1. I agree that if you can't afford them, don't have them.New topic for debate. So, parents of a 12-yr.-old hearing-impaired girl are suing the Girl Scouts because they disbanded the girl's troop. The GS had been paying to have an interpreter attend GS functions. Apparently there are federal guidelines requiring non-profit organizations to accommodate disabilities to an extent as long as it does not place an undue financial burden on the organization. So the mother is claiming the GS disbanded the troop in retaliation for the mother's demand that the GS keep paying for the interpreter. Interpreters cost around $50-60/hr.
My first thought was that it was nice of the GS to pay for the interpreter. Then I got to the end of the article where it said "[The mother] said her family of six relies on her husband's income as an inventory purchaser and can't afford the expense of an interpreter for her daughter." If you can't afford the expense, then why did you have SIX kids? It is ridiculous to me when people have more kids than they can afford, then expect the world to help pay for it. I don't want the girl to suffer because her parents are idiots, but there is nothing saying the girl has to be in the GS, and I am sick of idiots sloughing the consequences of their poor decisions off on other people.
2. Was it the GS paying or was it that troupe? This would make a difference to me I think because I think that GS as an overall organization could afford it, but maybe that particular troupe can't.
3. OTOH life isn't fair and people aren't always going to accommodate whatever special thing an individual has either because they don't want to or can't. <shrug>