Disabled Woman Turned Away From White Castle (VIDEO)

Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

It was after midnight when Ariel Wade rolled into the drive-through at the 24-hour White Castle, one block from the State Capitol. Wade rolled away "madder than fish grease" after the staff refused to hand over any burgers.

Read the whole story: Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Comments

[rf dude]

10:04 PM on 06/15/2009

Here in Kalifornia, and I am NOT making this up,

the ATM machines at many drive-up locations

have instructions in Braille

for the _driver_ ...
--

[RegLib]

02:45 PM on 06/16/2009

ATMs everywhere have instructions in Braille. Because the machines are all manufactured the same. Some get used in drive-up kiosks.

[rf dude]

11:48 PM on 06/16/2009

Gawd, you must be a engineer!
--

[ebanks84]

05:20 PM on 06/15/2009

Bye y'all!

[yellowdoggie]

04:33 PM on 06/15/2009

That poor woman! She doesn't get her middle-of-the-night hamburger fix AND she's made to feel inadequate because she only has a scooter instead of a car. Where is the justice? Where is the fairness? White Castle obviously either needs to buy the woman a car so she can use the drive through lane (since that is what it's FOR) or they need to come up with some other way of serving her burgers in the middle of the night. Maybe hire a "scooter hop" just for her? When they see her roll up they can run an order right out to her.

Poor woman. I'm just weepy thinking about her.

[ebanks84]

04:39 PM on 06/15/2009

LOL

[OkieIntellectual]

06:54 PM on 06/15/2009

Hehe, excellent use of sarcasm!

[ebanks84]

04:26 PM on 06/15/2009

You people need to get a life and stop coming up here so high and mighty like what you're saying is the "be all" on the subject. Listening to other's opinions can't hurt you. If you were up here commenting all by yourself, what fun would that be? NONE!

[OkieIntellectual]

06:56 PM on 06/15/2009

So I was right, you ARE here just to argue for the sake of argument. Everyone please ignore this joker from now on, he's not trying to contribute anything useful to the conversation, he's just trying to get a rise out of people.

[OkieIntellectual]

07:03 PM on 06/15/2009

I have to add to my other comment though that you sir are absolutely masterful in your wharrblghaarbl. Seriously, I've been reading your previous comments and I am really impressed at how long you've been able to keep going. It honestly reminds me of the kind of stuff I used to pull on the fark forums, when I was bored or just felt like messing with people.

Despite my other remark here, I actually respect your skill in the art of tr(o)lling :)

[ebanks84]

04:12 PM on 06/15/2009

Well, it seems that my views are also being upheld on MSNBC. Even David Schuster said it was wrong she couldn't get any service. And they're going to bring up your comments in a little bit from Twitter and wherever else they accumulate comments. Interesting.

[ebanks84]

04:18 PM on 06/15/2009

And it still amazes me to no end that you people are so accepting of rules and regulations that are WRONG and are discriminatory in nature, just because it makes life easier for the capable. How selfish that thinking really is!

[SteamRanger]

04:20 PM on 06/15/2009

David Schuster is just as entitled to be wrong as you are. There's equal access for ya!

[ebanks84]

04:25 PM on 06/15/2009

Hehehehe, I thought that one would draw a smart remark and it did. Thanks for your shoutout :)

[Soundofthunder]

03:56 PM on 06/15/2009

If this is discrimination, in the illegal sense, then everyone who owns just a bike can sue as well.

SOT

[JDJase]

03:20 PM on 06/15/2009

Any person who isn't a white trash id!ot can figure out that the drive through window is for cars only. Clearly she did this on purpose so that she could sue, get some money, and be continue to be lazy...typical american

[SamKnause]

03:28 PM on 06/15/2009

How callus.

[ebanks84]

04:13 PM on 06/15/2009

That is brutal and abusive. You should be ashamed of yourself. It is NOT a requirement that everybody has to see things from your viewpoint only. So let's agree to disagree with some respect, please
1

[drewrichards]

02:41 PM on 06/15/2009

You know I really think some of you should be quite.

1. She was not discriminated against. She is just mentally challenged.

During regular business hours she can roll right into that white castle and order up her grease.

It was freekin AFTER HOURS and ONLY the drive through was open.

2. The drive through policy at all white castles is the same (with the exception of a couple that are actually on the edge of the boardwalk at beach areas that HAVE a WALKUP window...even then walkup is CLOSED before drive through)...Licensed motorized vehicles only...its not a dang walk up window!

