[Ansteorra] SCA, the ADA, and all of us

[Chass]

    Have you not read a word put in or only the part you wanted to try
and nit pick? I have shown several sites in the NR that are cheaper than
the ones used and they are accessible and are A.D.A. approved sites.
Financial burden is something you need to research case law, just so you
know. It has to be a significant financial burden as set by the SCOTUS
(Supreme Court of the United States). That has only been won 2 times as
a defense. Both were major high priced stores, the rest who have tried
to use that in court have lost.

Chass Brown A.K.A. 

Charinthalis Del Sans of the portable chariot. 

Honorable Recruiter of the House of the Red Shark.

Muddeler of Mead


-----Original Message-----
From: ansteorra-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org
[mailto:ansteorra-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org] On Behalf Of Pug Bainter
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:54 AM
To: 'Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc.'
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] SCA, the ADA, and all of us

Sorry. This got sent a tad early. The section of the FAQ is:

Q. Are there any limitations on the ADA's auxiliary aids requirements?

A. Yes. The ADA does not require the provision of any auxiliary aid that
would result in an undue burden or in a fundamental alteration in the
nature
of the goods or services provided by a public accommodation.

This means increased financial burden is a very reasonable exclusion to
a
site within the context of the SCA. A small amount may not seem like
much to
many people, but we have enough problems getting people to pay the
increased
site costs because of the inflation of site costs, but every hundred
dollars
a site costs could increase the fee people pay by $1 and lower
attendance to
the point that the group doesn't make money.

Ciao,
Pug