Quebec orchard accused of refusing autistic kids

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/canada/2 ... 80286.html

If it's a first come first serve kind of place or having to book kind of place they should have booked. Lots of people sounds bad anyways, it would cause me stress to be around lots of people. Capacity is based on safety, isn't it?

The place could be being honest but we have no way of knowing either way unless we were there personally.

He made up that "it was too full" nonsense on the spot, when he was called out on this discrimination. Unless there is a written and posted maximum occupancy rule, he just made it up right then. What a liar! But he got called out on it by the community so good.

How exactly did he supposedly know they were Autistic? You know we always complain that others tell us we don't "look Autistic," but then we can be awfully quick to claim Autism is the reason for discrimination. How so, if people cannot tell by looking? The article makes no mention there was any way for him to know. Were they riding a bus with a sign on it? Were they wearing t-shirts advertising they were Autistic?

The article doesn't say.

There is no way for us to know if he knew, and therefore no reason to conclude that he did. Any business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone based on the reasons he gave. Until there is some evidence given that he knew they were Autistic, there is no reason whatever to jump to conclusions.

Regardless of which side is being most honest, a threat is not a good way to deal with these kinds of things. If someone is going to discriminate (for any reason) they won't be dissuaded by threats in part because they will (possibly) feel vindicated for their discrimination. Anyways, I wasn't there so I don't know either which way.

As far as who is telling the truth, that would be up to the courts to decide if it were to go to trial. Since this would most likely take place in Civil Proceedings if it does go that far, the onus would be on the owner to prove he wasn't discriminating. In civil court, the plaintiff only has to prove that it was more likely than not that the discrimination did happen. Based on this, if the owner truly was aware that the group was autistic and that in fact another group was welcomed in after they were refused, then this would likely result in a decision being rendered in favour of the autistic group. It did say in the article that they came on the day that was first come first serve and if another group was let in after they were turned away, then the court would decide accordingly.

I don't know who is telling the truth. I do know that where I live, people will go out of their way to open their doors to the autistic children in our area. I am proud of our region for this. Our local movie theatre allows our autistic children the entire movie theatre to themselves complete with popcorn, soft-drinks, and lower-volume sound on the movies. One time, when we had a drastic change of plans with our autism support group, we took our entire group of autistic children to a crowded buffet restaurant, and the management welcomed us warmly and gave us seats together, and made sure there was plenty of the children's favorite foods. And the workers didn't even frown as food was dropped all over the place. And our bowling alley has welcomed our children with a wonderful bowling league. And as balls are dropped and lofted highly onto the lanes, the management says nothing but makes sure we are having a great time.

Our special needs children benefit when a community lovingly embraces them. And if only that orchard had allowed those few children into their grounds with a smile, it could have made a difference. Inconvenienced or not, sometimes people just need to be tolerant and accept a little inconvenience in their lives to make a child smile.