you can fill out your car registration online.
Buying tickets for a flight is a private transaction between the seller and purchaser. "The public" is not sitting in my living room with me. Why is that a hard concept to understand? Also, if I go to the movies, buying a ticket is still a private transaction, even though "the public" is all around me. I am a private citizen, my transactions are my private business, not public business.
My objections to "making websites... accessible" is that it is not the government's job. If everyone who is so offended about this southwest.com fiasco were to call them, send them an email, or mail them a letter, stating how unfair it is, Southwest would change the website.
Everyone who is posting in support of the blind web-users here like to point out that the disabled are a small percentage, so businesses don't feel the potential increase in profit will out-weigh the effort to make their businesses accessible, whether storefront or website.
This is bunk. The numbers that the businesses should be forced to consider should not be only the number of disabled customers they will possibly get after all their hard work and spent money. The numbers should reflect all the letters and phone call they get from people like you, who think they are wrong in not making their site accessible. But "all you people" don't want to have to actually make a personal statement. You want to hide behind the big hips of Mommy, the maternal side of Uncle Sam. And you want to force your ideas down my throat, because you care so much.
If you really gave a dam, you would send letters to every business you deal with, stating your viewpoint, and why you patronize them, as they are not discriminatory in any way. But you of course don't want to take the time, and make the personal effort, you are too busy to actually try to affect the world in a positive way.
The blind people driving argument is just to show what the ADA will be used for within 20 years. Because it already is being used by selfish, greedy, bastards for everything it wasn't intended for. Did you know the ADA protects drug addicts, pathologic liars, kleptomaniacs, and psychopaths? Between blind drivers and those groups running a business for me, I would choose Ray Charles in a Mustang anyday.
If the only grocery store in town wants to refuse service to Asians, more power to them. If people in that town object, they can stop patronizing that store. If there are enough people doing it, the store will fail. That group of offended people can also start their own store, or the Asians can themselves. There is no law saying you can't open your own business because you don't want to patronize a discriminatory business. (Other than the public utilities, which have monoply jurisdiction. But because they are granted the monoply by the government, which cannot be allowed to discriminate against any group, public monoplies cannot be allowed to discriminate.)
Read the PDF. The plaintiff could buy tickets online. It just wasn't easy enough for his tastes. Being blind he didn't see the easy-to-navigate links, and had to trudge through the hard-to-navigate links instead.
I bet he could bookmark a page that would give him immediate access to the ticket-buying area, so all future purchases would go smoothly. But he chose to file a lawsuit instead.
From my personal view, I think that AKnightCowboy has a personal aversion to the phone for a reason. I have a slight stammer, and on the phone it can be debilitating. When I read his post, I could totally understand his viewpoint. It is not a personal taste issue, it is a personal disability issue.
Having said that, I don't support the ADA anyway. I'm in the group that wishes it would just go away.
Did you read the judgement PDF? It specifically stated that the plaintiff could buy tickets online. He could use the southwest.com site. He was not locked out of any special price for online purchasers only.
He just thought it was too complicated of a procedure, because he was having a hard time navigating the website with his screenreader. But he could do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Me: "6. Hunt wild animals for food ...
#6 would be difficult if they had no prior planning or training in the subject. "
You: "Oh and hunting assumes there is game available and that they know how to hunt."
Don't you even bother to read things? What part of "planning or training" don't you understand?
"nobody else can run the code or access the files stored there."
I just got the image of Star Wars, where Darth Vader is going to use the mind probe on Princess Leia. Ain't it funny how he turns out to be her father, but they never get a chance to talk. It's always Luke this and Luke that.
Gaaaaaaa. My caffeine level is dropping again. I start rambling like that then. Like Grandpa Simpson, eh.
So you would do business with someone who stole your car? What if they had killed or raped someone in your family? Would you still be so considerate? As long as they behave while in your store? Where would you draw the line that you won't let someone in your store even if they are well behaved at the time? Would you insist a day-care or pre-school hire a well behaved pedophile?
It doesn't matter what I think is OK. My personal opinion should not be used to force private businesses to accept customers they don't want. That's all.
