Autistic Child Refused Entry Into Indigo Store

[Miss Hunter]

Remember what this board is for. how many guys on this thread are still participating in this...recreational activity... have discussed your outings with your Drs and obtained medical notes?

really, the hypocrisy in this thread is astounding.

 

[masterpoonhunter]

umm I don't see hypocrisy here at least not in the main thread about the mom/child/mask theme.

I see a difference between adults making their own risk assessment to partake or not in this activity vs a mother of a child who in my opinion lacks the common sense to make the choice to protect her kid.

Maybe of those here, who has tested positive for the virus? Who thinks they got it from pooning? A show of hands?

 

[80watts]

Common Dog Fuck.... That lady lacks it.
If there is a sign that says "no mask no entrance", then you have to wear a mask. Imagine if Indigo let the medically exempt kid in. Other customers see that and complain, but if the kid coughs and someone near by catches Covid. Can you say "lawsuit". One rule for all. No exemptions. So Indigo is in the right to refuse entrance to anyone (whether they have an exemption or not).

This NO EXEMPTIONS should be the standard. Unfortuneately there are some people who have to push the limits of rules and laws and get exemptions cause they think they are "special". Which really wastes the courts time, let alone the public's time because people think they are "special".

Its also know as "He who whines the most, gets his way". These people should be taken out and beaten (IMHO).

As for kids with Autism, it is very sad. It is very sad for the parents, especially if their child needs alot of care and attention.

Back in the 1960s the doctors told parents they had a stillborn baby. Most likely it was deformed or retarded in some way. Today we have tests (for certain conditions) to determine if the mother wants to take their child to term. The reality today is that in a world of 7 Billion people, in a world of dwindling resources parents are still choosing to bring their child to term.

Today in the years 2019 and 2020, the world has a pandemic. Isolation so far has been the key to not overloading hospitals with severe cases of Covid 19. A couple of vaccines have been made and are being distributed, which will take another year to immunize against Covid up to 80% of the populations of the 1st World countries.

When push comes to shove, Darwinism will rule....

or the mutants.....

 

[Miss Hunter]

The mother discussed this with her son's paediatrician. and he wrote a medical note. yet random pooners think they know better than a licensed doctor who went through medical school and further educate himself to specialize as a paediatrician.

wow..the brainwashing by the media deserves an A+

But I gotta admit, it's fascinating to see an Asch experiment in social conformity get played out in real life...

 

[g eazy]

LOL the argument made here is: "Is Indigo within their rights to deny the child access?" and nothing else

calling people "brainwashed by media" just because they have a different opinion is quite disingenuous at best, and at worst, ironic. it's disappointing to see a discussion go sideways and the whole brainwash BS starts to get thrown around.

 

[appleomac]

The mother discussed this with her son's paediatrician. and he wrote a medical note. yet random pooners think they know better than a licensed doctor who went through medical school and further educate himself to specialize as a paediatrician.

wow..the brainwashing by the media deserves an A+

But I gotta admit, it's fascinating to see an Asch experiment in social conformity get played out in real life...

The medical note means the kid doesn't have to wear a mask because the kid can't, medically speaking. That does not mean the medical note is some sort of exemption for the kid from any and all rules or policies that a business may choose to implement. Heck, even the BC Human Rights Commissioner has stated that:

" Some examples of accommodations include:
•offering curbside pickup, which may allow a person to receive a retail service even if, because of their disability, they are unable to wear the mask required to enter a store"

You can read it for yourself, what guidance the BC Human Rights Commissioner has provided for businesses:

https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Nov2020_Mask-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf
Contrary to what, apparently many people believe, anything short of letting this kid into the Indigo's without a mask on is somehow an act of discrimination - it simply is not, at least according to the BC Human Rights Commissioner. Unfortunately, this mother, if you read her own words, doesn't accept Indigo's various accommodations, such as online shopping, curbside pick-up etc. As the mother states in the article:

"I really wanted him to have that experience of being able to go to a book store, flip through some books, chose a book that he would enjoy and online shopping just doesn’t allow for him to do that..."

