Hacker News Reader

Comment by edoo | Hacker News Reader

Completely incorrect. Denying someone service is completely different than them being unable to access your business because you can't afford to build out the accommodations. The constitution first and foremost guarantees freedom. Being forced to work at gunpoint is known as slavery.

View on HN

So I take it you're opposed to the ADA in general?

Probably also opposed to safety regulations like having a sprinkler system if your business is in a building over a certain size. After all, building those are way more expensive than wheelchair ramps, and sometimes even more expensive than web devs who know how to make an accessible page.

Absolutely except for federal buildings. The powers not expressly given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the states. At worse it should be a states rights issue with each state deciding their own way.

> The powers not expressly given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the states.

I don't understand why you're making a legal argument now when the root of your opinion is a moral one ("Being forced to work at gunpoint is known as slavery"). It sounds like the states' rights argument is just a convenient legal pretext for what you really want, which is the freedom to discriminate against disabled people.

You should check out the commerce clause of the Constitution, I think you're in for a big surprise!

Do you have any disability that limits you being able to use services accessible to everyone else?

Do you know anyone close to you that you can comfortably ask what limits and bumps there are out there for them to be able to comfortably use the internet?

You’re not forced to work at gunpoint - you could’ve chosen not to build the website at all.

Better tell that to the people that maintain jury duty, or the Selective Service

Reply on news.ycombinator.com