Human civilization doesn't have to be a world where those with means get to enjoy consumption while those without starve. We have the resources to do better by everyone, not only the abled.
Judgemental idealists have caused more damage to the world in the name of compassion and love than any other class of people. May you continue to use your rhetoric proudly, so that it may continue to serve as a warning to others.
Are you counting eugenicists as 'judgmental idealists'?
What about death penalty supporters/tough justice advocates?
Zero-tolerance school administrators?
Abstinence-only-sex-ed proclaimers?
Think-of-the-children law pushers that get teens stuck on sex-offender lists?
All-human-life-is-sacred religious groups that have made it so that our pets can die in peace, dignity, and without suffering but elderly humans have to suffer in agony for years and then get tortured to death by 'life saving efforts' at the very end?
Those judgmental idealists?
Certainly not the ones who simply say that disabled people should be able to access public spaces.
Designing for accessibility helps everyone. I attended a lecture on the topic and an example I found compelling was curb cuts - a person in a wheelchair makes the need obvious, but they are good to have for a variety of other reasons; pushing something with wheels, hurt ankle, being sick or absolutely ancient etc.
I agree that we don't need to self flagellate or see ourselves as deficient, design is hard after all.
I strongly disagree, and I worry that people are now trained to think the worst of themselves.
Abledness is the Chrome of people: we code for the mainstream, the healthy, able people, and then if we have time we add support for the others. I don't think this is evil, or even wrong: it's a wise use of limited resources. There are far, far more error modes in a system (like the human body) than non-error modes. That's why people with disabilities really are more dependent on others. Like in the OP's case, they (quite reasonably) suggested that he get someone to help him on the phone. Why is that bad? I mean, consider the "disability" of not speaking the supported natural languages. Are all customer service teams supposed to speak all natural languages?
Instead of self-flagellating, or flagellating orgs and govs for not covering an infinite number of issues, I think you should instead volunteer to be a helper for someone with a disability. If more people did that, then this issue would be all but moot. Putting the burden on service providers to do the job your friends, family, or helpers should be doing for the disabled doesn't seem fair. (And I say this as someone with a strong bias against central authority).