[JR in Orlando]

The law may be clear, but that does not mean that the interpretation of the law or the need to change the law is not debatable. Otherwise, why would there be lawsuits and administrative hearings as to what regulations say, should say, and should mean. I understand the law as now written states these people should have assistance. I believe the law and the accompanying regulations should be changed to more clearly define and limit "who needs help."

p.s. By its very nature, government regulates morality in various ways, e.g. no prostitution, no cannabis, etc. Even the ADA law and the Air Carrier Access law in effect regulates morality because those able to lobby the government wanted to make everyone "more compassionate" with regard to diabled persons. For years business acted as compassionate or non-compassionate as they chose. The law changed, requiring them to meet someone else's concept of compassion for the disabled as set forth in the law. Its one thing for a company to be accomodating as did Sabrina with the disabled passenger in JimWorcs example. Its quite another to use the power of law to make them do so. By definition, the passage of such laws seeks to regulate and control people's morality and action for some '"higher good" as that higher good is perceived by someone.