quote:

III. Public Accommodations

1. Q: What is a public accommodation?

A: A public accommodation is a private entity that owns,
operates, leases, or leases to a place of public accommodation.
Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities,
such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors offices,
dentists offices, hospitals, retail stores, health clubs,
museums, libraries, private schools, and day care centers.
Private clubs and places run by religious organizations are not
considered places of public accommodation.

7. Q: Can a public accommodation exclude a person with
HIV/AIDS because that person allegedly poses a direct threat to
the health and safety of others?

A: In almost every instance, the answer to this question is
no. Persons with HIV/AIDS will rarely, if ever, pose a direct
threat in the public accommodations context.

A public accommodation may exclude an individual with a
disability from participation in an activity, if that
individual s participation would result in a direct threat to the
health or safety of others. "Direct threat," however, is defined
as a "significant risk to the health or safety of others" that
cannot be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level by
reasonable modifications to the public accommodation s policies,
practices, or procedures, or by the provision of appropriate
auxiliary aids or services. The determination that a person
poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others may not
be based on generalizations or stereotypes about the effects of a
particular disability; it must be based on an individual
assessment that considers the particular activity and the actual
abilities and disabilities of the individual. The individual
assessment must be based on reasonable judgment that relies on
current medical evidence.

- A day care center s refusal to admit a child who is
HIV-positive, because of the fear that the child might bite and
might therefore transmit HIV to other children, is also a
violation. It is incorrect to assume that all young children
bite. Moreover, current medical evidence indicates that HIV is
not transmitted by saliva. Even if an HIV-positive child were to
bite another child, the only bodily fluid that would be
transmitted from the infected child to the non-infected child
would be saliva.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
How is this boy infecting anyone?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Sometimes you have to dig a bit deeper. From your source, which I posted before.

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/hivqanda.txt

quote:

ORIGINAL: WebWanderer

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
How is this boy infecting anyone?

*le sigh*
Two kids get in a fight. One kid gets a bloody nose. The other kid might get infected due to coming in contact with the blood. Moonhead here claims it's okay for the attacker to get infected if s/he doesn't understand how HIV is transmitted.

See posts #2 and 37 for further reference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WebWanderer

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
How is this boy infecting anyone?

*le sigh*
Two kids get in a fight. One kid gets a bloody nose. The other kid might get infected due to coming in contact with the blood. Moonhead here claims it's okay for the attacker to get infected if s/he doesn't understand how HIV is transmitted.

See posts #2 and 37 for further reference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
The kid isnt infected anyone. If he is punched by another student, blaming the outcome on the HIV student is stupid, unless that kid provoked the fight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WebWanderer

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Sometimes you have to dig a bit deeper. From your source, which I posted before.

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/hivqanda.txt

And sometimes you have to read what you post. ""Direct threat," however, is defined as a "significant risk to the health or safety of others" that cannot be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level by reasonable modifications to the public accommodation's policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of appropriate auxiliary aids or services." (emphasis added)

Eliminating the risk of infection through reasonable modification when 12 kids live in the same house 24/7 is impossible. If it is, please explain how.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
If it's okay for a child to bloody another child's nose, it's okay for them to face the consequences of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Explain to me

quote:

The kid wouldn't be blamed, but the school will be. The newly infected kid's family would sue the school for all they've got, ergo the decision. It's a liability risk, as the school said in its statement ("no child can be assumed to always make responsible decisions which protect the well being of others") and as Kirata said in post #2.

quote:

By your logic, if i have diagnosed anger issues and you cut me off on a highway, it's okay for me to follow you home and shoot you, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WebWanderer

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Explain to me

You got it backwards. You are the one challenging the common-sense decision, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Not even remotely, no.
There's no action or initiative in bleeding on somebody who's just beaten the shit out of you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
So now we come to the crux of the matter. Money. Its always about money.

quote:

The kid is not only a potential health hazard, but he's one accident away (snot, tears, etc.) from shutting down the whole school and depriving hundreds of other kids of their chance to get an education.

quote:

According to the CDC, HIV can be transmitted when infected blood comes in contact with an open cut, the eyes, or the mucosal membranes of the nose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WebWanderer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Not even remotely, no.
There's no action or initiative in bleeding on somebody who's just beaten the shit out of you.

Oh, so now you've got nuances... lol Cool, how about this: i have a highly contagious, potentially lethal airborne virus and for some reason you yell in my face. Does your rudeness mean you deserve to die? Because that's exactly what you said: "If it's okay for a child to bloody another child's nose, it's okay for them to face the consequences of that. "

quote:

Yup. It's the dark side of capitalism - you can't have economic freedom and competitive corporate environment without the ability to sue said corporations. No cherry-picking allowed - it's all or nothing. The kid is not only a potential health hazard, but he's one accident away (snot, tears, etc.) from shutting down the whole school and depriving hundreds of other kids of their chance to get an education. Like i'd said in my very first post, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.