Not quite, more like I am tired of having to pay for someone else's troubles. The notion of a disabled person paying me for some social privilege is abhorrent, but equally so that I must always pay for their convenience as well. Were the shoe on the other foot, I would not be comfortable with compelling other people to concede to my special needs and force them to accomodate me just so I can haved some special consideration at their involuntary expense. It's one thing to ask, quite another to insist. I don't mind compromising for a handicapped person, but I would rather they ask than to simply tell me I have to. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I would much prefer that our society function as a whole more on that level than to insist that those more fortunate must always accede to the needs of those less so.

When I speak of remuneration, my frame of mind was from a legal standing. In terms of tort concessions, one party acquiring gains at the expense of another party usually invokes a remuneratory claim. Probably not the right model for the argument, but that was how my day went yesterday. More appropriately, I think the argument is who is to bear the burden for an individual's special needs in the public domain, and to what extent? Certainly many of the accomodations we as a society incorporate nowadays are prudent and reasonable, but when the law extends the rights of one set of individuals above the rights of the majority, and to the latter's debtriment, that I think is going too far. If we are going to allow handicapped people to have pets in public places, then there's no reason not to allow everyone to do so. Categorical exemptions of this nature just don't make any sense to me.