As far as throwing out people who don't behave in your private business, the ADA makes that harder to do. The ADA protects drug addicts, kleptomaniacs, psychopaths, and others who have a 'valid condition', even if they are stealing from you or making other customers leave.
I am not advocating Jim Crow segregation. I am simply saying it is not your right to force private businesses to not discriminate. It also makes no sense, because forcing your opinion on racists, bigots, sexists, etc, only make them more hateful than they are to begin with.
I am advocating personal choice, which in the US is supposed to be covered in that 1st Amendment thing. The only law concerning discrimination I would want would be: Businesses have to state their discrimination policy. It must be prominantly displayed on all buildings, websites, mailings, publications, and product packages. Basically it would look like this:
DISCRIMINATION POLICY OF THE RSB STORE:
Men of Northern European descent and ancestery are allowed to shop here.
Persons of African, Asian, Australian, Southern Europe, Middle-Eastern, Pacific Island, North American, or South American descent and ancestery are not allowed to shop here.
Women may shop here if they are shopping for their husbands or other male family members, or accompanied by their husbands.
Only those who have been to church services during the past month may shop here.
Now here's the kicker. How many people do you think would shop there? How long do you think the store would remain in business? Unless it is a very specific store, it will go broke within a month. I wouldn't shop at it, especially if I wanted to stay with my wife. My wife and her entire family couldn't if they wanted to. You obviously wouldn't shop there, neither would most of the people you know. So rather than forcing the store to accept you as a customer, and helping pay for their cars, homes, and kid's college, I say give the racist, sexist bastards enough rope to hang themselves.
Oh
:^)
my
fucking
god!
Another person wants to shoot me because I am posting unpopular messages about the freedom of the press. At least the other guy had the guts to actually use his name. And the integrity to say he didn't mean it, really (I hope). And the intelligence to then carry on a real argument with me, even though we disagree on the central theme of the conversation. And the knowledge to back up his arguments. And the character to tell me to learn more.
You. You're just dogshit. Have a nice day.
Yes. A previous post of mine a few weeks ago mentioned this. Hitler simply took the already present anger over Germany's treatment, focused it on a small group, and rode it to power.
First heard this from my high school history teacher. All other accounts I had heard before that glossed over it, and made it seem that he magically made the Germans hate the Jews. He only found a way to direct their hatred, and the Jews were a convenient target.
Did you even read the post? Your entire response is meaningless. It isn't even a response, it's just the same argument you used before.
Why can't you admit that those asians could get food somewhere, just not at the store run by racist bastards? And again, why would they want to give their money to racist bastards anyway?
Why would Canadian soldiers have fought for Germany???
;^)
Perhaps he just meant your guys would have had fun on the Russian front. "It's 40 below and I don't give a fuck, eh. Drop a bomb on the lake there and break up the ice a little, I want to go swimming."
You're right. Rather than arresting every journalist that attempts to cross those absurd security lines, the police should simply shoot them. And leave the bodies where they fall as a warning to the rest.
And now it's Flamebait. Right in the middle of an intelligent conversation. About freedom of the press no less.
Hey moderator. What's wrong? Ran out of mod points before getting to my other posts?
At least CoreDump01 and I had an intelligent conversation before some had their feeling hurt by my post, and decided I was trolling.
Hey, moderator, did you even read the rest of the thread? Trolling Slashdot is fun at times, but this wasn't it.
The original post said to travel to Europe and find real proof. Because my only sources of data are books and The History Channel. These don't count as 'solid proof' like first-hand witness accounts do.
My other argument highlights the flaw in your argument.
First, you are the owner of the only store in town, without another store for 200 miles. Replace the group of Asians with a group of petty thieves. This group of thieves was caught stealing your car, tried, found guilty, and served one year in the local jail. Now they are out, and are back to their old ways.
If they come into your store, as it's the only place to purchase food and they need to eat, would you serve them? Or would you tell them to get out of your store?
Do you not allow these scum do patronize your business, thereby ensuring they'll starve to death? Or do you let them know that even though they are criminals, you are willing to deal with criminals, even ones that stole from you personally?
So just because only one person decided to open a store in this town, that store is required to sell to everyone in that town?
