>>This is one of the hardest things I've ever dealt with.<<
That does sound hard.
>>Office Lady there expressly asked that I tell Spouse<<
Office Lady needs to find a backbone and tell him herself, not force you into the middle of a disagreement between other people.
>>He decided to go anyway and plans to bring a cushion tonight that I made for him in case he leaks. (Another elderly man, since deceased, always brought a cushion so Spouse sees precedent.)<<
A reasonable accommodation.
>> Office Lady exchanged phone #'s with me and requested that I text when he is coming and if he is clean or not.<<
See above re: not your responsibility to manage someone else's life.
>> I regret giving her my cell # and saying she could text back and forth. I am on guard with her.<<
You could:
1) tell her not to do that anymore 2) ignore her when she does it 3) block her if she keeps bothering you 4) file a complaint with the phone company 5) change your number.
Those all have various costs and consequences.
>> Their side is that the $50 chairs continuing to be ruined (because they will not clean them but declare them soiled and "dishonoring the house of prayer" and thus require replacement) is unfair to them <<
This much is true. However, he could simply bring his own chair, preferably a cast plastic indoor-outdoor chair that is easy to clean.
>> because Office Lady says "he's had plenty of chances to change since November 2019 at her first phone call <<
This presupposes change is possible. With a physical problem, it typically is not, which makes that particular point unreasonable.
>> and people don't want to come anymore because of him". <<
This is their most compelling argument. Who gets excluded? If one person causes multiple other people not to come, it is better to exclude one person than many.
>> His side is that he wishes to attend any activity, loves the place despite all because he's attended 20 years,<<
Reasonable.
>> and resents being singled out in spite of his unsocial odor and occasional behavior <<
Valid if other people with similar issues have been or were previously permitted to participate where he is asked to leave.
>> My side is that I want him to go there as much as he can. <<
Logical.
>> The setting is a private home that is regularly crowded with wall to wall people Main Worship Day, a line for getting food from the buffet tables on this day's free lunch, and hours long religious services and classes that he loves. I've been to them numerous times throughout twenty years and find the place claustrophobic, although others find them "family like" and "bustling, in a good way." I can see both points of view. <<
Yeah, it wouldn't be my idea of a good time, but if others like it that's fine for them.
>> There are many children around for him to tell stories to and he enjoys singing. He can be charming and offers interesting stories. <<
Consider whether there are other places that he could meet some of his needs.
Also it sounds like people are holding a public event in a venue that is not really equipped for it, and that is causing some of the accessibility issues. On this point, you may wish to consult local rules regarding what can or can't be done in a private home and what the accessibility standards are. For example, do they have an adult changing facilities available, or if not is there one very nearby? Religious institutions have some exemptions from many laws -- but not if they are taking any government money, so that's another angle to check.
>>Absolute worst case is that they call the cops on him because he was asked not to come, with the corollary of his arrest.<<
Or possible death, since America's law all comes down to "obey or die."
>>My most uncharitable thought: right before New Year's, they called him for a donation and he said no, but he would sponsor a lunch in February, approximate cost $200.<<
As this seems to be an ongoing problem, it was very wrong of them to do that. They do not get to reject someone on one hand and demand favors on the other. Either he is or is not a part of the community.
Did anyone offer to visit with him at home, divide or move an event that sounds overgrown for its space, or add events more accommodating to members with special needs? I'm going to guess not.
It's a difficult situation to be sure, but there are ways to cut it down to size, if people wanted to do that. It sounds like they would rather not. They may or may not have a legal right to discriminate in this manner. But they do have a moral right to take care of longstanding community members.
If they continue to be cruel and dismissive, you have an opportunity to hit back if you wish: simply point out to everyone else that membership is not actually based on faith and sincerity, but based on being pleasing to the authorities and whether you can do anything for them. How long will it be until the other members become inconvenient as they get old, or even as other challenges arise? A "faith" community that ditches people in need is worse than useless.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: This is one of the hardest things I've ever dealt with.
