New AZ law: Firms have no legal duty to have translators

[Ravi]

This law is just Arizona continuing to portray itself as a racist bunch of morons.

I don't believe that it is racist for business not to have translators.

When I go into chinatown I sure don't expect them to provided me with someone who will translate chineese into english, nor do I consider it racists that they do not.

Exactly. There was no need to pass the law, therefore they are doing it for a reason...and that reason has to do with the way they feel about Latinos.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think they should stop printing government documents in Spanish, that in itself would save a lot of money, not to mention trees.

Ever see how many languages the drivers handbook are printed in? Election forms? Its not just spanish.

It should be in english only, after all what language are the streets signs written in?

 

[syrenn]

Exactly. There was no need to pass the law, therefore they are doing it for a reason...and that reason has to do with the way they feel about Latinos.

Really are you sure you agree with me?

Then why should english business in AZ be sued when they do not have translators?

I dont think that AZ passed a NEW law, they clarified the laws that currently exist.


Gov. Jan Brewer has signed legislation affirming that nothing in state law requires businesses to provide "trained and competent" interpreters when a customer comes in speaking a language other than English.


They are not singling out any one group.

 

[Ravi]

Gov. Jan Brewer has signed legislation affirming that nothing in state law requires businesses to provide "trained and competent" interpreters when a customer comes in speaking a language other than English.

You don't need to affirm something that isn't required.

What next...will she sign legislation affirming business owners don't need to provide their customers lunch?

 

[syrenn]

You don't need to affirm something that isn't required.
What next...will she sign legislation affirming business owners don't need to provide their customers lunch?

I beg to differ. In a country where you can sue someone for anything you feel like, clarification of the law and its specific wording in very important.

 

[Wicked Jester]

You don't need to affirm something that isn't required.
What next...will she sign legislation affirming business owners don't need to provide their customers lunch?

I beg to differ. In a country where you can sue someone for anything you feel like, clarification of the law and its specific wording in very important.

And that was obviously the intent.

Not that these liberal morons would ever comprehend.

 

[Againsheila]

This law is just Arizona continuing to portray itself as a racist bunch of morons.

I don't believe that it is racist for business not to have translators.

When I go into chinatown I sure don't expect them to provided me with someone who will translate chineese into english, nor do I consider it racists that they do not.

Exactly. There was no need to pass the law, therefore they are doing it for a reason...and that reason has to do with the way they feel about Latinos.

No, the reason was to stop frivolous lawsuits by people who want private businesses to cater to them in their own language. Do you realize how devastating such a lawsuit can be for a small business? The law, now clarified, will prevent future lawsuits like the one filed by the Hispanic lady against the doctor who was only trying to prevent a future case of malpractice. IOW he was doing his job and operating his business legally but that lady forced him into court, forced him to get an attorney and forced him to lose at least some of his business while he fought that stupid lawsuit. You want to blame someone here, why not the Spanish speaking lady that started this?

 

[Ravi]

You don't need to affirm something that isn't required.
What next...will she sign legislation affirming business owners don't need to provide their customers lunch?

I beg to differ. In a country where you can sue someone for anything you feel like, clarification of the law and its specific wording in very important.

So you like a law for everything, apparently even a law that isn't needed. You must be a "conservative".

 

[syrenn]

So you like a law for everything, apparently even a law that isn't needed. You must be a "conservative".

No, actually I dont like laws for everything. However this is the fault of the woman who brought the suit against the DR. which forced a clarification of the law.

You will label me as you think, so it makes no difference what I am now does it?

 

[Angelhair]

Assistant Attorney General Michael Walker said that has probably always been the law. But that didn't save John Schrolucke from having to spend time and money defending himself and his practice before Walker's office finally dismissed the case.

This sounds reasonably stupid. It is already against the law and yet they felt the need to make it against the law again.

There is NO such law - and there is NO law which says you must have an interpreter. It's a courtesy call to have interpreters - not a law nor a right. If you want to communicate while living in this country, the solution is quite simple - LEARN ENGLISH.

 

[Ravi]

Assistant Attorney General Michael Walker said that has probably always been the law. But that didn't save John Schrolucke from having to spend time and money defending himself and his practice before Walker's office finally dismissed the case.

This sounds reasonably stupid. It is already against the law and yet they felt the need to make it against the law again.

There is NO such law - and there is NO law which says you must have an interpreter. It's a courtesy call to have interpreters - not a law nor a right. If you want to communicate while living in this country, the solution is quite simple - LEARN ENGLISH.

Why are you arguing with me? There is no law that says you must have an interpreter. Never has been one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

PHOENIX - A Glendale optometrist's yearlong legal fight over what services he had to provide for a Spanish-speaking customer has translated into new protections for other businesses.

Gov. Jan Brewer has signed legislation affirming that nothing in state law requires businesses to provide "trained and competent" interpreters when a customer comes in speaking a language other than English.

Assistant Attorney General Michael Walker said that has probably always been the law. But that didn't save John Schrolucke from having to spend time and money defending himself and his practice before Walker's office finally dismissed the case.

Schrolucke told lawmakers the incident stems from a patient who spoke only Spanish. Although she did bring her 12-year-old child with her to the office, he said allowing the child to interpret for the parent would have gotten him into legal trouble.

He said he faced a potential malpractice lawsuit if the child did not properly translate some of the more technical explanations being provided, so he turned the woman away, telling her through her child to come back with someone at least 18 years old.



New AZ law: Firms have no legal duty to have translators

Sounds sensible to me. If you choose to live in a country where a language other than your native one is spoken, seems to me that the onus is on YOU to make it work, not on others to accommodate you.

This is Arizona. The patient has many options: 1) find an optometrist who speaks Spanish, because there certainly are many of those in the Phoenix area, 2) learn English, because there are many programs available to teach English to adults for little or no cost, or 3) find one of the many, MANY bilingual adults in the area to accompany her. What, there are NO adults in her family who speak both languages?

And if businesses WANT to spend the money to accommodate non-English speaking customers, then that is certainly their marketing choice to make. But it should be THEIR business decision, not the government's.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Providing interpreters is a courtesy - not a right nor a law! If you want to live here, learn english. It's that simple.

They do not do it because they are NICE, they do it to get the business of spanish speaking customers.

Jesus you people are confused

Which doesn't change the fact that it's a courtesy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

PHOENIX - A Glendale optometrist's yearlong legal fight over what services he had to provide for a Spanish-speaking customer has translated into new protections for other businesses.

Gov. Jan Brewer has signed legislation affirming that nothing in state law requires businesses to provide "trained and competent" interpreters when a customer comes in speaking a language other than English.

Assistant Attorney General Michael Walker said that has probably always been the law. But that didn't save John Schrolucke from having to spend time and money defending himself and his practice before Walker's office finally dismissed the case.

Schrolucke told lawmakers the incident stems from a patient who spoke only Spanish. Although she did bring her 12-year-old child with her to the office, he said allowing the child to interpret for the parent would have gotten him into legal trouble.

He said he faced a potential malpractice lawsuit if the child did not properly translate some of the more technical explanations being provided, so he turned the woman away, telling her through her child to come back with someone at least 18 years old.



New AZ law: Firms have no legal duty to have translators

What if the person is speaking ASL?

Hearing impairment/loss is a disability, and as such is covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act, requiring businesses to provide reasonable accommodation for the handicapped. Not learning English, however, is not a physical disability.

Most deaf people, by the way, anticipate this problem and provide for a competent interpreter themselves.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What next, Arizona passes law saying speaking Spanish isn't mandatory?

They need to enforce this

Do you realise that mulit lingual peoples brains are better wired?

Why should we support laws that make us less smart?

How does getting an interpreter make anyone smarter? Seems to me we're supporting a law that makes this patient and people like her smarter by forcing her to learn a second language.

Hey, a win-win situation!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes Ravi sees this as "Racist" while others see it as common sense. If I were that doctor I'd sue the fucking lawyers who dragged this out for a year. And if they claim "ignorance" of a "law that was already on the books" they should lose their licenses.

Seriously. It's part of their job to extensively research the laws relevant to the case at hand. At some point in this process, they either knew or should have known that the law didn't require the doctor to provide an interpreter, so they're either sleazy or incompetent.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think they should stop printing government documents in Spanish, that in itself would save a lot of money, not to mention trees.

Ever see how many languages the drivers handbook are printed in? Election forms? Its not just spanish.

It should be in english only, after all what language are the streets signs written in?

Around here? Both. I cannot tell you how many "Avenida de la . . ." whatevers we have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dear idiots , they provide spanish to make money from spanish speakers not because there is any fucking law.

And if they choose not to provide an interpreter should they be subject to a law suit?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you like a law for everything, apparently even a law that isn't needed. You must be a "conservative".

No, actually I dont like laws for everything. However this is the fault of the woman who brought the suit against the DR. which forced a clarification of the law.

You will label me as you think, so it makes no difference what I am now does it?

Seems to me that the fact that there was a frivolous lawsuit dragging on and on through the courts signals that the law WAS needed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes Ravi sees this as "Racist" while others see it as common sense. If I were that doctor I'd sue the fucking lawyers who dragged this out for a year. And if they claim "ignorance" of a "law that was already on the books" they should lose their licenses.

Seriously. It's part of their job to extensively research the laws relevant to the case at hand. At some point in this process, they either knew or should have known that the law didn't require the doctor to provide an interpreter, so they're either sleazy or incompetent.

They knew the law, but they were hoping to force a settlement so that they could profit off a frivolous lawsuit. It is less expensive to settle than to fight them, and lawyers know this. In fact, his lawyer probably advised him to settle for just that reason.