To boil it down. No one has a "right to shop" online that is greater than their "right to shop" at a physical store. I can't believe I'm even talking about rights and shopping in the same sentence.
Law is about interpretations of definitions such as "reasonable", "discrimination", "public" etc. At least that's my interpretation of their interpretations. I received the lowest grade in all my years of schooling, a "C", in Business Law; primarily because I was told that law was based on "What would the common man decide with X, Y, Z in evidence?" Don't know if it's because I'm not a man, but most rulings didn't pass my common sense test so I was always a bit perplexed by the results. My impression on this issue so far is that Target did not consciously set out to discriminate against any group of any definition. They are just dumb and have allowed some dink to "sell" them on the idea that this is a good design, when in fact it ignores the needs of many, which makes in inaccessible and unusable and puts them at a competitive disadvantage. There are many ways to change a culture, but legislating is not one of them. Christie Mason [1] we don't have "finders-keepers" and "it's mine, I saw it first" or "give it to me or I'll pull your hair" as social rules outside the playground (and I suspect our educators are doing their best to change those rules too...) [2] gunsol, alchohol, fireworks, drugs etc all have legislation to control their commerce. ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
