Sorta like how the Ford Mustang isn’t named for the horse, it’s named for the P-51 Mustang airplane (which in turn is named for the horse.)

Always important to keep on wife maintenance.

I guess my confusion comes from why you are so adamantly against specifically providing the social security card, when providing proof of employment eligibility is a legal requirement. Clearly, you have no problem providing employment eligibility, why do you have such strong feelings about providing the social security card specifically?

And while agree, the fact that other documents can be provided to prove employment eligibility means that technically providing the SS card isn’t required, I’d caution you against saying “never” in our current political environment.

We’re splitting hairs here. It is a legal requirement to provide work elibility. If you provide a passport, or if you provide an ID and birth certificate, that sufficies. But many people choose ID and social security card. And yes, employers keep copies of work eligibility on file.

So I guess my question is, is your objection really to the act of asking for a lightweight cardboard card?

Editing comment for clarity.

All employers in the US need proof of two things: proof of identity, and proof of employment eligibility. A passport takes care of both.

But most people in my experience provide a state ID/driver’s license (identity), and either a social security card or birth certificate (employement.)

So, you can be on your high horse all you want, but you’re gonna provide the documents above if you want to work legally.

Handicapped parking spaces should be reserved only for those who require an assistive device that necessities additional room around their vehicle for unloading and loading.

In a hypothetical world in which protected handicap parking didn’t exist, these people would be burdened by needing to always find parking spaces with an additional empty space next to them, and hoping that space remained empty when they return. Too high a burden.

So we rightfully have built into our civic and building codes the requirement that a certain number of protected handicap parking spaces be available. At least in my jurisdiction if you look at protected handicap parking, you’ll see that every space has an additional half space next to it to allow for egress of assistive devices. Without these protective half spaces built into every handicap parking space, people requiring such devices would face the undue burden I mentioned above; these handicap spaces give people equal access.

My controversial take is that only people requiring such devices should be granted access to these spaces. Yes, I know that there are many people that have a more difficult time walking and can benefit from closer proximity to their destination, but in my opinion, these requirements shouldn’t be for the “benefit” of anyone, but only the equal treatment for those facing the aforementioned undue burden.

In my opinion, for every one person needing an assistive device, and every two people who would simply benefit from close proximity, there are numerous people who use handicap parking for convenience. I’ve seen motorcycles with handicapped parking placards for goodness sake.

deleted by creator