You want it to be different write a letter to White Castle and stop crying here.

wanh wanh wanh but i'm special too.

Get over yourselves.

[ebanks84]

02:10 PM on 06/15/2009

So, what makes a business RIGHT in separating their product to certain individuals? That business practice is discriminatory in itself if you ask me. Now it cannot hurt White Castle to open another window for walkups or other non-compliant vehicles. They would do more business and be politically correct in dealing with their clientele if they did.

All of you who have accepted the DRIVE-THRU rules and regulations have just minimalized your own rights. You have allowed that business to put restraints on their access and their product and that is WRONG. And until you wake up and smell the coffee, it's a "no wonder" our businesses have jacked us up in more ways than one!

It seems to me that some of you don't even realize when you are being hoodwinked and bamboozled for your money patronage. And that's a shame.

[Tyler-Durden]

02:25 PM on 06/15/2009

ok, this is really my last comment on this, since i finally succeeded in convincing you that this woman was not discriminated against, based upon her disability.

here's what's up with drive thru's.

once upon a time, THERE WERE NO DRIVE THRU'S. you had to go inside.

this was before ADA. there were no special ramps, no special doors, no special bathrooms, no requirements on counter height, access to service, etc.

as time went by, businesses realized they could offer more convenience to people who could not get out of their cars easily. they built drive-up windows, so people could get service without getting out of the car.

more time went by, and disabled citizens finally got rights they deserved, with the ADA requirements. This law ensures EQUAL ACCESS as non-disabled.

A drive thru window caters to customers IN CARS. So the restaurants are providing EQUAL ACCESS TO DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED.

EQUAL ACCESS based on FINANCIAL STATUS, however, is a different world. THERE IS NO equal access based on income or wealth. Quite the contrary, there is much discrimination. THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
It has always been a war between THE RULING ELITE CLASS, and THE WORKING CLASS. Every country, everywhere, for all eternity, has been this way. It has never been different and never will be until the working class unite and take over.

[ebanks84]

04:16 PM on 06/15/2009

So you accept this is being OK?

Well, I don't!

[brainpower]

04:15 PM on 06/15/2009

I think your heart is in the right place, but I suspect you are young, because you are ignoring some basic realities. Yes it CAN hurt White Castle to open another window. The cost of staffing it may be prohibitive. These businesses exist not to be kind and provide food to the needy, they exist simply to make a profit. If they didn't make some degree of profit they could not exist. Obviously it benefits them and us to provide the best customer service to the extent they can and still remain profitable. What your posts indicate that you don't seem to get is that we have no inherent right to these services, disabled or not. If you don't like their practices DON"T give them your money. They are private industry and have no inherent moral obligation to provide equal access due to income level, transportation or disablilty. There is however a legal obligation to provide equal access to the disabled to the extent that it is feasible (there are ADA exemptions if the cost would make the business non-viable), and personally I am glad of that. I think it is clear that this particular example is not an example of discrimination against the disabled.

[ebanks84]

04:30 PM on 06/15/2009

I'm sorry to disagree with you. According to the ADA, if a business is open and servicing the public, then it must also service the disabled accordingly. That's why I said what I said and I hold to that opinion 100%.

[ebanks84]

02:07 PM on 06/15/2009

Listen Tyler, I can understand your argument about this not be a "discrimination" issue. You argue well and it makes sense. However, I still have my own feelings about this article that encompasses the issue of rights for businesses to do business in a discriminatory manner. And this is the last time I will say this.

NO business should limit it's product to CONDITIONS like Drive-thrus do. I never knew drive-thrus were so discriminatory in the first place. I've walked thru a drive-thru and have been served. I guess it depends on where you are and what city you do business in. I don't know. I never thought of it being a problem before.

This article brought it to my attention only because the product is FOOD and no one should be denied food when they are hungry, whether they NEED the food or not. If the business makes the food available to customers ONLY in a vehicle, why don't they specify exactly what vehicles will NOT BE SERVED. This woman was in a vehicle, just not the right kind of vehicle.

[Bosfarcal]

12:56 PM on 06/15/2009

This just in. Sean Hannity blames Obama for "White Castlegate".

[MrWampler]

01:06 PM on 06/15/2009

Did he order it with mustard?

[e-coll15]

12:34 PM on 06/15/2009

I was actually denied food at a Wendy's while on a motorcycle. I wish I would have known at the time that I was being discriminated against.

[Tyler-Durden]

12:56 PM on 06/15/2009

you do know that you weren't, right?

what do you ride?

