“then no one is accommodated including the disabled”

I did see a person in a wheelchair in a restaurant last year, but such an occurrence is rare. Wheelchair ramps, accessible bathrooms are available in large numbers and at great costs. These accommodations just aren’t used enough to make sense.

Of course, the problem is that “reasonable” has no concrete definition. What is “reasonable” to you may not be “reasonable” to me. I am sure there are lots of examples your significant other can cite where they believe your are being unreasonable while you believe you are being reasonable. (And vice versa.)

Businesses and people cannot operate under some nebulous concept of “reasonable.”

They shouldn’t have to.

Simple answer to all of your questions. Look up the word “reasonable” in the phrase “reasonable accommodations.” