Free speech bloggers like to go on about "what ifs". What if you had competing claims of discrimination? Couldn't some of these "rights" violate other people's "rights"? Who wins?
Well we will now have a chance to find out. There is a case which is (or should be) currently going on in BC in which condo owners are being sued by two different people in one case.
One person is suing them for not allowing him to continue to keep a service animal.
The other person is suing them for allowing the first person to keep a service animal for a period of time.
Where do we begin? How do we judge this one? They both have disabilities. Both have medical requirements that necessitate/are helped by living with a dog/living in a dog free environment.
Does the first person to live in the condo win? Does the person with the most serious requirement win? Who defines serious? Neither appear to be necessarily life and death.
Do they both loose?
Or should we do it alphabetically?
We all know about cases where people are sued for not being accommodating enough but being sued for being too accommodating?
What on earth was the condo supposed to have done to prevent this from happening? Does the law cover cases where you can't keep it because regardless of what decision you make you are breaking it? They couldn't both stay, and you couldn't kick one or the other or both out of the apartment.
I look forward to hearing the answers.
But I'll bet one thing, the BCHRT will be completely deaf to the irony of the Kafkaesque travesty they are involved in and will judge the case on some very narrow margin of "balancing".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment