I've never seen it in person, but it exists. I don't feel like voicing my opinion, as I have before on the subject of people with disabilities here, but the ADA exists for a reason, and it's not to "cater" to people with disabilities.
I would agree that the original intent of the ADA was only to provide accessibility to those who are less abled than most of the population. But I think it's hard to argue that the ADA situation has grown waaaaay beyond that now, to the point where it is actually taking away from others.
My example case is one that is local to me, a restaurant by the name of the Squeeze Inn. It's a burger joint (that makes awesome burgers, by the way... be sure to get one if you're ever in the area) that was run in a very, very, very small building, one that has probably been there for eighty years or more. They are well known in the area, and have been featured on the Food Network show
Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives.
Part of the place's appeal was that it was built so small, that there were maybe six barstools to eat at, and everyone else had to eat outside on the patio. If you were lucky enough to get the barstool inside, you maybe had three feet to the wall behind you. The rest of the place had to be used as the kitchen facilities.
As part of having a place that was so small with a client base that was so large, they would gladly seat people outside, do to-go orders, and occasionally go so far as to deliver to people's houses for those who were unable to make it to the location (for whatever reason). This included disabled people that were not able to drive themselves to the Squeeze Inn.
A long story short, a disabled person sued the Squeeze Inn, claiming ADA violations. While I do not have or know the precise details of the lawsuit, my understanding of it is that the case was about clearances being off by what amounted to quarters of inches, and things like that.
Due to the lawsuit, the Squeeze Inn was forced to shut down. Thankfully, they are back up and running in a different building, but while the new location has the same great food and awesome service, the atmosphere is just not the same. The size of the old place is really what made it quaint and inviting.
The owner and employees of the Squeeze Inn would routinely bend over backwards to make sure everyone was welcome and left with smiles on their faces. But it only took one person who was out for blood to ruin it for everyone else.
After my rambling here, my point really comes out to be that ADA should be about accommodating the disabled when it is reasonable to do so. This does not mean, however, that the experience should be the exact same for everyone. It kind of turns into a slippery slope argument if you try for it - if you force a course to be wheelchair accessible, then what comes next, and where does the chain finally stop?
Please don't get me wrong - I am all for building courses that are wheelchair accessible
if the point behind those courses' design is to be handicapped-accessible from the start. And I do understand that no one has yet forced a course to change its design to be ADA accessible - I'm speaking entirely in rhetoric in this post.
But, in a long-winded, roundabout way, I guess I'm trying to say that while the intent of the ADA is not to cater to disabled people and just to provide accessibility; the fact of the matter is that in recent years, there have been way too many cases of lawsuits that show otherwise, and the above is one such case of many.
I hope I've conveyed what I'm trying to say in respectful terms - I've really tried quite hard over this long post to do so. After reading it, please remember that just because you may not agree with me does not mean I've been disrespectful or rude (but please do call me out if you legitimately find the way I've said something to be so).
I'm happy to discuss my opinion further with people if they wish. :hfive: