• glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Can you explain why the examples they gave are different than the case at hand? I think they have a point but I’m interested in hearing the opposing viewpoint (yours) before I form an opinion on the situation.

    • SirSamuel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      TBH, not much, except that in the case of dairy and gluten intolerance there’s a case to be made for reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The rest of his comments were increasingly silly

      Also there’s many things wrong with American disability law, social safety nets, and the complete dysfunction of what passes for “healthcare”. Splitting hairs on what constitutes a disability is emblematic of these failings.

      • Today@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I was just 90 percent goofing and ‘what abouting.’ It’s only an issue because we have milk alternatives. Dairy bothers me but i don’t care for the alt milks so i mostly order tea. If i really want a coffee i get a small splash of milk and deal with the consequences. Also, there’s a whole thing with whether it’s milk sugar or milk fat or A1/A2 that bothers people - so sometimes skim milk or A2 milk is less upsetting and no more expensive.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Hmm with all due respect I’m leaning towards not liking this lawsuit. Similar to splitting hairs on what constitutes a disability, I think calling an allergy a disability cheapens the system.

        I think what would be “most fair” in this scenario would be for healthcare to cover lactaid like it does with epipens, etc.

        For the record, I am pro-ADA and pro-nationalised healthcare. I just feel like this lawsuit is frivilous