There is no flaw in my argument. You just have pre-conceived notions as to what you need. You need to eat to be able to survive. You need to get food to be able to eat. But you don't need to shop at the only store in the town to get the food you need to eat to survive.
In your example the asians have several options for getting food:
1. Shop at the only store in town
2. Open their own store
3. Buy food from their neighbors
4. Beg/borrow/steal food from their neighbors
5. Drive to another town to buy food
6. Hunt wild animals for food
7. Grow their own food
8. Starve to death
The situation you propose rules out #1, due to discrimination. You also rule out #2 as not feasible, timewise. The same probably also holds true for #7. #4 is probably not feasible for social reasons, which include not wanting to be sent to jail.
So we are left with #3, #5, #6 and #8 as possible solutions. You probably would have included #8 with #2 and #7 above, as not feasible. But it is very feasible to starve to death, just not desired. #6 would be difficult if they had no prior planning or training in the subject. So we have two solutions, which I would recommend those asians decide quickly which one they want to implement.
Sorry for the rant, and this is not meant to be a troll, but tell your friend he's nuts.
You are right about that. He is certainly a little nuts. I just don't have solid proof he's wrong. And I can't afford to go to Europe to verify for myself.
Hey, maybe Slashdot should have been on the list too. This exchange we have had certainly would boost it's 'freedom of the press' numbers.
As I said, I don't doubt the official story, but I certainly feel grown people should be able to discuss it like this, without worrying about being arrested. As far as why would my friend's Jewish friends lie back then, many people do what their leaders tell them to. Of course they could be lieing now instead. I don't know, either way.
And the (sp?) was not a problem. "Hooked on Copy-and-Paste" worked for me.
Oh, good freedom of the press there. Shoot people for having an unpopular opinion.
I don't doubt the Holocaust happened. But I wasn't there, nor do I know any one who was there. So it is all heresay of hearsay, or history books and The History Channel. This is an example of the former: One of my friends claims to personally know Jewish men who were in the concentration camps, and who say the Holocaust stories you heard about are lies. My friend says these Jewish men were told to make up the terrible stories, they were told to do so by Jewish leaders who were never in the camps, and they had to make up the stories so that the world would give the Jewish leaders whatever they wanted, which was power.
I am not making this up. I don't know if my friend was making this up, but he seemed really sincere.I don't know if the Jewish men he knows were making it up either. But if I published this anecdote in Germany, I would be arrested for it. Rather than having other Jewish people who were also in the camps convice me of the Holocaust, I would be locked up. Or shot by you.
Give me American freedom of the press anyday.
Oh, and President Clinton was "was a genius (sp?) in rethorics and speach," too, but I don't consider that a redeeming quality. The ooze that comes out of a zit has more going for it than that, for the exact reason that the ooze won't brainwash millions of people to support it.
"all the rich capitalists who run the company are secretly left leaning liberal socialists who want to pay more corporate taxes. "
You mean like all the millionaire congresscritters that still want income taxes to be at the 50% level for millionaires? All the liberal socialists that want everyone to be covered for all the medical coverage they need, so they keep uping the money collected from their own pockets for Medicare?
Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they don't want to give all their money to the government. It just shows how stupid some rich people are, where they would rather give their money to the government, to be squandered, rather than giving it to the needy who actually could use it.
Do you also have Middle Earth News. I'm trying to find out what happened to Merry and Pippin. Damn that INN (Isengard News Network), they don't tell you anything. ;^)
As long as you don't dispute the official story of the Holocaust, don't say anything that can be considered anti-semitic, never say Hitler had any redeeming qualities, and don't try to sell you grandfather's old medals and uniforms in the paper.
None of the above applies to me, but at least in America, if I wanted to be an idiot, racist, insensitive jerk, I have the right to make it known. How many poeple in Germany are in jail for one of the above offences?
Yes, I don't care about hiring practices and all the rest.
No, I don't think market forces fix everything.
But it isn't the government's job to make sure my boss pays me a certain wage, or that my boss is my boss to begin with. I can't be forced to shop at a certain store, so why any store be forced to allow me to shop at it?
I can't understand why this is even an issue. If a black man wants to work in a law firm, and is told he can't work there because they only hire white guys, why would he want to work for the racist bastards anyway? Do you want to make a profit for someone who devalues you? Would you buy a car as a gift for someone who thinks you are worth less as a person? By working for that person, you are paying for their house/car/kid's college/etc. If you shop at that person's store, you are doing the same thing.
So I ask you, why do you want to support a business that wants to discriminate? Why are you so willing to give money to a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a homophobe, or a heartless bastard who doesn't want blind people looking at his website? Which businesses do you patronize that discriminate, and why do you still want to give them money? Or do they only discriminate against those who are white, straight, male, christian, AND between the ages of 20 and 50, so that's OK by you? (By the way, I don't fit in that group.)
I've stated before, the only law about discrimination should be that companies have to be honest and upfront about it. Then let the customers and employees decide if they want to make the management rich. It is called personal responsibility, which is lacking on both sides of the debate right now.
And finally, blacks, asians, latinos, women, the disabled, homosexuals, jews, muslims, buddhists, the elderly, and all other groups you want to impose on people are free to do the exact same thing to any other group. Discrimination cuts both ways.
No. Websites offering a public service are when you can fill out your car registration online.
... accessible" is that it is not the government's job. If everyone who is so offended about this southwest.com fiasco were to call them, send them an email, or mail them a letter, stating how unfair it is, Southwest would change the website.
Buying tickets for a flight is a private transaction between the seller and purchaser. "The public" is not sitting in my living room with me. Why is that a hard concept to understand? Also, if I go to the movies, buying a ticket is still a private transaction, even though "the public" is all around me. I am a private citizen, my transactions are my private business, not public business.
My objections to "making websites
Everyone who is posting in support of the blind web-users here like to point out that the disabled are a small percentage, so businesses don't feel the potential increase in profit will out-weigh the effort to make their businesses accessible, whether storefront or website.
This is bunk. The numbers that the businesses should be forced to consider should not be only the number of disabled customers they will possibly get after all their hard work and spent money. The numbers should reflect all the letters and phone call they get from people like you, who think they are wrong in not making their site accessible. But "all you people" don't want to have to actually make a personal statement. You want to hide behind the big hips of Mommy, the maternal side of Uncle Sam. And you want to force your ideas down my throat, because you care so much.
If you really gave a dam, you would send letters to every business you deal with, stating your viewpoint, and why you patronize them, as they are not discriminatory in any way. But you of course don't want to take the time, and make the personal effort, you are too busy to actually try to affect the world in a positive way.
The blind people driving argument is just to show what the ADA will be used for within 20 years. Because it already is being used by selfish, greedy, bastards for everything it wasn't intended for. Did you know the ADA protects drug addicts, pathologic liars, kleptomaniacs, and psychopaths? Between blind drivers and those groups running a business for me, I would choose Ray Charles in a Mustang anyday.
Haven't we danced to this song before, lemkebeth?
If the only grocery store in town wants to refuse service to Asians, more power to them. If people in that town object, they can stop patronizing that store. If there are enough people doing it, the store will fail. That group of offended people can also start their own store, or the Asians can themselves. There is no law saying you can't open your own business because you don't want to patronize a discriminatory business. (Other than the public utilities, which have monoply jurisdiction. But because they are granted the monoply by the government, which cannot be allowed to discriminate against any group, public monoplies cannot be allowed to discriminate.)
Read the PDF. The plaintiff could buy tickets online. It just wasn't easy enough for his tastes. Being blind he didn't see the easy-to-navigate links, and had to trudge through the hard-to-navigate links instead.
I bet he could bookmark a page that would give him immediate access to the ticket-buying area, so all future purchases would go smoothly. But he chose to file a lawsuit instead.
From my personal view, I think that AKnightCowboy has a personal aversion to the phone for a reason. I have a slight stammer, and on the phone it can be debilitating. When I read his post, I could totally understand his viewpoint. It is not a personal taste issue, it is a personal disability issue.
Having said that, I don't support the ADA anyway. I'm in the group that wishes it would just go away.
Did you read the judgement PDF? It specifically stated that the plaintiff could buy tickets online. He could use the southwest.com site. He was not locked out of any special price for online purchasers only.
He just thought it was too complicated of a procedure, because he was having a hard time navigating the website with his screenreader. But he could do so.