[UGAalum94]

If you read the story, you'll notice that the park owner's position was "bring us a letter from the health department or your doctor letting us know this is okay."

While it is a shame that he wasn't better informed, it's not the same as a ban saying you are HIV positive, so you can't swim here.

This seems to be a case of rather than addressing the subtler issue of how HIV/AIDS education hasn't come as far as maybe some people would want it to, a story about discrimination against a child is a better story.

(I also want to add that I think the parents in the story are amazing and inspirational. To take in foster kids is great; to take in HIV positive foster kids even better; and to seek to give a kid a home forever is most impressive of all.)

I think HIV positive people have far fewer non-discrimination rights* than maybe sometimes they think they do*, and it might be a valuable lesson that keeping information private is often going to be the best course of action. If the real risk is low enough that other people are required to submit to, like sharing a public pool or shower, why tell them when no action should be required on their part anyway? And if it's a situation where you don't expose them to any real risk but they can choose to ban you, why disclose something that isn't their business.

(Obviously, I don't think that HIV people can withhold their status from people who assume a risk though contact with them: sexual partners, health care professions who are dealing with their blood, whoever else the law or basic decency would require you to tell. But in other cases where I don't expect to come in contact with your bodily fluids AND I have no control over whether or not to be around you, why tell me and plant that seed of fear in my mind?)

* And I was completely wrong in thinking that. But I still hold that it's be wiser to withhold your status from people who didn't have need to know or a right to refuse you service because I believe it will make your life easier.