legality vs morality vs ethics: this guy sure seems to be riding the line of decency, even with his defense so eloquently comprised. Sure he is using the law to help people, and I'm sure it doesn't hurt his motivation that he, himself is to benefit. It seems comparable to suggest large companies paying people 50 cents a day is helping them, because workers wouldn't have anything if they didn't. It may be true, but it makes it no less self-interested. Does he do this as an altruistic side project during his free time? no, this is his livelihood. It is a veiled attempt to "help" those in need.
I can not imagine business in violation of the law wouldn't do something, perhaps not restructuring pre-law buildings, but maybe installing a ramp to help people access the location. (I have yet to meet a person with a prejudice against those with disabilities; perhaps apathy, which is little better but curable with information and solutions. but I digress...) Also, is a letter adequate correspondence if a solution is the desired outcome?. (If I had a dollar for every piece of unopened mail from an unsolicited outfit that I have thrown away, I could make the adjustments for at least one business.) One would imagine he has to go to these establishments. Does he make appts. to speak with owners to attempt a resolution while there? Meanwhile, the locally owned small business are being forced to close due to their inability to stay out of his crosshairs. I'd wager his complete disgust of this disregard doesn't stop his patronage of these noncompliant outfits should he desire something within.
I'm saddened by the "clients" who help him do this, who (I hope) think he cares. I wonder what sense of accomplishment they derive from these settlements. I wonder how many clients he has, or if it a team of people championing the cause. No one can be at every event, but I wonder what he does to support people with disabilities, or donates to the community center programs or several organizations that are in place to help those with disabilities. Does he donate time?
He sure has found access to the disenfranchised though; offering people a way to feel less slighted is a powerful mechanism, but helping people to elevate their situation is more so; teach a man to fish, as it were. I wonder how thankful people are when the place they wanted to go to/ the item they were so sad not to have is no longer there, if indeed patronage is/was the objective.
Maybe the money stays local, but wouldn't that be the case without the closures? And it shocks me that his clients would only "very likely" spend their money at a compliant establishment. I mean, if these people are such advocates of the law, they should certainly only spend money where they have been considered. Where are these advocates anyways? Where is the Singleton sponsored event to raise awareness or funds to help outfit local establishments who want to comply but can't? If he is so acutely aware of the tax benefits, where is his workshop to help those in need of said advise? I guess at the end of the day, it is the lack of solution oriented behavior that seems to draw the disbelief.
He may think he is helping... he may have told himself that enough, his view may be that one sided, but what about the out of court settlements that do not result in total restructuring, yet still seem to appease; What of the access then?
Is he a good person?, that is not for me to decide... but it will come to question at some point.
Sure, he's acting within the law, and that makes it legal. Does it make it OK? To quote a famous advocate for rights, MLK, "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." Also, everything the founding fathers did to conquer this land was legal... was it ethical?
This is a small town, where we rely on others, and being so distrusted is not meaningless. He'll stand behind his motivations and bravado and that is exactly what will protect him some day... or maybe wont; time shall tell.
Re: “Jason Singleton Responds”
legality vs morality vs ethics: this guy sure seems to be riding the line of decency, even with his defense so eloquently comprised. Sure he is using the law to help people, and I'm sure it doesn't hurt his motivation that he, himself is to benefit. It seems comparable to suggest large companies paying people 50 cents a day is helping them, because workers wouldn't have anything if they didn't. It may be true, but it makes it no less self-interested. Does he do this as an altruistic side project during his free time? no, this is his livelihood. It is a veiled attempt to "help" those in need.
I can not imagine business in violation of the law wouldn't do something, perhaps not restructuring pre-law buildings, but maybe installing a ramp to help people access the location. (I have yet to meet a person with a prejudice against those with disabilities; perhaps apathy, which is little better but curable with information and solutions. but I digress...) Also, is a letter adequate correspondence if a solution is the desired outcome?. (If I had a dollar for every piece of unopened mail from an unsolicited outfit that I have thrown away, I could make the adjustments for at least one business.) One would imagine he has to go to these establishments. Does he make appts. to speak with owners to attempt a resolution while there? Meanwhile, the locally owned small business are being forced to close due to their inability to stay out of his crosshairs. I'd wager his complete disgust of this disregard doesn't stop his patronage of these noncompliant outfits should he desire something within.
I'm saddened by the "clients" who help him do this, who (I hope) think he cares. I wonder what sense of accomplishment they derive from these settlements. I wonder how many clients he has, or if it a team of people championing the cause. No one can be at every event, but I wonder what he does to support people with disabilities, or donates to the community center programs or several organizations that are in place to help those with disabilities. Does he donate time?
He sure has found access to the disenfranchised though; offering people a way to feel less slighted is a powerful mechanism, but helping people to elevate their situation is more so; teach a man to fish, as it were. I wonder how thankful people are when the place they wanted to go to/ the item they were so sad not to have is no longer there, if indeed patronage is/was the objective.
Maybe the money stays local, but wouldn't that be the case without the closures? And it shocks me that his clients would only "very likely" spend their money at a compliant establishment. I mean, if these people are such advocates of the law, they should certainly only spend money where they have been considered. Where are these advocates anyways? Where is the Singleton sponsored event to raise awareness or funds to help outfit local establishments who want to comply but can't? If he is so acutely aware of the tax benefits, where is his workshop to help those in need of said advise? I guess at the end of the day, it is the lack of solution oriented behavior that seems to draw the disbelief.
He may think he is helping... he may have told himself that enough, his view may be that one sided, but what about the out of court settlements that do not result in total restructuring, yet still seem to appease; What of the access then?
Is he a good person?, that is not for me to decide... but it will come to question at some point.
Sure, he's acting within the law, and that makes it legal. Does it make it OK? To quote a famous advocate for rights, MLK, "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." Also, everything the founding fathers did to conquer this land was legal... was it ethical?
This is a small town, where we rely on others, and being so distrusted is not meaningless. He'll stand behind his motivations and bravado and that is exactly what will protect him some day... or maybe wont; time shall tell.