Posted by gypsy1 (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I dont remember the sign saying "Any City Building" I think this was for the ADULT ACTIVITY CENTER. Goodness there's always somebody somewhere that has to holler discrimination-young, old, white, black, healthy or disabled-its everywhere.

Posted by atm (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is another example of the lack of communications from the top. Also this points out the lack of reason with lower level employees. The employee most likely has little education,low self esteem, and is taught to follow rules and enforce them as she pleases.
I'll bet there is little or no follow-up by whom ever is in charge of this facility, and feels justified in her actions and told her peers ,proudly, that she threw you out.

Posted by lo1an2go (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I also realize rules have to be followed. BUT, children are allowed in that building once a year, when they have Grandparents Day. Do you think there insurance policy reads " children are not allowed in the Adult Activity building, except on Grandparents Day"? I think not. The employees should use a little common sense when enforcing the rules. But some people let a little authority go to there head. I do know of situations where those same employees have said, "it is against the rule but I will make a exception this time."

Posted by lookeyhere (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just obey the rules.When something don't go your way you claim discrmination,lol.I promise you if there was signs up there saying NO CHILDREN ALLOWED,you would still complain.

Posted by kayec156 (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Rules like this are for your good as well as their's. THey know that if your child gets hurt in their facility, you would not be covered by their insurance. And if there is a workout program there, I'm sure there is workout equipment which is not designed for children. Maybe your child wouldn't want to play on it, but the average child would. Businesses have to protect themselves.

Posted by andalusiacitizen (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Either you want it to be positive or you want it to be negative. You can't have it both ways. The sign is stating positively that children can't come in. You said that the sign should say 'no children allowed.' That's negative and would start complaints in and of themselves. Sure the employee could have been a little nicer, but rules are rules, and no, exceptions shouldn't be made for one person, that's what is wrong with so many people today. They think they deserve special treatment. Follow the rules and you won't have anything to complain about. There are reasons why children aren't allowed, obviously, as stated on the sign. It's not discrimination.

Posted by wifey4 (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In response to the comments made by gypsy1, you are ABSOLUTELY correct. "There is always someone hollering discrimination" because THERE IS ALWAYS SOMEONE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST! You are also correct in stating the sign did not say ANY CITY BUILDING. I chose to use those words to further re-iterate the fact that the AAC is, indeed, a city building that is also one that has public access. I only wish I lived in your world where discrimination of any kind did not exist. Since I don't, I can't even begin to understand your reasoning. The big difference here is you know my name, but I don't know yours. Just remember you don't know anything about ME, you only know I am the author of the letter.
In response to lookeyhere, I AM a rule follower. You should talk what you know and not what you THINK you know. Clearly, if the sign posted had said "NO CHILDREN ALLOWED," I would not have entered the building with my daughter. (DUH) Furthermore, your sentence should have read "When something doesn't go your way, you claim discrimination." Thank you and proofread next time.

Posted by wifey4 (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here we go again! In response to andalusiacitizen; to me, it is not about being positive or negative. The bigger issue is right or wrong. How can a public building be off limits to anyone? I am not looking for special treatment. I am only stating the facts. You fail to realize the point I am trying very hard to make. If I have never been to this particular building, how would I know that children were not allowed inside the building if there are no signs that say so? The point of the matter is had the sign revealed that, my daughter and I would have never been in that particular building to be confronted in the first place. I knew my letter would cause an uproar, but some of these comments are just ignorant!

Posted by lookeyhere (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wifey4 wrote"I knew my letter would cause an uproar,but some of these comments are just ignorant"! Yes your comments are very ignorant. Nobody has discriminated against you,so grow the hell up.Uh but you know what,I am offended that you are offended.See it never ends.

Posted by Naviddousel (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The title of the article "Policy Discriminates Against Our Children" implies that somehow children should be allowed in the center. Children are limited from many places, bars, gaming centers, the workplace, and numerous others. In no way does this equal a discriminatory policy. If the policy had stated: only white adults, Catholic women, black females. Etc allowed, then a claim of discrimination could be made. Many adults desire a place to work out free of children underfoot. While I have no doubt that the situation could have been handled in a better manner by the person in charge, the person dropping off the package could have found an employee and asked them to handle the transfer. Also, the package transfer could have waited till the mother left the center.

However, the mindset that it was only one child for a few minutes can quickly become other adults bringing children and grandchildren and using the facility as a daycare while working out. The mindset that I'll only be there a short time so no one will mind can be seen throughout society. As an example, observe the checkout line at any Walmarts that is restricted to 20 or less items and watch customers with more items use it, operating under the standard of its only a couple of extra items no one will mind, and besides I’ll do what I please regardless of how it effects others around me. The fact is that too many people think their rights extend into the arena of their fellow citizens. Regardless of the attitude of the city employee, the basic action of asking the lady to remove the child was correct, the only thing missing was tact, a quality that far too many people lack.

Posted by 4real (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Two points:

1) Andalusiacitizen writes, "The sign is stating positively that children can't come in" when the sign says nothing about children entering, it states they can't "use" the facility. If they can't enter, the sign should state so.

2) What is magical about age 21. I thought 18 made you an adult. You can vote, serve in the military, hold local elected offices, but you cant use the Adult Activity Center?

Posted by hushmymouth (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here we go again !!! SAD ..this is a free workout place for all The people who can not afford the gym price !! We have to sign a waiver that we will not hold anyone responsible for a injury as a result of using the exercise equipment.
Why couldn't the package wait to your Mother was home ?
I am sure your daughter is well behaved , But as we all know most are not . Why would you get so stressed out about this ?
I'm sure your Mother enjoys her workout ,enjoys the conversations . I know I do !
This FREE service could be taken away from so many that need it , because of one imagined injustice.
My sister works out here also , she has a 12 year old .She thought nothing about the sign .
MY 2 cents .
Thank You

Posted by lulubell (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is it off limits to refuges from hurricanes also? They bring their children with them when they flee their state. I believe ARC uses this building as a storm shelter. If it is unsafe then I'm sure that the ARC would not use their building as a storm shelter due to liability claims. Just wondering why a mother who had her child by her side the entire time would be told all that information while she was just their for just a few minutes? Oh yeah I did read what she said about the work out room. Maybe she should have stopped and ask someone to get her mother to come where she was and that would have been the end of all this...............

Posted by andalusiacitizen (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, stating that the center is for use for those 21 and older pretty much spells it out for you that it's not ok for children to be there.
Navid, I agree with you 100%.

Posted by sweetnannie (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe there needs to be a entrance where people have to check in and get a pass if not enrolled or part of the center. That way no one not allowed could enter at all. A package or message could be left with the attendant. That way someone else could be held responsible if a child or person got in without consent. There are many adult centers and neighborhoods that do not allow children at all in their buildings or property. Sad too. Seniors usually love the sound and sights of children around them.

Posted by wifey4 (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lookeyhere! That is exactly what you need to do here. Stop, and "lookeyhere." Nothing that I have stated thus far is ignorant. I had and still have an opinion about what I encountered at the AAC, and no matter what you or anyone else thinks about it, I GOT MY POINT ACROSS! Whether you know it or not, there are a lot of citizens here in Covington County that I have spoken with about what occurred and NONE of them knew children were not allowed in this building. So, revisit the letter I submitted and read it well. I never said anything about children not being able to enter the exercise room. I distinctly said the BUILDING. Now, you grow up and stop bringing a knife to a gun fight. In closing, I refuse to have a battle of the wits with an unarmed person. YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THIS.

