Returning to the "its just like racism" argument.  There is a BIG
difference between explicit and implicit discrimination.  Not allowing
a particular race to use your services is a clear case of *explicit*
discrimination.  An example of *implicit* discrimination is requiring
a driver's license as identification (since people with certain
disabilities are unable to get one).  A solution in this case is to
mandate acceptance of other forms of identification.  This is a good
solution with zero cost.

The problem with accessibly to websites is significantly different -
since there is a cost involved.  How much increase in cost is
acceptable?  10%?  100%?   Shouldn't we to consider how many
people are likely to benefit, or is that not allowed?

Adrian said, "its not a question of economics, its a question of social
responsibility".  I would suggest it's a question of both... The "it
doesn't matter what it costs" approach just isn't feasible.  The benefits
always have to be weighed against the costs.  The costs/benefits involved
are not always monetary - but they can still be quantified.

There is often this mentality, particularly with regards to social policy,
that it is somehow immoral to consider costs/benefits when evaluating
a course of action.  I understand that on an emotional level - but to
say that something "is worth the cost" implies that you have done an
internal cost/benefit anyway.  You, Adrian and David, have both
(presumably) counted the pros and cons and decided that legislation
on the issue is the best course of action.  The difference is, you
have only done so implicitly - that is, it feels right - whereas I
suggest a more explicit cost/benefit analysis.  My approach is
objective and empirical.

Finally, you both seem to argue that we can't afford to allow freedom
on the issue, because people will make the "wrong decisions."
I'm thankful we have government and people like yourselves to
keep us on the right track!

Oh, I'm sure you have good intentions - just like the conservatives
when they try to dictate religious values.  Same shit, different smell.

Regards,
Kirk Fletcher