this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
578 points (96.0% liked)

News

23627 readers
2518 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (6 children)

As someone who can't eat gluten, I'd love this.

I get bread equivalents made with tapioca and rice yet somehow that shit is charged at a premium

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Could someone with lactose intolerance not merely omit the milk?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 11 points 9 months ago (10 children)

Can't access the site, but isn't non-dairy milk often more expensive?

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Because of government subsidies, yes.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] JCreazy@midwest.social 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

Who is actually doing the suing here? If it's the ADA themselves then this is a mockery and it makes the ADA look like a joke. I'm lactose intolerant. Being lactose intolerant it is not medically necessary to not drink milk. I can drink milk. I can eat cheese, yogurt, etc. If I think about it, I take a little pill that has lactase in it to help. If I don't then I get diarrhea and then I move on with my life. Not to mention, nobody is forcing you to go to Starbucks. If you don't want to drink milk and you don't want to pay extra, then don't go to Starbucks. I know that's a hard concept for some to understand but you have free will. You can break free from the clutches of capitalism. I absolutely hate Starbucks and haven't been to one since 2012 and even I think this lawsuit is frivolous.

Edit: after reading your comments I see everyone's point. With that being said, wouldn't pizza places that charge more for gluten-free crust fall under the same category?

[–] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's not how the ADA works. You could say the same for wheelchair ramps, but ultimately it's on the store owner to reasonably provide accomodations to people who want to use their services. It's not on the disabled person to pick and select who will accommodate them or not. It's why businesses are required to reserve a portion of their parking lot to those with handicap placards. It shouldn't be up to each disabled person to figure out which business they can go to.

What Starbucks is doing would be akin to Walmart charging an extra buck for you to use one of their mobility scooters or an extra $5 if you require the assistance from an employee because you can't reach something.

[–] nolefan33@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago

I don't know the ins and outs of the ADA, but I disagree with your analogy. What Starbucks is doing is akin to Walmart charging a different price for milk and oat milk, which I don't think anyone would say is not allowed. It's not like there's a sheet of lactose you have to walk through to get into a Starbucks or anything, there's just things on the menu that people with some food allergies can't order.

[–] BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Lactose intolerance is not a disability.

You cant sue Five Guys because you have a peanut allergy and they didn’t provide you a safe peanut free environment.

You can’t sue McDonald’s because they don’t have a non dairy cheese replacement for your cheeseburger.

[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Lactose intolerance, along with all other food allergies and intolerances, is a medical condition which is protected under the ADA. You don't have to accomodate it, but if you do, you cannot charge extra for it.

Five Guys has peanut allergy signs on the doors. They are safe.

McDonald's hamburgers are cheaper than their cheeseburgers. They are safe.

A Starbucks latte is offered with dairy or a non-dairy creamers, and they charged more for the latter, violating the ADA rights of every lactose intolerant customer that purchased a non-dairy latte.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 months ago

Who is actually doing the suing here? If it's the ADA themselves then this is a mockery and it makes the ADA look like a joke.

The Americans with Disabilities act is a civil rights law passed in 1990 that protects disabled Americans from discrimination. The ADA is not an organization that can sue on anyone's behalf, it is a law that gives disabled people the right to sue when they are discriminated against, and it gives the justice department the power to punish businesses that fail to comply with the law

Asking for non-dairy creamer is a reasonable accomodation under the ADA if you are lactose intolerant. They don't have to offer it, but if they do, they cannot legally charge you extra to accomodate a disability or medical condition. That is discrimination under the ADA.

You may think this seems trivial or frivolous, but this is a clear case of Starbucks, a multibillion dollar international corporation, violating one of the most basic protections the ADA offers. It would be an injustice to turn a blind eye to it if you care about protecting disabled Americans from discrimination.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] yarr@feddit.nl 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Would they be in violation of the act if they did not offer these alternatives at all?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Crisps@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

This is the same as the argument that tall people need more leg room on a plane, and shouldn’t be charged to upgrade their seat. Or that someone with a bad back should be able to fly business for free.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The relevant regulation is Title III of the ADA, which is the part that applies to private businesses.

36.307 Accessible or special goods:

(a) This part does not require a public accommodation to alter its inventory to include accessible or special goods that are designed for, or facilitate use by, individuals with disabilities.

(b) A public accommodation shall order accessible or special goods at the request of an individual with disabilities, if, in the normal course of its operation, it makes special orders on request for unstocked goods, and if the accessible or special goods can be obtained from a supplier with whom the public accommodation customarily does business.

(c) Examples of accessible or special goods include items such as Brailled versions of books, books on audio cassettes, closed-captioned video tapes, special sizes or lines of clothing, and special foods to meet particular dietary needs.

From my understanding Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk. As they do not do special inventory orders for customers, they could remove the non-dairy milk options from the menu without violating the ADA.

But because Starbucks currently offers non-dairy milk, those options are subject to the ADA, specifically:

36.301(c) Charges.

A public accommodation may not impose a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids, barrier removal, alternatives to barrier removal, and reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, that are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part.

In my amateur reasercher's opinion, this case seems sound. Charging extra for milk alternatives is probably a violation of the ADA.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›