You might as well ask the same of the guy who prints the track listing or lyrics for some albums.
They have to, they're simply delivering someone else's message. If you're offended by a signer signing the N-word that was said to someone else, then I don't know what to tell you, might as well be offended at the piece of paper carrying the N-word.
*LYric Sheet for some screamo Metal* "GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!"Assuming the signer needs to understand the lyrics to sign, it would be nigh impossible in many cases. Just giving a lyrics sheet would be the best solution.
You might as well ask the same of the guy who prints the track listing or lyrics for some albums.
That doesn't really make sense in many ways.Would the same apply to a restaurant where none of the staff know sign language? Would that restaurant also be response for having braille menus for blind people?
Would the same apply to a restaurant where none of the staff know sign language? Would that restaurant also be response for having braille menus for blind people?
requires equal treatment in access to employment as well as private and public services, regardless of the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
To me this seems like she was in it for the money to begin with even if it was such a small amount.
That doesn't really make sense in many ways.
Most importantly: communication could still take place, the deaf customer could read the menu or write things, while the blind customer could engage in conversation. There is no need for sign language or braille there.
How is the customer mostly putting in the effort? Reading the menu is a normal part of restaurant culture. If there are further questions, the waiters will put in the effort by writing things down. For the blind example, the waiters would read the menu out loud, again putting in the extra effort.Yes those are options, and in those instances its the customer mostly putting in the effort, not the restaurant. So I'm saying why is it really this promoter's responsibility to provide an interpreter?
Just because you have a disability doesn't mean you get to be an asshole, it seems like they did their best to accommodate her requests and she sued them anyway.
We really need to ask this?
Depends on how you define commonplace. Probably happens a lot, because there are actually loads of deaf people, and loads of concerts.Is it common for deaf people to go to concerts? I get that she's taking her daughter in this instance, but is it a commonplace thing?
How is the customer mostly putting in the effort? Reading the menu is a normal part of restaurant culture. If there are further questions, the waiters will put in the effort by writing things down. For the blind example, the waiters would read the menu out loud, again putting in the extra effort.
The food will be enjoyed regardless of disability, because the employees will do their part to make ordering possible. THAT is their responsibility, not providing sign language or braille. It's about making the product, food, available to all customers.
Do you think the waiters would say "Well, should have brought someone to figure it out for you"? If no, then why do you think a deaf person should provide the interpreter?
So....are white people allowed to sign the n-word for interpretation purposes?
That's not remotely the same. "I shouldn't have to write" VS "I shouldn't have to hire outside workers"? What is this comparison? Are you completely ignoring that the law is calling for reasonable adjustments?The same deaf person at a restaurant could make the case that they shouldn't have to write anything down. The restaurant should have an interpreter. The blind person could say that you're not making the experience pleasant by having to ask you to read everything off the menu instead of them just reading it themselves. I agree that the promoter wasn't able to reasonably accommodate this person's needs, but I think at that point a refund of the purchase should be expected. I think the lawsuit is a bit much.
Obviously, that's subjective. I'd say if you answer the question "Are white people allowed to type out lyrics containing the n-word if hired by the artist to do so" with yes, then this should also not be a problem.So....are white people allowed to sign the n-word for interpretation purposes?
I'm sure some will make a case that only black signers should be at hip-hop shows, but it's not as if there is an overabundance of sign language workers. It's a very specialised role and industry, and it's not as if it's something everyone wants to do.
I cannot give you a definite answer on what you're asking me, but welcome to the complexities of life where if you hold strict absolutist positions occasionally things can come along in life that might at least ask you to question and talk about your beliefs. Not many people will ever think about sign language for the n-word until they are brought into the realities that it is going to need to happen at some music events where sign language is provided.
http://www.visionaware.org/info/eve.../cultural-activities/theater-film-and-tv/1235The blind should sue movie theaters for not having braille descriptions of scenes that they can follow while listening to the audio.
Your comparison is nonsensical btw. Braille? For movies?A number of theaters offer Audio Described Performances, during which patrons can obtain stereo headsets to hear verbal descriptions of stage activities. These are often available for operas, plays, concerts, and political events. Call ahead to see if this is service is available at your theater and performance. Due to the increasing popularity of audio description, reservations may be necessary.
The blind should sue movie theaters for not having braille descriptions of scenes that they can follow while listening to the audio.
http://www.visionaware.org/info/eve.../cultural-activities/theater-film-and-tv/1235
Your comparison is nonsensical btw. Braille? For movies?
I'd suspect any court ruling would have a stipulation along the lines of "In venues capable of holding more than 1000 people" to avoid hitting venues like small pubs and clubs.It's problematic in the implications for smaller gigs.
Whilst medium and large arena gigs are still Uber lucrative, pubs, clubs and small live music acts struggle and would be covered by any blanket Court rulings. Supplying interpreters for the entire evening for all gigs would be untenable
Help me out here - Our local pub has a open mic live night for new artists. Practically, if this is ruled upon then in theory if asked the pub would have to supply and accomodate for this kind of event too for one person, right or wrong?
We live in a pretty modern world with an abundance of wealth(even though we still fail way too many of our fellow humans in many ways). Enabling people with disabilities to enjoy mass media is not a crazy dream anymore.
But what about the opening act? I personally have no idea how much preparation time is necessary for something like this, so I'm wondering if having the signers also perform the opening acts is feasible.If Little Mix is a kiddies pop group, then wow.
Yeah, as weird as t may sound, it's probably illegal not to have a signer.
We live in a pretty modern world with an abundance of wealth(even though we still fail way too many of our fellow humans in many ways). Enabling people with disabilities to enjoy mass media is not a crazy dream anymore.
But what about the opening act? I personally have no idea how much preparation time is necessary for something like this, so I'm wondering if having the signers also perform the opening acts is feasible.
'Deaf' doesn't necessarily mean 100% unable to hear. Concerts, with their loud music and ability to feel the bass, are one of the few spaces where a deaf person can experience a lot of the sensations we take for granted.I mean, concerts are 90% driven by the sound and music of it. It must absolutely suck to be deaf.
Is the woman being slightly disingenuous with regard to suing over the support act ie. is the following fair comment?
"We only got access to the last act. If you went to a film can you imagine only getting access to the last 20 minutes?"
How do you sign pig squeals!?
But surely you'll agree that this is not reasonable for a gig with, let's say, 50 people attending?If someone request for one then yes as they are bound by the Equality Act 2010 act.
Yes as again they are bound by the Equality Act 2010, it doesn't matter how big or small the event is the act clearly states that they have to make provision for people who are disabled.
But surely you'll agree that this is not reasonable for a gig with, let's say, 50 people attending?
A bit heavy handed by the woman but if she gets results for the disabled going forward I'm ok with it.
No problem with this if scaled appropriately. At lower levels the headliner is getting paid on a guarantee (maybe), but the opening acts aren't getting paid much at all. Sometimes just gas money, or just food and a place to stay even. Hiring a sign language interpreter might make those events impossible to pull off.
Nobody booking shows for indie bands is making much, if any money off of it at all.
No I don't, the Equality Act 2010 is quite clear and does not allow exemption for a gig hosting 50 people. If someone requested for a signer then the onus is on the organiser to either meet that requirement.
The only reason why someone would refuse to do it is purely because they don't want to pay for a signer.
Agreed, life is already difficult for us disabled folks.
Well, yes. Should we expect for the organizer to pay for an interpreter if the cost exceeds the estimated profits? There has to be some kind of limit for small performances. A 40 minute set by an unknown band may not attract enough people to pay for a professional signer, who has to translate the lyrics, memorize them, and perform them. I'm talking about events where the individual band members make less than 100 bucks for their performance, the absolute lower end of the spectrum.No I don't, the Equality Act 2010 is quite clear and does not allow exemption for a gig hosting 50 people. If someone requested for a signer then the onus is on the organiser to either meet that requirement.
The only reason why someone would refuse to do it is purely because they don't want to pay for a signer.