Originally Posted by sacm3bill
It is obvious, indeed. And you're correct about what the ADA covers. But the ADA is not the only entity that provides assistance. You can get a handicap parking placard for a temporary injury, for example. So I think it's fair to ask you "Yes" voters what your thoughts would be on whether someone with a temporary injury should get a cart, and why or why not.
I'm genuinely curious, not trying to make a point on this: Would you be ok with John Daly using a cart if he developed trouble breathing from smoking-related lung cancer?
And a related question: What if a golfer developed arthritis to the extent he was exactly as disabled as Casey - cart or no?
The SC did not answer the question of whether an asthma or arthritis sufferer should be allowed a cart. Can I assume from your wording above that *you* think they should be allowed a cart?
Not sure what I'm supposed to be getting. I don't believe I ever said Tiger's knee injury was a disability. But note that the ADA *would* cover Tiger if his knee injury ended up causing him permanent issues down the line.
What I've been trying to do is find out how you guys feel about whether golfers should be allowed carts for things other than disabilities. I'm starting to get a sense that you think permanent disabilities should be given preferential treatment, but temporary ones should not. Am I correct?
It seems that we're debating to completely different issues. The majority position here, as expressed by several, is as follows: it is not okay for an external body (i.e. Congress or the USSCt) to impose some condition on the PGA Tour (or USGA in this case) that requires them to make a concession for people who don't meet the standards to play US Open level golf. One of those standards, according to the Tour, conditions of competition, and pretty much everyone associated with the USGA and Professional Golf, is that you must walk. The USSCt said that walking is not an integral part of the game, but the vast majority of the world of championship golf disagrees.
However, again, the majority position on this forum seems to be that in Casey Martin's case, as a very skilled golfer with an extremely rare disability that makes it impossible (not just uncomfortable) for him to walk 18 holes, the decision to allow him to use a cart is reasonable. This is more of an emotional reaction than a logical one.
The USSCt's opinion (as well as district court's) in Martin's case was that his condition qualifies as a disability under the ADA, and that allowing him to use a cart is a "reasonable accommodation" because walking is not integral to playing professional golf.
Viewing Martin's case through any lens other than the ADA is well beyond the scope of this issue. He's only riding a cart because of the ADA, a law passed by Congress which the USSCt opined applies in Casey Martin's case. Those of us who agree that the Court's opinion isn't completely unreasonable (again, on an emotional level, limited to this extremely rare case) are, at most, agreeing that the ADA can provide some relief in some extreme cases.
A temporary illness, injury, etc. is not protected by the ADA. It's not a disability. Whether someone is allowed a handicapped parking space is not even an ADA issue--those rules are set by a state, municipality, or, in some cases, even a private business--and is completely unrelated to this discussion.
Originally Posted by zipazoid
It doesn''t really matter what I think. So I'm not going to entertain hypotheticals. I'll just say that if it is consistent with the SC's ruling on Casey Martin, then they are allowed to play with a cart. If not, then they're not.
Those hypotheticals would not be consistent with the USSCt's ruling in Martin's case, because they're not disabilities covered under the ADA.
As for John Daly's lung cancer, or athsma, or whatever, it might be a "disability" and it might not. It has to seriously impair a life function. Walking, working, etc. are life functions. Walking 10 miles, or running a marathon, are not life functions. Walking 100 yards (or even 500) is a life function, because it's something that every person will reasonably have to do almost every day. It also has to be a permanent condition.
I think there are plenty of people with lung cancer, or athsma, who can walk 500 yards, or even a mile. These people would likely not qualify as "disabled" under the ADA with respect to WALKING, which is the "life function" that is being analyzed in this case.