What was happening was that the lawyers were trying, via case law, to set up any incapability as a "disability". I need trifocals; do I get the support of the ADA to go into engraving, which requires very fine vision, and then get my new employer to buy special equipment so I can see what I am doing? And probably displace a previously-qualified individual who can see? In short, do we convert 90% of the parking places in the United States to "handicapped only"? The woman in the case was too short to do the job properly. They offered her a job she could do, at the same or better pay, and she refused. Looking over the case, the only way to satisfy her would be to make the roofs of the cars lower down -- I'm 5'7", so I could probably drive a car that was only 3.5' high or so, but you six-footers would be in trouble.

I, personally, already know a fair number of people who are getting disability preferences for things that could be handled with either different jobs, equally or better paid, or don't justify the preferences -- I know one woman who gets disability plates and several hundred a month because she's too fat; the notion of not snacking on an entire one-pound bag of potato chips with butter and salt on them before eating a dinner I couldn't choke down is just too *ahem* restrictive, eh? Such cases suck up the money and resources that could be used to support people with real disabilities that aren't their fault, including carpal tunnel and the rest of them, and throw the whole idea into the "ridiculous" bin, so that support for it goes away when it's needed.

The Supremes did this one right.

Yes, I know people in that category -- obese for medical reasons. The woman I was referring to has no such problems; she just eats. Possibly it's psychological, although I'm extremely wary of that. And yes, I'm thin, though my wife is not (and doesn't really eat all that much).

Regardless of how you frame the setup, if there's free money (or free power) going, you're going to get people doing scams to grab a chunk thereof. Welfare queens do exist (or did). I absolutely agree that their existence is not a reason to end public assistance for the needy; they represent an inefficiency, not a fundamental problem -- an analogue of friction, perhaps. In fact, I've argued in the past that we really ought to ignore them other than trying to catch and eliminate them; the Draconian measures taken to eliminate "welfare queens" make the legitimate uses of welfare more difficult.

But the disability business is different. The way the case law related to disability was going, almost everybody would be "disabled" one way or another. It might even be true -- but if disabled people are going to get special measures taken to help them, and Government payments based on disability, they have to remain a minority. Sounds like a truism, but not to a lawyer trying to get the down payment for a new Lexus.

I'm not a lawyer; several acquaintances are, and watched this case with interest. The sense I get is that the Supremes drew the decision quite narrowly, focussing on differentiating between normal variations in ability -- some people are short, some need glasses, some are stronger than others, etc. etc. -- and true cases where something happened to reduce the person's capability. A person who's too short to do the job properly isn't "disabled" in my book. OTOH perhaps I should be supporting the notion. After all, I'm only 5'7"; why should all those tall people get those lovely NBA salaries, and I don't? Clearly I deserve a disability check every month!

The examples you cite are discriminatory, not disabilities. And in many cases I'm not totally sure I'm ready to call them illegal -- comfort is having a beer when I want one; luxury is having a pretty girl bring it to me :-)

I'm not likely to be hired to wait tables at Hooters', and that's as it should be (not enough experience (-; ) The question is what's relevant to job performance. Neither Peter nor Ashton is likely to get many tips as a stripper, nor am I; valid discrimination? Or not? I'm not tall enough to be an NBA player, not strong enough or big enough for NFL football -- am I disabled, discriminated against, or simply not qualified?

I repeat: there's free money going, and people are trying to scam it. If that's allowed to continue, it causes a real problem, because our legal system is based on precedent. The precedent this case was trying to squash was DISABILITY := ! QUALIFIED. If that continues, eventually you get the situation where everybody, or almost everybody, is defined as "disabled" or "discriminated against". No matter how rich our society may be or become, people who get compensation for either disability or discrimination have to remain a minority, or the whole system falls down in flames and nobody gets anything.

There are people with real problems, from situations like Christopher Reeve without the movie money to hands bit off by machinery and truck drivers with back problems. They need help. If the funds for that help get scammed off by freeloaders, that help won't be forthcoming.