• NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          So here is how this goes just so you know.

          Now all of the drinks go up in price so that the charge is just absorbed by the other customers.

          The business makes no less money, hell they probably make more profit now and now everyone has to pay extra.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            It’s almost a mockery of the ADA.

            What’s more likely: the plaintiffs have a legitimate grievance, or they’re hoping to get rich suing a large business? (not that I have much sympathy for large businesses like Starbucks but you get my point).

            Consider that the context of the ADA is one that notes the disabled cannot explicitly be charged extra for the accommodations made in the first place for fulfilling the ADA requirements (e.g., wheel-chair ramp access), it becomes a bit more ambiguous in whether a product or service that is provided to everyone and independent of these explicit requirements falls under this category. In other words, the disabled here aren’t being singled-out or discriminated upon any more than any other person is who asks for it. THAT would be VERY illegal.

            … Hence why this isn’t automatically resolved and will be reviewed and argued in court, and thus we shall see. And I’m not a lawyer so who knows.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah of course, that’s so unfair to tell business people that they can’t overcharge people

          Can you demonstrate that they are overcharging? Have you calculated the costs? Did you include the extra refrigeration space required, the wholesale cost of bulk milk in non-consumer packaging versus milk alternatives likely purchased by the case in consumer packaging? Do their distributors charge more for milk alternatives because they represent a lower volume than traditional milk.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Well no shit, but the obvious questions hanging over us are: 1) Does this apply to the letter of the law, or the spirit; and second to that 2) should such a law exist? 3) Why are you invoking double-standards for business competition when arguably coffee shops who don’t meet a competitive price-point for a non-essential item will lose? I say again what was clearly deflected: a) this is not a situation where consumers cannot shop around, and b) this is not a niche service that cannot be found elsewhere.

      If you want markets whatsoever and thriving small-businesses, this is the kind of shit that as an aggregation cripples competition with mega-corporations