I like a business vs home analogy. If you build a storefront, it needs to be wheelchair accessible. That seems reasonable to me.
If I build a home in the middle of nowhere, my own home does not have to be wheelchair accessible but if I want to build a home in a city, that city may require my home to be wheelchair accessible.
I suspect Berkeley thought they were building an addition on their home, not their business.
Still, it's clear that my analogy is NOT how it works in the real world. There's a critical lack of clarity here, and answers are needed especially for blogs and personal sites.
I personally strongly believe that when we build things for people with disabilities, they become so much easier for people without disabilities to use. I'd personally like to see websites easier to use with screenreaders and other 3rd party aides. But I don't think it should apply to personal webpages or small blogs.
It doesn't really matter what I think though. The legal requirements today are quite unknown.
Here are some statistics about hearing loss: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics...
They are enlightening. 25 % of people between 65 and 75 are hearing-impaired, rising to 50 % of people over 75. What exactly is the argument for excluding the aged from Berkeley's online offerings? It would be wiser to argue in favour of accommodation for disabilities because it may be that you will need them sometime in the future.
...less sympathetic than GP's example, religion is a choice.
That's true for both sides. Why someone would do charity but leave a well-defined group out of it is a mystery.