> Yes. Because if not each and every restaurant, who gets to pick and choose? If the restaurant owners, none. If the disabled, all. And there isn't really an in

> Yes. Because if not each and every restaurant, who gets to pick and choose? If the restaurant owners, none. If the disabled, all. And there isn't really an in-between is there? So all is better than none. I think this is why some laws state “reasonable accommodations”. If a ramp is impossible or unaffordable with the restaurants margins, what should be the course of action? Should the restaurant close? If so, that doesn’t actually improve accessibility. The current law may already use this barometer and the horror story examples may be overblown, but at least this seems like a reasonable way to approach things.