What’s more likely: the plaintiffs have a legitimate grievance, or they’re hoping to get rich suing a large business? (not that I have much sympathy for large businesses like Starbucks but you get my point).
Consider that the context of the ADA is one that notes the disabled cannot explicitly be charged extra for the accommodations made in the first place for fulfilling the ADA requirements (e.g., wheel-chair ramp access), it becomes a bit more ambiguous in whether a product or service that is provided to everyone and independent of these explicit requirements falls under this category. In other words, the disabled here aren’t being singled-out or discriminated upon any more than any other person is who asks for it. THAT would be VERY illegal.
… Hence why this isn’t automatically resolved and will be reviewed and argued in court, and thus we shall see. And I’m not a lawyer so who knows.
It’s almost a mockery of the ADA.
What’s more likely: the plaintiffs have a legitimate grievance, or they’re hoping to get rich suing a large business? (not that I have much sympathy for large businesses like Starbucks but you get my point).
Consider that the context of the ADA is one that notes the disabled cannot explicitly be charged extra for the accommodations made in the first place for fulfilling the ADA requirements (e.g., wheel-chair ramp access), it becomes a bit more ambiguous in whether a product or service that is provided to everyone and independent of these explicit requirements falls under this category. In other words, the disabled here aren’t being singled-out or discriminated upon any more than any other person is who asks for it. THAT would be VERY illegal.
… Hence why this isn’t automatically resolved and will be reviewed and argued in court, and thus we shall see. And I’m not a lawyer so who knows.