Posted by wifey4 (anonymous) on November 21, 2009 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HUSHMYMOUTH! Do me a favor and do just that. Better yet, you can revisit my letter also. When you do this, tell me where I once said I was there to work out-thus, "utilizing the facility." That was not my purpose. To answer your question about why I didn't wait to give my mother her package, simply put-I DIDN'T WANT TO! It was on my way home, and thought she might need it immediately after working out. Please don't get it twisted...I am in no way STRESSED OUT about what happened. I am, however, appalled at all the responses LIL OL' ME merited. "BIG UPS, TO ALL MY HATERS!!!!" Keep 'em coming...I've got all night. :)

Posted by Naviddousel (anonymous) on November 22, 2009 at 12:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The cultural shift from collective to individual rights has many benefits but there are also downsides involved. One downside is played out in the editorial. Namely, the rules apply to me but only under the paradigm that one chooses. Mrs. Dorsey's complaint reflects this attitude that can be found in every area of society.

The adult who complains of a lack of discipline at school yet shouts the loudest when their child is the focus of that discipline. The parent who talks of the benefit of team sports then berates the coach for having the temerity to question the actions of their child. The college student who is told no cell phones then reacts with indignation when a Prof. or GTA tells them to shut off the cell phone or leave class. Each example reflects the attitude that my feelings supercede anything or anyone else.

The letter writer has framed the issue as everyone else is at fault, with no allowance for her own actions. The temerity of the employee not to recognize that the child wasn’t a problem, the visit was limited, the mother really needed the package, the daughter didn’t feel like waiting till later to drop off the package, and the sign wasn’t explicit enough, it is all the fault of others. Hopefully, after the letter writer tackles this discriminatory action, then she can tackle the state of Alabama not issuing driver licenses to eight year olds or the Marine Corp not letting blind males fly aircraft.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on November 22, 2009 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Naviddousel: Thank you for your words of wisdom!
I have read the notice at the Senior Activity Center, which states, (and I paraphrase) you must be over 21 to be in the facility. I believe this requirement was put in place to circumvent any potential for loitering.
This center is a blessing for seniors and they deserve to have a safe, secure environment. I believe the center does its best to provide such an environment. I know seniors enjoy being around little children....at times..... and children certainly do not cause a security risk. But, children certainly can cause noise far beyond any decibel of endurance! Especially a 2 year old! I know this because I have a 2 year old!! When seniors are at the center, I believe they are there mainly for companionship with their peers and really don't care to have young ones there also. The use of the word discrimination is over kill in this case. There are some places children need not go, and the Activity Center is one of those places. To the writer; have a little gratitude that your mom has a great place for a get away. Becoming embittered with the Center has no benefit for you or your mom.

Posted by lookeyhere (anonymous) on November 22, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wifey4 wrote" To answer your question about why I dindn't wait to give my mother her package,simply put- I DINDN'T WANT TO"! Lol, I think that sentence pretty well gives us the whole picture. Not only are you extremely ignorant,but you are a very selfish person.

Posted by outlaw11 (anonymous) on November 22, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Simply pick up the two year old, walk into the bldg, deliver the pkg, walk out...problem solved...you became a problem because you made it a problem...live and learn.

Posted by winkie (anonymous) on November 22, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

outlaw11: I agree, deliver and go.

Posted by wifey4 (anonymous) on November 22, 2009 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again, poor lookeyhere is worthy of one last post from me. Please find a dictionary and look up the word "ignorant." If you can, also utilize the "spell check" on your computer before you respond to any more of my postings. I may be a lot of things, but selfish and ignorant are not among the list. This format was designed for OPINIONS. You are certainly entitled to yours, just as I am to mine. However, you and a select few have chosen to make this a personal attack aimed at me. For this reason, I will not comment any futher on this matter after this post. As previously stated, I exercised my right to complain in my Letter to the Editor. He chose to print it, and if you don't like what I said or how I said it, TOUGH.
On to naviddousel-I am unsure how to even attempt to respond to your postings. Firstly, let me just say that the center isn't only for the elderly. As a matter of fact, my mother isn't elderly. I see that you keep referring to her in your posts, and I really wish that wouldn't occur. It is obvious that you don't know either of us personally, yet you keep speaking as you do. You make some very valid points though, so I will give credit where it is due. However, I have no regrets about the situation or how I handled it. People who have commented had lots of things to say about what I could've or should've done. Is there anyone who has stopped for a millisecond and said "if she had stopped at the desk, or found an employee to get her mom instead of entering the exercise room, would she still have been in violation of the ordinance?" The answer to this is yes, according to the nay-sayers online. Why? I would have still had to enter the building to do either of those things, and since the whole complaint is the fact that children are not allowed in the building, what would that have solved or prevented? Please understand that my complaint is not that children are not allowed in the exercise room. I fully understand that and would never take a two-year-old child to work out with me under any circumstance. It is simply that no children are allowed in the building-period.

Posted by Naviddousel (anonymous) on November 22, 2009 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a reader of the Andalusia Star-News I welcome a variety opinions to better inform me as a citizen of the area. Mrs. Dorsey's letter offered an important view of an integral part of city life. With that said a couple of points.

The first point is that the only person to use the term "elderly" is Mrs. Dorsey. A few comments contain the term "old" but most, as I did, used the word adult. In its present form, I refer to any person between the ages of 21 & dead.

Secondly, no one knows how they would have of reacted had we been in the same situation. It is easy to look at something from a distance and say: "I would have done X' or "I would have done Y & Z." However, that is was not my primary concern with the thrust of my two previous comments. Instead, it is the implied and spoken opinion that limiting who can use a public structure necessitates a discriminatory action. Adults are not allowed to use the Coleman center, adults can't play in youth league sports, and elementary school students aren't allowed to play on a high school football team. None of these actions are discriminatory to the detriment of those excluded. Other avenues exist for those left out, & the same applies for children not allowed at the Adult Activity Center.

Finally, most who have shared their opinions would unilaterally support Mrs. Dorsey if the subject had only encompassed what she stated as her treatment by the public employee. Accepting her viewpoint, the situation could have been handled with better tact by those at the center. Nevertheless, bruised feelings and hurt pride does not rise to level of an actionable offense of discrimination.

Posted by lookeyhere (anonymous) on November 23, 2009 at 6:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wifey4 wrote..." If you can, also utilize the "spell check" on your computer before you respond" Huh eye duno nuttin bout no spale cheek.

Posted by lookeyhere (anonymous) on November 23, 2009 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wifey4 wrote..."However,I have no regrets about the situation or how I handled it". Of course you don't have any regrets,its called ignorance.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on November 23, 2009 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What I find interesting is how Ms Dorsey responded to posters regarding her letter. When a Letter to the Editor is submitted, the writer of that letter has stated their position in its entirety. Rarely, if ever, do they counter opinions of posters. I believe Ms Dorsey's responses have shown her temperament. Sometimes it is extremely difficult to deal with people who have an over abundance of attitude. I can only imagine how the actual incident took place. After rereading all of Ms Dorsey's responses, I am inclined to believe the Activity Center employee responded to Ms Dorsey's attitude and temperament.

Posted by Ivarr (anonymous) on November 24, 2009 at 12:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So?

Posted by ready4nun (anonymous) on November 24, 2009 at 12:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was at the AAC the night before halloween wanting to take pictures of the costumes with my grandkids and the lady at the door ask us to leave rudely. I had no problem with standing outside for them to come out but she didnt half to be a witch about it. It is a good place for ppl to hang out but dont act like the queen bee.

Posted by HumanOnEarth (anonymous) on November 24, 2009 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah ... lets all follow the rules with no thought ... just like the Nazi's

Posted by lookeyhere (anonymous) on November 24, 2009 at 6:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We have rules and laws that we must follow to prevent chaos. Now anyone can use the nazi excuse.

Posted by ToldYouSo (anonymous) on November 24, 2009 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The AAC is a wonderfull facility (for the use of adults) and too much "moddly-coddling" has been displayed in support of this person, who would destroy it (and all civility). If her child is allowed to visit...then others are allowed... then all of a sudden we have armed guards (or a semblance of) to protect the building and those ADULTS wishing to enjoy some time, protected, from an unruly society. The writer's stance is absurd, but is so expected from a segment of our population. Enough already!

Posted by winkie (anonymous) on November 24, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No hard feelings intended, but most grandparent's baby sit most of the time and the AAC is for Adult's Only! I'm telling my daughter's, Keep the children away, or take them to the beautiful Park that the City has provided for you and other's. "I too have to have my Space!!" nuff said!!

Posted by countrylivin (anonymous) on November 24, 2009 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A certain segment of our population? Explain?

Posted by iamabookworm (anonymous) on November 24, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm with you countrylivin. I'd be interested in that explanation you asked for, exactly what 'segment of the population' is ToldYouSo referencing?

Posted by SouthernAttitude1 (anonymous) on November 24, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My guess would be the demanding, I don't have to follow rules segment.

Posted by ToldYouSo (anonymous) on November 24, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And I will add: Any and Everyone who lives off the backs of the working men and women. Some, for generations, have taken from a veriety of "welfare" programs to raise more babies, thereby continuing this unending cycle. Sorry I can't answer silly questions in a timely manner, but I have to work for a living!

Posted by countrylivin (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Itoldyouso: My question was in no way silly. Unfortunately, in this country there are many people who make statements like you did and who believe that the particular "segment" you refer to, comes in "one" color only, when it comes in "two". Therefore, I wanted clarification. You seem to be aware- so you probably know more people in that "segment" than our writer. And for the record I have to "work" for a living also. Thank you.

Posted by bethanna89 (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ok I have read the above letter as well as the comments. i think what MOST of you are missing is not that the woman wants to take her child in, but that they shouldnt be so rude about it. first of all my grandmother uses the AAC and LOVES it, for this I am happy. However, she would never appreciate anyone telling her grandchildren to get out. Lets not forget that this is a PUBLIC building. Public means open to all. And to the person who clamied that people arent allowed in bars workplaces ect well DUH those are not PUBLIC PROERTY they are owned by private corporations or owners, not by the CITY OF ANDALUSIA. Im not at all saying that I think children should be able to use the building at the AAC, but I dont think they should be rudely told to leave. And to the person who told this lady she was selfish she wasnt selfish she was trying to help her mother out by going ahead and takeing her the package on her way home. The fact that she has a child lets us know that she probley ad alot to do so she took time out to help her mother. Most of the people who have commented have been very rude. And want to be all high and mighty and make this about someone else claiming discrimintaion and on and on. You are all attacking this lady for stateing her oppinon and that is worng its perfectly fine to disagree, but lets not attack her.

Posted by godwint (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it so hard to understand that "for adults only" means "NO CHILDREN ALLOWED"
If the sign had been at the fair in a blow up bouncy room, the sign would have read "for children only" guess what? that means "NO ADULTS"
I guess I should write a letter crying because I couldn't go in with my kids and play with them. GEESH!

Posted by cagriffinbdx (anonymous) on December 4, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure that had the situation been an emergency, the staff at the AAC wouldn't have been rude at all. As it appears in the original letter, though, the writer decided to " engage in a conversation with (her) mother" after delivering the package. The employee did not say anything to the writer until she decided to just hang around and chat with her mother. Had she gone in and delivered the package and left then there probably wouldn't have been a problem at all. Maybe next time, the writer should just call her Mom on her cell phone if she wants to chat during her workout.

Posted by captaindon (anonymous) on December 6, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Indeed it seems everyone hollers discrimination to get there own way it has become the greatest pastime in American just like it doesn't apply to me or I know someone. the proper response is I care really I do care so call them and they can give their lame opinion or maybe they can change the rules or laws just for you.
Now an off topic URGENT WARNING!!! listen to this and hope & pray it is not true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IZLjxiea...

Posted by winkie (anonymous) on December 8, 2009 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

captaindon: I hope everyone listens to this.