Perhaps the good judge will slip on some ice and break his hip, as my boss' wife (also a professor) recently did, and then he can tell us more about the "cult of disability". If not for the considerations public buildings take for the disabled or injured, a significant portion of the workforce would be unable to simply arrive at work. Why ideologues attack such innocuous aspects of American culture and society is beyond me.

Chuck, by way of clarification, Dierker does not address handicap ramps or parking spots - aspects of accommodation enacted by the legislatures and administrative agencies, where such statutes and rules are, arguably, implemented via a democratic process - but rather judicial "rectification" of perceived inequality via the 14th Amendment - making Martin walk instead of "allowing" him to participate by using a cart.

Yeah Chuck, I think there's a nuance there that the book is getting at. What you desire is still possible and even advcated...it's just that these authors think the legislature is the proper medium, not the courts.

The legislature has _already_ addressed such issues, in laws like the ADA. The courts are instrumental in actually enforcing such legislation once it has been passed.

Dierker sounds like a completely unhinged looney, if reports of what he's saying are even halfway correct. E.g.,
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/12/bias-its-holding-that-legal-texts.html

Phil, applicability of the ADA was not at issue in City of Cleburne.

Um, right... but it _is_ at issue in most cases concerning most of the sorts of issues that Chuck was talking about. (And, for that matter, PGA Tour v. Martin, which was listed in the original post.)

And, really, is it _obvious_ that the 14th Amendment, in the absence of further legislation, ought not apply to cases like Cleburne?

What makes Dierker's book so awful on its face is that he takes as his starting point that the other side has no merit whatsoever, and can thus be lambasted as "femifascists", etc. JC may be right that some arguments in the same general vicinity of the book may have nuance; but this book doesn't seem particularly to partake of that nuance itself.

Phil, I agree with you completely that the Judge's book misses the ultimate mark. As I said in my cursory review, the substance of his message really lacks any, well, substance. The question of whether the EP clause of the 14th was properly applied in Cleburne... There may be an argument for it, but White's purported rational basis review of the city ordinance was atypical.