ADA

[Forsaken]

You're putting personal preference into a court decision. The job of the court is not to rule what should be law but what is law. I think it is awesome that you are passionate about access for disabled individuals and I wish congress would properly address it. I understand that you don't have faith in congress, and I can't fault you for that, but we also can't have a judicial system that attempts to apply laws to areas that the law was not intended.

There is prior precedent, which is important to the American judicial system, which supports the use of Title III for websites.

There is an aspect of ADA compliance with specifically states that healthcare services must have websites and services compliant.

Which part of what I have said is personal preference for the court decision? Calling the judge an idiot is my opinion on the ruling yes, but I also clearly have stated why her ruling is beyond idiotic because it goes directly in the face of law in the first place. Even with my opinion, my opinion applied more to the dismissive nature and wording of her ruling. The only other part where I could be considered personal at all is a hypothetical with anecdotal experience of my stepfather .

I'm done responding here as it's just literally me repeating the same thing at this point and I'm busy enough as is without wasting my time repeating myself.

 

[Dad.]

@arn does this mean youre able to ignore some of those emails?

 

[ProCom]

From what I understand the bigger issue is all the lawsuits coming from the more strict laws in California:

California Unruh Act and ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuits in 2020

All the stars are aligned for California to become the #1 hub for website accessibility lawsuits in 2020.

krisrivenburgh.medium.com