I'm sorry. I agree with the judge. The government does have the obligation under law to make reasonable accomadations for disabled people. There was simply no excuse for the government NOT to take into account the needs of the blind when they redid the bills recently.
The article quotes the costs, and frankly the costs they give aren't really all the big a deal, they are talking a few million dollars, not billions. You just have to make SOMETHING on the bill that is different physically, most every other country has managed to do so.
If the government doesn't want to support blind people, the government should not pass a law that requires the government to support blind people. If they pass the law, I fully expect judges to enforce the law.
I don't really understand why everybody seems to be opposed to this concept.
BTW, it's not the ADA law, it's the Rehabilitation Act, which governs GOVERNMENT programs (ADA forces costs onto private businesses).
I'll give you a reason: it will cost too much. Yup, I am a greedy cruel person. I say we shouldn't change the money because it would cost too much.
As a SMALL example: The company I work for owns (by my own approximation) at least 8,000 machines with dollar bill validators. A change in the dollar bill that would make it different enough for a blind person to use would instantly make each of those units obsolete.
To one medium sized company, this feel good law would cost $400 x 8,000. That's 3,200,000 dollars in parts. Now add the cost of actually replacing the units and you are at an EASY 4 MILLION dollars. I guarantee you that there would have to be a large number of layoffs, as the company would have to cut costs to try and survive such a non revenue producing expense.
So, a lot of us would be out of work, a lot of businesses would go bankrupt, but YOU would feel good.
Feel good-ism sure does cause a lot of suffering for others, doesn't it?