Date: 2020-01-17 12:16 am (UTC)That does sound hard.
>>Office Lady there expressly asked that I tell Spouse<<
Office Lady needs to find a backbone and tell him herself, not force you into the middle of a disagreement between other people.
>>He decided to go anyway and plans to bring a cushion tonight that I made for him in case he leaks. (Another elderly man, since deceased, always brought a cushion so Spouse sees precedent.)<<
A reasonable accommodation.
>> Office Lady exchanged phone #'s with me and requested that I text when he is coming and if he is clean or not.<<
See above re: not your responsibility to manage someone else's life.
>> I regret giving her my cell # and saying she could text back and forth. I am on guard with her.<<
You could:
1) tell her not to do that anymore
2) ignore her when she does it
3) block her if she keeps bothering you
4) file a complaint with the phone company
5) change your number.
Those all have various costs and consequences.
>> Their side is that the $50 chairs continuing to be ruined (because they will not clean them but declare them soiled and "dishonoring the house of prayer" and thus require replacement) is unfair to them <<
This much is true. However, he could simply bring his own chair, preferably a cast plastic indoor-outdoor chair that is easy to clean.
>> because Office Lady says "he's had plenty of chances to change since November 2019 at her first phone call <<
This presupposes change is possible. With a physical problem, it typically is not, which makes that particular point unreasonable.
>> and people don't want to come anymore because of him". <<
This is their most compelling argument. Who gets excluded? If one person causes multiple other people not to come, it is better to exclude one person than many.
>> His side is that he wishes to attend any activity, loves the place despite all because he's attended 20 years,<<
Reasonable.
>> and resents being singled out in spite of his unsocial odor and occasional behavior <<
Valid if other people with similar issues have been or were previously permitted to participate where he is asked to leave.
>> My side is that I want him to go there as much as he can. <<
Logical.
>> The setting is a private home that is regularly crowded with wall to wall people Main Worship Day, a line for getting food from the buffet tables on this day's free lunch, and hours long religious services and classes that he loves. I've been to them numerous times throughout twenty years and find the place claustrophobic, although others find them "family like" and "bustling, in a good way." I can see both points of view. <<
Yeah, it wouldn't be my idea of a good time, but if others like it that's fine for them.
>> There are many children around for him to tell stories to and he enjoys singing. He can be charming and offers interesting stories. <<
Consider whether there are other places that he could meet some of his needs.
Also it sounds like people are holding a public event in a venue that is not really equipped for it, and that is causing some of the accessibility issues. On this point, you may wish to consult local rules regarding what can or can't be done in a private home and what the accessibility standards are. For example, do they have an adult changing facilities available, or if not is there one very nearby? Religious institutions have some exemptions from many laws -- but not if they are taking any government money, so that's another angle to check.
>>Absolute worst case is that they call the cops on him because he was asked not to come, with the corollary of his arrest.<<
Or possible death, since America's law all comes down to "obey or die."
>>My most uncharitable thought: right before New Year's, they called him for a donation and he said no, but he would sponsor a lunch in February, approximate cost $200.<<
As this seems to be an ongoing problem, it was very wrong of them to do that. They do not get to reject someone on one hand and demand favors on the other. Either he is or is not a part of the community.
Did anyone offer to visit with him at home, divide or move an event that sounds overgrown for its space, or add events more accommodating to members with special needs? I'm going to guess not.
It's a difficult situation to be sure, but there are ways to cut it down to size, if people wanted to do that. It sounds like they would rather not. They may or may not have a legal right to discriminate in this manner. But they do have a moral right to take care of longstanding community members.
If they continue to be cruel and dismissive, you have an opportunity to hit back if you wish: simply point out to everyone else that membership is not actually based on faith and sincerity, but based on being pleasing to the authorities and whether you can do anything for them. How long will it be until the other members become inconvenient as they get old, or even as other challenges arise? A "faith" community that ditches people in need is worse than useless.