The Right to Work whilst Fat

A Danish childminder called Karsten Kaltoft has posed the question of whether it's legal to discriminate against a person, solely for being fat. Along with that, whether being fat-as in the construct 'obesity'-can be construed as disability, under law. And what criterion would be used to work out who would qualify.

The case is being reviewed in the European Court of Justice no less.

What's excited the press is could 'obesity' be deemed disability. Well, perhaps they should ask that when they're propagandizing for the adipocalypse. Barely anyone can manage a rationale take on any aspect of weight these days without a grovelling disclaimer about how they know and agree fat is the end of civilization as we know it.

Señor K is 25st or 158kg in the morally superior metric system (350lbs in USasian). His employers nominally sacked him due to lack of demand. He had reason to suspect it was on account of his weight.

When challenged Bullund Kommune-his employers responded in writing that he was incapable of doing the work, citing an instance where he'd asked a colleague to tie a child's shoelaces. Supposedly because he couldn't manage to bend to do it himself.

Not sure whether it was assumed he couldn't, or whether he said that himself. Other people's projections onto fat people tend to be the only consideration.

The usual phenomena of the slim mainstream not understanding their own machinations 'til they catch a ghost of them in fat people is in effect;

Audrey Williams, an employment discrimination expert at Eversheds law firm, said the judges would have to decide "whether obesity itself should trigger preferential rights, or should only impact where an individual, due to obesity, has other recognised medical issues".

"Preferential rights?" I hope this isn't an official view of access for PWD. That phrase would suggest a dropping of the pretense that being fat is disease. I detest this crude fakery and wish people would stop pandering to it as real.

We've gotten to this point with fatness, as 'obesity' wallahs are rarely challenged in a way that requires them to state their case, whatever it is. Without their incessant shifting of goal posts, in places where they're not held aloft by the attendant hate-fuelled shit cloud. Don't mistake noise that upholds and operates within the dubious set-up laid down by them, for real challenge.

If you ask "What kind of a stupid fool is that person." And I respond, "They're a really nice fool/ That sadsack is addicted to tomfoolery"  I may be disagreeing with you, but ultimately, I'm upholding your premise, sharing your view and working within its bounds.

Even if I say, "That person isn't a fool", I appear to have accorded it the same meaning. If I ask you what you mean by "fool". I'm at least opening up the possibility of something outside your viewpoint. That's rarely if ever done with 'obesity'. If it is, the point goes recognized by the 'obesity' mindset, that's stumped by anything outside itself and therefore cannot respond to what's being said. This leads to the projection of views that aren't held.

You could call my view of disability somewhat old fashioned.

Disabling, especially in the sane able-bodied, does not equal a disability. That matters not a jot. Ideas don't always set the mainstream agenda. People deemed valuable do. And when they decided at some point, using the "social model of disability" (apparently) meant "I have a boo boo" becomes "Recognize my disabled status, or I'll start crying" (Everything's turned into status by these people), well, that was that.

Not to forget-my inconvenient issue (perceived or otherwise) that has no obvious resolution = disease which can often =disability.

Acting as if any old use of disability is some kind of landmark is typical of mainstream interaction with fat people. When fat people use that system because, it is the system, it's seen as if anew. As a sign everyone's right to turn on fat people. This ends up being a critique of themselves, they just can't see it through their own halo.  Actual things brought to light by fat people; we're continually erased from.

If a slim person asked someone else to tie a child's laces, would it be assumed they couldn't? Would that be seen as age, lack of fitness/flexibility, would they be sacked? Certainly, it would not be seen slim related would it? Can a fat person, especially of Kaltoft's size make that argument meaningful to anyone stuck in the 'obesity' mindwarp i.e. virtually everyone?

And I don't know whether to be embarrassed, but I never thought of PWD as experiencing "preferential rights". The point is access to the things others take for granted surely? Of removing barriers to their ability to contribute and keep themselves, fulfill their potential.

Now I finally can grasp why some are so aggressive and resentful towards disabled people. At times to the point of harassing them, using their designated parking spaces without regard. Surely, able-bodied are experiencing the real preferential treatment by keeping PWD out?

Nurturing such a stream of grievance must be stressful. I wonder how much disabled taxpayers shell out for those health outcomes. Let's not speculate.

Under law not all emotive uses of disability are recognized as such. According to this UK's 2010 Equality Act, addiction to non-prescribed drugs are not recognized as such. *Pause* while I consider whether to laugh, put head in hands, both.

Mr Kaltoft is just trying to find a way, from the means available, to stop people being sacked merely for being fat. Legally, there's nothing to stop employers from doing this;

"I don't see myself as disabled," he said. "We hope the outcome is that it's not OK just to fire a person because they're fat, if they're doing their job properly."

He worked for his employers for 15 years and says he was able.