[rckoepke]

I believe you're mostly correct in terms of current legal situation in the USA.

Downvotes are primarily going to be from people who would prefer that wasn't the case.

However, I believe most accessibility improvements must be "reasonable" accomodations and generally I think aren't intended to be onerous costs (unreasonable).

So there's room for debate on whether accessibility should NO LONGER be a right in the USA. And also room for debate on what's reasonable.

But I don't think this statement: "accessibility is a right" should be downvoted on HN. Its a fact of law, due to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

[jolmg]

> I don't think this statement: "accessibility is a right" should be downvoted on HN. Its a fact of law

This is a global community, though. Many probably interpret the statement from a moral/idealistic standpoint rather than whether or not it's a legal right in any particular jurisdiction.

[OJFord]

The situation's essentially the same in the UK (EU?) due to it being a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

You can't say 'well disabled people aren't the target demographic, so no I don't have a ramp' any more than you can say 'whites only'.

The other commenter didn't claim it was a moral (as opposed to statutory) right, but even if that was the intention, I think that's a reasonable position to take and argue for, even if others disagree.