Except that is not what you said:
Your posts stated that because ADA is Federal law, it is supreme and overrides any state or local laws, which is just simply not true.

You are conflating two separate ideas. If a local town had specific ADA laws, and a state had specific ADA laws, then yes any Federal ADA law would be supreme.

However Federal ADA does NOT override unrelated State and Local health codes, laws and regulations designed to keep the general public safe.

You implied ANY Federal law or regulation overrules ANY State or Local law, which is just not true.

Was it that easy though? When you have plexi glass in place and a limit on number of players at a table, it could certainly be argued that it isn't as easy as getting all of the other players at the table to shuffle over a bit.

When I say that the federal law is superior to the state law, I am saying that where there is a conflict between them, the federal law prevails. And that is exactly what the quoted passage said, and that is exactly the situation that happened here.

I don't understand what the confusion is. Obviously federal laws do not invalidate unrelated state laws, and I don't see how anyone could interpret the doctrine of federal supremacy to mean that.

Uh, maybe they could just keep the seats to both sides of this player empty? That wasn't so hard, was it?

Seems exploitable to be guaranteed a 7 or less seat table in a 9 handed tournament.

Your point of view completely ignores every element beyond the fact that he's disabled. You have 0 concern for anyone elses experience and that isn't right to me.

How is this exploitable? You're suggesting that people are going to deliberately contract a condition that leaves them completely paralyzed just so they can play shorthanded at daily poker tournaments during a pandemic?

I can't fathom how any could be so selfish to believe that their slight inconvenience at perhaps having to temporarily play at a shorthanded table should be an excuse for kicking a player out of the tournament who has such a debilitating and permanent disability.

I have concern for everyone's experience. But the imposition on the disabled player is several orders of magnitude greater than the imposition on everyone else, and thus concern for the disabled player should prevail just from a common sense perspective, even if not required by federal law.

Without the hard R is it still as hurtful?

Its about the casino keeping their doors open for everyone else. You keep talking about being selfish like the players at the table had any say in this.

I'm tired of disabled people catching all the breaks. Obv that guy has the upper hand everywhere he goes. Thanks to the brave souls in this thread who are man enough to stand up to him and his selfish ways

They should fit the disabled guy in wherever they can and none of the other players at the table should mind at all. It's a poker tournament. It's relatively unimportant, even if this were the main event.

I seriously doubt the Venetian would see it any other way, and that's why we are short on facts here. We don't know why the V said no at first or exactly how it went down.

The problem is that once the caregiver, or the disabled guy, decides to sit there for hours and wait for legal team, and be so adamant about not moving that they have to change catheter, rather than just pop to the toilet for 5 mins, it paints a picture that they are taking things too far.

There is no way the V is going to let a disabled guy sit there and wait for his legal team, with all the ramifications that entails, if they didn't think they could fix the situation wrt to covid in an instant.

had to dig through a lot of **** to finally find some common sense itt.

Seems obvious that the TD or poker room floor manager didn't want to just assume it would be fine and put the entire establishments gaming license at risk by violating a state mandated health procedure. Odds are nobody would say anything or care but that's not a risk you take in efforts to not hurt the feelings of one player one time.

Bewm.

Ye that's probably what happened, and then disabled guy thinks casino are being prejudice against him and the standoff ensues.

So one table is forced to play short handed in a tournament. Great.

Again, the trade-off is between temporarily having a few players play shorthanded and not allowing one player to play at all (in violation of federal law).

Players in tournaments are forced to play short-handed all the time when the tables haven't filled yet or when players get eliminated. There is nothing against casino regulations in having more players at one table than another.

I don't see how there is a question here.

It isn't about not "hurting one player's feelings". It is about violating a player's civil rights under the federal law. We've already established that when state law and federal law conflict, the federal law takes precedence. And you wouldn't even have to violated the covid protocols if you just played short-handed at one table. Obviously federal civil rights law takes precedence over routine card room custom.

If they both had a snack and a beer, it could have been fine (Vegas rules, sarcasm).


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Venetian not at fault here. Negligence by the caretaker to not find out in advance.

If you are disabled you should not have to "warn people in advance" if you are going to attend a tournament.

As someone who has had issues with poker rooms before regarding reasonable accommodations, I would guess that they didn't think this one through completely and made a mistake. It happens, you get the accommodation and move on.

I've had mixed success at the V with ADA accommodations. Some TD/floors are great and it's smooth, some are not and it's a hassle.

Find out what?
There's nothing to "find out". The casino is legally required to accommodate him.
Should every black person have to call ahead before they go to a restaurant to "find out" if they are still segregated?

Does every black person have another person following them around doing everything for them including changing their undies at the poker table?

Since when is it an unalienable right ot play a poker tournament? What do you even keep going on about wrt federal law. They didn't deny ADA accommodations, they denied someone based on covid regulations and the caretaker tried to run a cancel culture smear job claiming it was discrimination when it was her fault he couldn't play.

It wasn't her fault at all that he couldn't play. Disabled people should not be under any obligation to call "ahead of time." Calling ahead of time to figure out if they are going to follow federal law makes no sense.

I also don't think that cancel culture means what you think it means.

Accommodations were made. He was at the table playing. That was made clear. She was in violation of covid regulations that the casino must abide by, and that was why he was removed from the tournament.

Its completely black and white

Maybe its you who doesn't understand what cancel culture is. You clearly don't understand this situation either.

I mean, an accommodation wasn't made if he was removed from the tournament. The accommodation was made when he was allowed back in the tournament.