>  There is no difference between refusing access to someone based on
physical/mental disability 
> and someone based on their race, culture, religion, etc.  It's unnecessary
discrimination either way.

Lachlan, that was, actually, my point.  Only people don't recognise that
refusing access to someone with a disability is the same as refusing access
to someone on the basis of their race, culture, religion, etc.

If we replaced the issues of disabilities with that of, say, race, this
discussion would not happen, because (at least I hope) most people would
recognise the issues as being discrimination.

To draw a paralel with a physical access issue, in the US, in the 60's,
african americans wanted to get to ride at the front of the bus.  In 2005,
people with disabilities can't even get ON the bus.  But transit companies
can throw all kind of excuses at people with disabilities and reasons why
they can't make their system accessible.  If they refused access to their
bus to someone who's black, because he's black, or a mother with a child,
because she has a child, we'd see that as the discrimination it is.
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what "excuses" you wrap around

And while for some people it's difficult to see the relationship between
that type of discrimination and non-accessible websites, the fact remains,
if you don't provide access, you're discriminating.  And that is, in more
and more countries, against the law....

Is that a bit clearer? :)


The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help

Reply via email to