I have yet to see any sign resembling the title of this post in all the time I have had a disability, and yet it is my reality. On a recent trip to Central Oregon, I went to dinner at a restaurant and the front entrance was inaccessible. On the side of the building there was a wooden ramp that led to a door towards the back of the building. There was no official posting that this was the wheelchair accessible entrance, but there did not appear to be much choice. Upon getting to the top of the ramp, which was not up to ADA code, I  pushed on the door. It was open. ( A pleasant surprise. Time after time I have attempted to use the so-called accessible entrance of buildings and found that the door was locked.) Guests seated near the door got up from their tables and held the door open for me. Once inside, there was no indication as to where I was supposed to go to be seated. I did not see any staff from the restaurant. I could have waited until an employee came over to direct me. I would have felt very conspicuous.

In this instance, I decided to move towards what I thought was the check-in point, needing to ask several people to move their chairs to let me pass. It was quite a commotion. Everyone seated on the aisle had to get up to make room for me. Once at the front, I sat while several staff members walked by. Eventually, they asked if I had a reservation, which I did, and I was subsequently seated…right by the front door.

I was not happy.

It is one thing to bar me from entering the door that others use, but when there is no one to direct me once I am inside, no signs that might give me a clue where to go, it feels invalidating. I was not valued as a customer. The restaurant does not really care about anyone who comes in that back door. They have never really thought about what it would be like to come in that door.

In certain circumstances, one might ask whether it is better to be mistreated than not treated at all. At least the mistreatment comes with some acknowledgement that you are there, that you exist. But in the latter case, you do not even warrant consideration. There are federal regulations that must be met, but they are not considered to be connected to a living, breathing person. Clearly the modifications to this restaurant were done without considering how different living, breathing people might access and use the space. They may have followed the letter of the law, but I doubt they  considered the intent of the law, of the policy, or the advocacy that went into getting the law put into place. The intent goes to independence, access, and inclusion.

What does it say about our society when there are situations where being mistreated would actually be the best option?

This blog is operated under the policy that it is better to get the thoughts posted than to wait until I have time to  edit them. Therefore, posts may contain grammatical and/or other errors. Readers beware.