That’s not how reasonable accommodation works under ADA. If you were applying for a job that required you to be in office they could just refuse to hire.

If you tried to force working from home at a job you already had a reasonable accommodation would be adjusting your schedule so you could utilize public transportation.

It would be nice if people could dictate the terms but that’s not what ADA protects under “reasonable accommodation”.

Unfortunately no. Not only does monocular vision not automatically disqualify you from driving but you can still get a commercial drivers license with vision in only one eye.

I’ll adjust my comment because I realize it might be confusing. It’s protected by ADA but it doesn’t meet the requirements for a disability claim under Social Security:

Whether you are totally, legally, or partially blind, you may be eligible for the Social Security Administration’s Disability benefits for the blind. In order to qualify, the SSA requires that your vision loss be quite significant and be present in both eyes. Those blind in one eye are not eligible.

I hope they recover their vision. As someone who lost sight in one eye I can attest that going from binocular to monocular vision is life altering AND not considered a disability under the law Social Security requirements but typically is covered by ADA.

Edit: clarification.

You don’t raise a gun and point it at people unless you intend to shoot it at them.

You’re also supposed to be sure of your target and what is beyond it. That’s literally rule 4 of gun safety. It exists so that you don’t, ya know, shoot and kill or injure innocent bystanders.

It’s odd how a peacekeeper for the protest felt there was such an imminent threat they fired in an unsafe manner and yet Gamboa didn’t return fire, or shoot into the crowd or, in fact, fire a single round. The short clip floating around seems to show him running after being shot at.

1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded: This means assuming a gun is always loaded, even

2. Always point the muzzle in a safe direction: Never point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot, and be mindful of the direction the muzzle is pointed, even when the gun is not loaded.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot: Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are on target and have made the conscious decision to fire.

4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it: Before firing, identify your target and be aware of what is behind it, as bullets can travel through or ricochet off of objects.

Brandish a firearm in public

Be real careful applying the term “brandish”.

Utah is a constitutional carry state, meaning anyone 21+ who can legally own a firearm can carry it concealed or openly without a permit.

In my state, Minnesota, you have to take a class and qualify to carry a firearm and during the state approved training your told to follow these steps:

1. No force - avoidance, retreat or de-escalating
2. No force - Telephone for help, Verbal warning
3. Unarmed self defense
4. Less than lethal - exposing firearm
5. Deadly force - pointing the firearm at another person, shooting at someone, shooting and killing someone

It might have been intended as a joke but I, and I’m sure thousands of other Minnesotans, don’t find it funny. It also serves to normalize the behavior of America’s wannabe despot and spreads misinformation to those who don’t know better.

Responding to a polite request with some variation of “It was just a joke” speaks volumes.

Intent is different from impact; we may intend a comment in one way, but it may be interpreted by others differently. Importantly: we are responsible for the impact, not just the intent, of our words and actions.

I guess, though Saint Paul is a different county and they’re literally all over.

Stillwater, Olmsted County, State Patrol, Richfield, Eden Prairie, Edina, Bloomington, St Louis Park, Airport and Hopkins, Sauk Rapids, Golden Valley, U of M police, Inver Grove Heoghts, Blaine to name a few.

Please stop spreading this. He will be charged by the state which would require the Minnesota Pardon Board to vote to pardon him. That’s the Governor, the State AG and the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court. 2/3 would be required to vote in favor of a pardon.

More frightening, I think. I worry most for the children and young adults in the US.

Because a lot of states, Minnesota included, have more sensible processes and rules than the federal government.

The mistake you’re making is thinking Minnesotans will let this man walk free because the Pretender in Chief says so.

We’ll stick this asshole with the 28th Virginia battle flag and they can come and try to collect him.

Please don’t stalk me around Lemmy. I’ve reported this comment and I’ll be blocking you.

I’m in South Saint Paul so if you were in Saint Paul it was a different one since that’s a different city.

Systemic bigotry refers to ingrained biases and discriminatory practices within institutions and systems that disadvantage certain groups of people. An individual consuming Harry Potter content is not “systemic bigotry”.

buying things that enrich their persecutors, and actively donating to those people ideologically, bears no significant difference to the persecuted

I’ve never said anything about “donating to those people” as a direct donation to JK Rowling in the current context would demonstrate intent to support that ideology. The sole act of purchasing a product, in and of itself, does not, regardless of how the persecuted feels about it.

that is not what is happening with people telling people to drop JK Rowling’s IP.

No it’s not. It’s quite clear that the messaging is “drop JK Rowling’s IP (do what we as a group want) or you’re literally transphobic and/or promoting transphobia”. Again, a single choice to consume HP content without context or intent factually and by definition does not mean someone is being literally transphobic and promoting transphobia.

Edit: as I continue to learn things from Lemmy it’s come to my attention that the stance that Consuming Harry Potter content or talking about online makes you guilty of literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia is a form of purity testing.

No statewide stay at home order was issued.

Edit: added statewide to clarify. Source: am 'Sotan.

As a Minnesotan I’d be upset if officials didn’t make this announcement. They had an individual who killed 2 people and seriously injured 2 more, whose vehicle was found with No Kings protest flyers, and who had a manifesto that seemed to indicate they had plans for greater violence.

This is the kind of thing people should be warned about. It’s not like it stopped any/many from going but they’d be derelict in their responsibilities if they didn’t let people know.

You know systemic bigotry needs not intent, or context, from the individual, right?

I don’t know but I don’t disagree with it. It’s also not what I said.

You seem to be arguing that your personal lack of hatred towards a group, and lack of direct harm, means your actions can’t be bigoted.

I’m not. My feelings on the subject, hate or lack thereof, have nothing to do with it. I am arguing that consuming Harry Potter content or talking about it online is not equivalent to literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia. To make that determination requires context and intent.

And no, being forced to pay taxes is not the same as choosing to buy into something funding bigotry.

They are not directly equivalent though it’s interesting that’s the only example I provided you’re addressing.

You’re not forced. You have the choice to not and face those consequences. It’s an awful and unfair choice that nobody should even have to consider but it’s there. By choosing not to refuse to pay doesn’t mean you’re literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia and that’s the point.

You can disagree with someone’s choice to consume HP content or their decision to discuss it online but that doesn’t make it literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia. That requires context and intent.

Transphobia, by definition, consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender or transsexual people, or transness in general. Consuming HP content or talking about it does not meet that literal definition, until or unless there’s context to support it and/or expressed intent, e.g. someone says “I hate trans people so I bought all the HP books to show my support”.

Can’t pardon someone from state charges.

I’m not sure I understand. I made no reference to fictional universes.