Your comparison isn't really appropriate. In a shop, I can walk in, get my stuff, and walk out in a few minutes. If you rent, your landlord will always be your landlord, and there are plenty of opportunities for ongoing conflict. As a person with disability, I know that I will loose if someone picks a fight with me.

Maybe you should try to put yourself in the position of someone with lower priviledges before blindly insisting that anti-discrimination laws are all we need to fix things.

They don’t suggest they actually fixed things, just that they were necessary. In a true profit maximizing meritocracy many disabled people would not be able to survive because nobody would employ them etc. The degree of accommodation required by law isn’t about the disabled so much as the issues should people be allowed to systematically exclude them.

> In a true profit maximizing meritocracy many disabled people would not be able to survive because nobody would employ them etc.

Just give them money?

Giving people money isn't profitable

Duh. Neither is going to the cinema or displaying paintings in your living room.

You can see charity as a form of (possibly conspicuous) consumption, if you will.

The person I'm replying to replied to someone discussing a profit maximizing entity which is the context. I understand there is value to other behaviors but corporations don't

Corporations are supposed to do whatever their shareholders want.

The default assumption is that shareholders want to maximize profit, but shareholders can also want different things.

In any case, even the most ruthless capitalist society imaginable is not made out of corporations alone. Corporations are just a legal shell. People work for them, people own them, people buy their products, etc.

In a true profit maximizing meritocracy some disabled people might not get a job (though they still might, at lower pay commensurable with their productivity). [0]

But there's nothing stopping people from (a) charitable giving, or (b) enacting laws to give tax payer funded assistance to disabled people.

(You might argue with (b), but you can't really argue with (a).)

[0] Compared to eg someone like John von Neumann, I'm an idiot, but I can still find work even with my comparatively weak intellect. I just can't expect as much pay as John von Neumann would warrant. Of course, that pay might in principle be low enough that people can't survive on it. That's where charity and/or public assistance comes in.

That's the default assumption because I'd you analyze the behavior of corporations, that's literally what they do. It doesn't matter if they could do other things. The fact is that they don't

People work for them because generally they don't have a choice. Not everyone has decision making power and 95% of workers need to follow what their boss says. Most Americans can't lose their job because they don't have savings, they barely make enough to survive

You’re actually arguing for the opportunity to be excluded from the housing market entirely? Or you can’t imagine that would happen, and you’re just in favor of being forced to pay more for worse housing? Because we don’t have to do this as a hypothetical with spherical cows - it used to be legal, for all kinds of disadvantaged groups, and it wasn’t better for them. Women, black people, parents, people with criminal histories, people who were unemployed, or Chinese, Irish, Jewish, etc…

So, maybe you should stop assuming that you are the only person in the conversation who knows what they are talking about.

It is not often that I feel that way, but given how you assume things about me, I wish you will end up disabled so that you can learn a few things about life.

Sounds like in at least 6 states, your pharmacist can indeed not to give you medicine?

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/2152/religious-...