So right there is the problem - Indigo's offers the proper accommodation (according to the BC Human Rights Commissioner), but this mother basically wants her child to be able to window shop in-store - whereas proper accommodation (according to the BC Human Rights Commissioner) is met when a business provides an alternative for a person who can't wear a mask to still have access to that businesses products/services. So the problem really is - this child still has access to Indigo's products services via appropriate accommodations, but the mother wants this kid to have "an experience" and NOT necessarily the store's products! I don't even know legally how you square that circle. I can't even begin to imagine what members of the BC Human Rights Tribunal will think if this complaint runs it's course and they have to rule on something like this. Fundamentally, if proper accommodations are met (as per the Commissioners own guidance) how can there even be discrimination??? Moreover, how can any business be expected to provide "an appropriate experience" - it's a bookstore, most reasonable people would say that people want books from a bookstore.

 

[Miss Hunter]

LOL the argument made here is: "Is Indigo within their rights to deny the child access?" and nothing else

calling people "brainwashed by media" just because they have a different opinion is quite disingenuous at best, and at worst, ironic. it's disappointing to see a discussion go sideways and the whole brainwash BS starts to get thrown around.

the decision is up to human rights. I'm just disgusted that a mother of an autistic child is getting slammed on an escort review board, of all fucking places, by men who are still paying strangers to have sex and exchange bodily fluids with... in the middle of a fucking pandemic.

have sex with and exchange bodily fluids with whoever you want to, wear a mask or dont wear a mask. I quite frankly don't give a shit what other people do. but leave a mother of an autistic child alone. she is just challenging a rule. nothing wrong with that.

 

[Miss Hunter]

She's challenging the mandatory mask policy. which makes sense that someone does this because anyone with an ounce of medical training should understand that some people legitametely cant wear masks.

 

[g eazy]

the decision is up to human rights. I'm just disgusted that a mother of an autistic child is getting slammed on an escort review board, of all fucking places, by men who are still paying strangers to have sex and exchange bodily fluids with... in the middle of a fucking pandemic.

have sex with and exchange bodily fluids with whoever you want to, wear a mask or dont wear a mask. I quite frankly don't give a shit what other people do. but leave a mother of an autistic child alone. she is just challenging a rule. nothing wrong with that.

fait enough. if you're disgusted that pooners disagree with the mother of an autistic child, i don't see anythign wrong with that - pointing out that they are slimeballs doesn't directly invalidate any of the arguments presented though.

 

[appleomac]

She's challenging the mandatory mask policy. which makes sense that someone does this because anyone with an ounce of medical training should understand that some people legitametely cant wear masks.

I don't believe anyone is saying that the child is able to wear a mask - I believe most people will accept his doctors explanation that he cannot wear a mask. The question is (at least the question the Human Rights Tribunal) will have to answer, was the child discriminated against? Was the child denied access to the store's product/service? Given that proper alternative accommodations were provided by Indigo's, which appear to be compliant with the BC Human Rights Commissioner's guidance - it's tough to say the child was discriminated against. You seem to be one of those that believe anything short of letting this child into Indigo's without a mask is discrimination, based on BC Human Rights Commissioner's own guidance, that is not correct.

 

[Miss Hunter]

I don't believe anyone is saying that the child is able to wear a mask - I believe most people will accept his doctors explanation that he cannot wear a mask. The question is (at least the question the Human Rights Tribunal) will have to answer, was the child discriminated against? Was the child denied access to the store's product/service? Given that proper alternative accommodations were provided by Indigo's, which appear to be compliant with the BC Human Rights Commissioner's guidance - it's tough to say the child was discriminated against. You seem to be one of those that believe anything short of letting this child into Indigo's without a mask is discrimination, based on BC Human Rights Commissioner's own guidance, that is not correct.

I never actually said the child was discriminated against. what I was saying was that this issue is debatable, and it's now up to human rights to decide upon.
the problem is she is getting shamed, on an escort review board of all places, for being a terrible mother for trying to take her son to a bookstore, with a drs note. and then challenging the mandatory mask policy. I don't think she did anything wrong.

