I'm not sure what to say here to be honest because you're comparing these two things as equal with "demoralized" being the only downside somehow so lets see what the implications to the people are of such a system, using your own example:
- A disabled person not being able to functionally use a system that is often required for their work
- A non-disabled person being able to functionally use a system that is often required for their work, but the text is a less preferable color
In the first case it will take someone with an involuntary disability longer, with more difficulty, to perform the same task (comprehension) as someone without the involuntary disability
I'm not sure how you could possibly equivocate these - and then further double down on lack of empathy by suggesting that making a website easier to use for risks a slippery slope of irrational accessibility requirements
Unreal that this has to be spelled out
There are quite a few variations of color blindness, so ultimately you want color to just be a hint. Handling the most common case is a partial fix.
Many interfaces, such as git's, use red and green despite the common (?) knowledge that red and blue are the preferred combination for accessibility.
I think most people prefer red and green, though.
So there's incompatible concerns to cater to: do you demoralize most people by switching to blue or do you demoralize the colorblind minority by keeping green? :D
(In the limit, you're going to inevitably hit some bedrock of elitism beyond which it's irrational to dig. Your interface will probably not be usable by dogs, for example.)