• Hildegarde@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    The ADA is designed to give disabled people equal treatment and access, even if that equal access comes at unequal cost.

    Non-dairy milk costs more. But so does weelchair accessable seating, and most other accommodations. But those accommodations cannot cost extra by the ADA.

    As with every law, the ADA is long and has many exceptions and qualifications. But, Starbucks’s milks doesn’t seem to be an exception from my cursory reading of title III. This case has a case.

    • Iceblade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      So in essence, they aren’t be allowed to charge extra if the customer is intolerant? Isn’t there basic milk w/o lactose for that though? Or just serve it without milk?

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Not trying to make a case here, just asking:

      By that rationale, could Starbucks have a policy in place where if you request a more expensive non-dairy option, you get an upcharge unless you give proof of a medical condition?

      Basically saying, “Look, we’re happy to accommodate specific dietary restrictions at no additional cost for those with medical needs. We’re also happy to provide these options to all other customers at an upcharge reflecting the increased cost of these ingredients to us.”