 

[Miss Hunter]

^^ I read the link you posted. from what I understand she is well within her right to challenge the policy.
the suggestion on curbside pickup is merely a suggestion. The situation is still in a grey area. Based on that, her son does have a legitimate medical exemption which can be challenged.

 

[appleomac]

^^ I read the link you posted. from what I understand she is well within her right to challenge the policy.
the suggestion on curbside pickup is merely a suggestion. The situation is still in a grey area. Based on that, her son does have a legitimate medical exemption which can be challenged.

She's not challenging a policy, per se. She is claiming her son, because of Indigo's policy, was discriminated against. If her claim is successful, and if you know anything about how the BC Human Rights Tribunal operates, they can issue a monetary award for loss of dignity, they can sanction Indigo's as well. But, given that appropriate accommodations are provided for (as per the BC Human Rights Commissioner) - it's a little far fetched to see how she can win. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of discrimination and how a business can avoid it - long story short, it's about equivalent accessibility (for lack of a better term), and to be clear accessibility means a person's ability to access the retailers products/services, in this case. This mother, does not accept the accommodations that Indigo has in place (which appear to be compliant), because she (I can only imagine) believes that equality means "having it my way." Accommodation provides for equivalent accessibility, NOT equivalent experiences! An equivalent outcome at a bookstore would be that everyone (regardless of X, Y or Z) can access the books for sale at Indigo's - this child has not been denied that. This mother wants her child to have a particular experience while buying a book - and because her child has been denied that "experience" she is claiming discrimination. Again, as far as anti-discrimination policies are concerned, what matters is the accessibility (we can all buy a book) and NOT equivalent experiences (because we all experience things differently anyways). If this child was a paraplegic and had to use a ramp to access Indigo's and his mother was able-bodied and walked up the stairs to access Indigo's - they both have equivalent access to the store, but both have different experiences in accessing the store. It would be foolish for the mother to file a discrimination complaint because her son cannot "experience" walking up four stairs into Indigo's, don't you think? This mother's claim is basically that, "my child can't experience the in-store book buying experience". Saying nothing for the fact that, this child will be able to eventually, just not now. The child is not be denied buying books, just one way of purchasing a book - which is temporary at that! It's not about the mask, as soon as this mother files a Human Rights Complaint, it's about discrimination. And I don't think she has a chance at winning. Saying nothing for the fact that this mother, well-intentioned as she may be, doesn't get it. I think alot of people don't get it. I don't think you get it either, as you seem overly fixated on the mask policy and a doctor's note. If this thing makes it way through the tribunal system - the doctor's note will not matter. I don't even think Indigo's mask policy will matter. What will matter is, was there proper accommodation - I believe there was, certainly the BC Human Rights Commissioner would say the accommodations were reasonable as a means to avoid being discriminatory. If the mother cannot accept that, so be it.

 

[Cock Throppled]

The mother is being shamed "on an escort board of all places" because in the middle of a pandemic, she has chosen this time to reject all reasonable accomodations offered to her and her son, over her fixation with "giving her son the experience of a bookstore."

She's not being shamed for being a bad mother, but for being an idiotic mother.
You don't choose to skateboard during an earthquake.
You don't store gasoline cans in your basement while your home is on fire.
You don't decide you want to be on the other side of the river during a flood.

She's free to give her kid other experiences right now, but stores are fighting for survival, and are trying to follow guidelines, and make their patrons feel safe. This mother deciding to bring her son into a store without a mask, right this instant is not only unreasonable, it's pointlessly provocative, and not helpful to her son.

 

[MDpooner]

I went to an SP... I showed her medical card saying I was exempt from using a condom, she refused full service; to accommodate my disability. MY RIGHTS! MY RIGHTS!! /sarcasm

 

[Metaxa]

Q: I wonder what the reaction would be if it was a black or indigenous kid who was denied entry? The VPD just got away with beating a white guy to death. It was far worse than what the cops in Minnesota did to George Floyd. Where is the outrage from the local professional protesters and their woke defund the police, BLM, ANTIFA supporters?

A:The victim’s complexion doesn’t fit with the narrative we want to spin