• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that lactose intolerance is a disability listed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the surcharges violate that act.

    Is it though? I mean don’t get me wrong, it sucks that people who are lactose intolerant have to pay more, but is it really a disability?

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      If it does, then the cost difference to the business should probably be subsidized / written off in taxes.

    • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Lactose intolerance is the default for adults too. Them calling it a disability is wild.

    • Aviandelight @mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      I am allergic to milk. If I ingest it I will die full stop. Food allergies should be considered as a disability in this case because if I wanted coffee with soy milk I shouldn’t be made to pay extra for something out of my control. That being said since my allergies are severe enough I don’t eat anything I don’t make myself so this wouldn’t impact me anyway but I agree with the principle of the case.

      • maryjayjay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        What if the dairy substitute was 10x the cost of real milk, I know it isn’t, but what if it were. Or even 100x, just for argument. Are you entitled to get that for the same price?