Is anyone really "all that" surprised that someone dressed like that could be seen in a Walmart? I think most everyone has seen the "People of Walmart" emails that float around from time to time. Personally, I'm disgusted by it, (especially the OC of the catheter bag) but surprised or shocked?...NO. If you don't want to run into someone or something looking like that, don't go to Walmart. There's an old saying, "sleep with dogs, you're gonna get fleas." I'm not saying I never go to Wally World, but I sure try to keep it to a bare minimum. I may spend a little more somewhere else, but thats OK, because I really try to buy as many American made products as possible, and American made anything is an endangered species at Walmart. Just my $.02 :wave:
She should try Saks Fifth Avenue or Neiman Marcus next.
Let's face it, decency and indecency are, and have always been...driven by cultural standards.
And the reason that this kind of indecency is permitted today is because of a decline of culture/society.
The logic expressed above concerning individual rights necessarily leads to legalization of things like public sex.
(i.e. If you don't like it...don't look at it.)
I do find it odd/inconsistent that communities are legally allowed to have all sorts of zoning laws to protect property value...
while privately-owned retail businesses can't set any kind of dress code at all.
Oh, maybe it's because judges/attorneys live in upscale neighborhoods and feel strongly about not having an 'eye-sore' 2 houses down.
Well, this was clearly mis-handled by the manager. What he should have done was eject her based on her abusing other customers with foul language. That would be completely sustainable. Instead, they're looking at a lawsuit they'll probably lose. I foresee a management position opening up in the near future!
As far as the disability law goes, the law states that you have to provide "reasonable accommodations". Telling the woman to cover her leg bag is NOT violating her rights. The store will accomodate her shopping with a leg bag, as long as its covered up. This is more about an unconventional appearance, this could very well be a health issue and this lady's rights do not supersede my right to having access to a safe and clean community.
Please allow me to point out that noone has made this out to be a discrimination case against individuals with disabilities. Noone is telling persons with disabilities that they can't shop at said Wal-Mart. To suggest that a person with a disability is "indecent" in the context that we have been talking about is offensive in and of itself. IT IS NOT indecent to be "someone who walks with a jerking movement of the legs and wild swinging of the arms, Or to be a severely retarded child with a wheel chair that is out for a few hours at the store with her care taker" To even suggest that the two are the same is offensive, dishonest and insincere. If I were a burn victim and my face was truly a health hazard then I would do whatever necessary to cover any oozing sores, etc. so that I won't be a health hazard, etc. Indecency implies that there is a lack of judgment and in the execution thereof within the context of social norms. A disability is not a willful assault against society. The two are separate conditions. To be indecent is to be in violation of social norms, persons with disabilities are not a willful assault against society.
I'm sure according to a legal definition or perspective, corporations don't have rights per se. Rights, however, do not exist in a vacum. Individuals, for example, forego rights all of the time and give these rights up to organizations, institutions and corporations. There are people, for example, that can't place a workshop in their back yard or keep a bass boat in their driveway because this would be in violation of a home owners association standard. When I went to college, I lost my right to keep a firearm in my room, etc. Rights exist within the context of a contract whether it be a legal contractual agreement or a social contract, etc.
When you enter Wal-Mart or any other business, you are agreeing to abide by certain rules that are a contingency per doing business at said market place. I don't make Wal-Mart policy and if I buy something at Wal-Mart then I have to deal according to their policies. If this isn't true then please explain to me how the AT&T kiosks don't have to accept cash when you go in to pay your bill. Isn't that in violation of my rights?
Before we allow our eyes to glaze over with sentimentality as far as rights go, let's examine the consequences and the cost of allowing individuals full unadulterated rights.
For the sake of argument, let's say that an exposed catheter bag is not a health hazard. I'm willing to go out on limb and say that someone that doesn't appear to be as hygienic as she could possibly be just might not be as hygienic and show due diligence about her leg bag care/maintenance. Now how do you like the thought of her walking past the dress isle where the racks are so close together that you can't help but to brush against them as you pass? Her dirty leg bag rubbing against the dress that you have just bought for your wife. Not a very appealing thought is it? Before you say that you don't have to shop there, what if you don't find out that this happened until after you had bought the dress and had given it to your wife? Are you going to be as understanding and show as much compassion to the cashier that's checking you out if he/she is doing so with an exposed colostomy bag? How would you feel if you found out that the chef at the restaurant that your'e eating at has an exposed colostomy bag when he's cooking your meal? It's not a very appealing thought is it?
I am obviously not anti-rights and am not trying to rob anyone of their rights. Let's not, however, turn rights into an idol. Pragmatism is not the solution to preserving rights IMO.
( Oh...no biggy, but the GANDER is the male...the female is the Goose....)