• @bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    14 months ago

    I can’t fathom why you’re constantly trying to drag this thread into a discussion about the minutae of drink service operation instead of the topic at hand.

    Providing additional options, especially options that require refrigeration, have additional costs associated with them. My central thesis has always been that a business should be able to recoup its cost and make a profit, that is the purpose of a business. The “minutiae of drink service operation” is central to that discussion.

    It’s clear that this conversation is going in circles and serves no purpose. I find it quite reasonable for a company to charge $0.70 when their costs increase by $0.25 cents, and you don’t. The ADA requires only a reasonable accommodation, there are several reasonable accommodations available in the form of non-dairy beverages. It isn’t even clear that lactose intolerance would be considered a disability under the ADA.

    • @funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      14 months ago

      literally Para 4 in the article

      The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that lactose intolerance is a disability listed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the surcharges violate that act.

      • @bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        14 months ago

        Ohhh…the Plaintiffs said it in their complaint! Well then it must be true! It would be impossible to list unsubstantiated claims in a complaint.

        The ADA statute does not make specific reference to lactose intolerance. A court would have to determine that lactose intolerance is a disability under the statute, and I don’t think it’s clear on its face that it is.

        The ADA protects qualified individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities; has a record of such an impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment.