HIV+ Toddler Banned from Pool

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

So you don't know about it legally either?

I agree with you that being required to carry notes would be stupid. But carrying information to provide to people might also be easier because so far we haven't managed to get rid of all the stupid people.

I agree with you about the pool owner and universal precautions. It's a little scary to think about how he cleans up usually.

They are trying it in the court of public opinion and I think they'll win with people who aren't using that pool.

But I still don't think what that guy did amounts to a ban.

And I still think the parents will likely face more unnecessary uphill struggles if they announce the kid's HIV status to people who don't really need to know it.

Imagine in all the examples that you gave earlier, the person is shouting out, "I have HIV." "Hey, waitress thanks for bring me silverware; I have HIV." "Hey is this seat on the bus taken?; I have HIV." "Can I use your bathroom; I have HIV?" Isn't the person unnecessarily setting himself or herself up for a lot of junk that could be avoided?

They didn't do that, they were chatting with another staff member about adopting their foster child. A desk clerk. At no time did anyone go yelling "I HAVE HIV."

A comparable situation would be if you're sitting at a restaurant table discussing lets say, your doctor's appointments or medications with your significant other, maybe the waitress comes up while you're doing so, makes conversation with you and then repeats what you said to or in the presence of a manager. Manager says, "I'm sorry, but we can't let you eat here or use the restroom without a doctor's note." Would you be like "yeah, it's kind of my own fault for talking about it. I should feel totally welcome here. They didn't really 'ban' me, they just made it clear I'm inherently unclean," or would you be pissed?

Chalk me up in category b.

HIV Q&A from ADA.gov

Q: Are people with HIV or AIDS protected by the ADA?

A: Yes. An individual is considered to have a "disability"
if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a
record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an
impairment. Persons with HIV disease, both symptomatic and
asymptomatic, have physical impairments that substantially limit
one or more major life activities and are, therefore, protected
by the law.

Persons who are discriminated against because they are regarded
as being HIV-positive are also protected. For example, a person
who was fired on the basis of a rumor that he had AIDS, even if
he did not, would be protected by the law.

Moreover, the ADA protects persons who are discriminated against
because they have a known association or relationship with an
individual who is HIV-positive. For example, the ADA would
protect an HIV-negative woman who was denied a job because her
roommate had AIDS.

IANAL so I can't state it with 100% certainty but I believe this applies here. I don't know Alabama state law either or if they have a seperate disabilities act.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

They didn't do that, they were chatting with another staff member about adopting their foster child. A desk clerk. At no time did anyone go yelling "I HAVE HIV."

A comparable situation would be if you're sitting at a restaurant table discussing lets say, your doctor's appointments or medications with your significant other, maybe the waitress comes up while you're doing so, makes conversation with you and then repeats what you said to or in the presence of a manager. Manager says, "I'm sorry, but we can't let you eat here or use the restroom without a doctor's note." Would you be like "yeah, it's kind of my own fault for talking about it. I should feel totally welcome here. They didn't really 'ban' me, they just made it clear I'm inherently unclean," or would you be pissed?

Chalk me up in category b.

HIV Q&A from ADA.gov


IANAL so I can't state it with 100% certainty but I believe this applies here. I don't know Alabama state law either or if they have a seperate disabilities act.

My impression was that the mother or father told a person involved with running the establishment, as opposed to talking it over with another guest.

I repeat again that I'm not a fan of discriminating against people with HIV; I just think that you and the parents are over-estimating the average person's level of information and willingness to make people with HIV truly feel welcome.

Sure the guy who ran the place should have known better.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

My impression was that the mother or father told a person involved with running the establishment, as opposed to talking it over with another guest.

I repeat again that I'm not a fan of discriminating against people with HIV; I just think that you and the parents are over-estimating the average person's level of information and willingness to make people with HIV truly feel welcome.

Sure the guy who ran the place should have known better.

I'll repeat this for what is probably the third time. One of them discussed it with a desk clerk. Not in a, HEY I HAVE HIV way like you were suggesting. Just chatting. It's not inconceivable you'd talk that way to a waitress too. Hence my example. if you were the person eating in that restaurant, what would you do?



And seeing how HIV is covered under the ADA, saying that people aren't willing to make those with HIV welcome doesn't matter. It's the legal equivalent of "I'm sorry Ms. Wheelchair but you can roll here unless you give me a doctor's note"

[UGAalum94]

In hindsight, was it wise for the mother to have done that?

Would you do it if it had been you?

My point is not that it justifies the reaction that she got, just that she probably isn't going to get the reaction she expects or is entitled to in other situations either.

And I'm glad that she has legal protection in the ADA, but it only works if she's or someone else is willing to sue to enforce it. So it might be easier to quit having casual conversations with desk clerks and waitresses about the kid's HIV. As a culture, I don't think we're generally there, and as this case demonstrates, RV parks are Alabama are definitely not.

(People do become concerned and need reassurance about the risk to themselves and others when they find themselves meeting or working around the first person they know has HIV. You or I might google it up if we had questions; other people might want to hear it from the health department. It might be unreasonable (and illegal) for them to expect the mom to provide it for them, but their wanting reassurance is not in fact exceptional when for the first time they are aware of, it's not a completely "what if" situation.

Whether she wants to or not, she's going to spend a lot of time educating people from here on out if she chooses to reveal the kid's status. It's either going to be about how there's no risk to others or about her legal rights. But I'd be really surprised if this is the last time it ever comes up.

Personally, I'd start carrying formation about risk and universal precautions and about my kids legal rights. Should she have to? no. Will her life be easier if she does? probably.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And seeing how HIV is covered under the ADA, saying that people aren't willing to make those with HIV welcome doesn't matter. It's the legal equivalent of "I'm sorry Ms. Wheelchair but you can roll here unless you give me a doctor's note"

I hope you are right, but she's still going to need to have a plan to enforce it. I don't think you can call 911 with an ADA complaint, but I may be wrong. She has to function is the world she actually lives in and with the idiots in it. It's nice to know that she has the law on her side, but I don't think it will change her day to day experience much.

Personally, I wouldn't chat up waitresses or death clerks about my or my child's health issues. I particularly wouldn't do it if the issue were HIV/AIDS. It freaks people out whether you want it to or not.


ETA: you may have already seen this but here's a link to a letter that the ACLU sent the park. It backs up your point and it makes clear that the RV is a public accommodation, which was one of the things I was wondering about. So you're completely correct about the legal issues and there application in Alabama. It'd be nice to think that the publicity about this case will inform others, but who would have thought it would have been necessary in 2007 either?

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upl...e499_30571.pdf