[ebanks84]

02:19 PM on 06/15/2009

Thank you for being so nice. I appreciated our conversation a lot because I never knew that people felt okay with such restrictions. I really didn't. So I did learn something here today and I'm glad I did.

[Bee]

03:16 PM on 06/15/2009

Yes e-coll15 was. A motorcycle is a motor vehicle. He can drive on the freeway but not in a drive thru? I think e-coll15 should sue, but not a person in a segway, wheelchair, shopping cart, etc

[M4dwoman]

12:29 PM on 06/15/2009

Most drive-thrus in my state do not allow walk ups to the window. It is for the protection of the staff and the pedestrian. I imagine a teenager working for minimum wage at White Castle was being asked to make a swift decision as to whether or not the slow-moving scooter counted as a motor vehicle.
Let's just say, knowing as I do, that some kids in an SUV come cruising through to get a late night snack. Will they see a scooter at the window in time to stop?
I'm just curious as to why a person in a scooter would want to drive though a White Castle late at night.
Sometimes it's not discrimination. Sometimes it's just common sense.

[MaryanneAZ]

02:26 PM on 06/15/2009

Easy to say as long as it is not YOU who is being denied the product you seek. A person on a scooter would want to drive through a White Castle for the same reason people in cars do--they are hungry or making a run for someone else.

[Bee]

03:26 PM on 06/15/2009

Maybe if she were turned away at a drive thru pharmacy, I'd be a little more sympathetic. I doubt this lady would have died without getting her 11pm burgers. Quite the opposite actually. I would love to hear her doctor's opinion on this situation.

[whocan]

12:23 PM on 06/15/2009

Next she will sue the Yankees for not letting her get knocked up by AROD

[poster1122]

12:20 PM on 06/15/2009

I've skimmed through ebanks' posts and I have to say, I don't think he/she understands the implications of what he's saying.

If you accept his premise that equal access to a drive thru is legally required to comply with the ADA, then he effectively is requiring a ban on all drive-thrus.

Think about it: mobility is not the only disability covered by the ADA. People also covered include the blind and the deaf, for instance. No doubt there are people who have severe conditions that also affect their vocalization too (e.g. severe Parkinsons). If equal access to a drive-thru was mandated, you basically require that the average restaurant keeps its front open to accommodate those folks (since if you can't hear or speak, you can't really use the ordering system).

Given the relatively few customers you'd have who'd actually need this service and the added safety risks to the workers, most restaurants just won't be able to offer drive thru service.

[Tyler-Durden]

12:31 PM on 06/15/2009

i've been working diligently to get ebanks to recognize her disconnect with what applies here. i think i may be making a break thru. i've been working on it for almost 3 hrs now.

the facts are this:

1. not having a car is not a disability, therefore not ADA protected
2. as long as the business applies the policy evenly, refusing service to EVERYONE not in a car, it is not discriminatory practice
3. all restaurants with drive thrus have policies to service the disabled EQUALLY as non-disabled. (braille and picture menus for blind and deaf) they still, like non-disabled, must be in a car to use the drive thru. it is EQUAL ACCESS.

[ebanks84]

12:37 PM on 06/15/2009

I just don't know how you can call leaving out a huge portion of the population from accessing your service or product EQUAL. That's not equal at all. That has conditions and the condition is the CAR. A lot of poor or elderly don't have access to a car. And that in itself is a handicap when required by this business for their service or product.

What about that don't you seem to understand? There should be no requirements if you are claiming EQUAL ACCESS. Otherwise, claim CONDITIONAL ACCESS and all will be well in mudville tonight!

[ebanks84]

12:55 PM on 06/15/2009

I don't have a disconnect from this story. I have an issue that NO ONE but one person so far has addressed as a problem. No matter what handicap people might have, they should be able to order food on their own if they want to from any public business. Now those who can't, I'm not arguing for them. Anybody who wants to send somebody or get their food some other way is fine with me. I'm only arguing for those who wish to do it themselves the best way they can. Now if that's wrong, then tell me why it's LEGALLY wrong, when the law specifically states that if a business of open to service the public, they should also be equipped to service the handicap, without having the conditions of driving a vehicle period.

[Tyler-Durden]

01:02 PM on 06/15/2009

you are mixing two arguments:

1. access to a car
2. access to over come a disability

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME

if this woman had a van with chair lift, she could use the drive thru alone, as you indicate. but if she cannot afford a van, that is NOT A DISABILITY. that is an income issue.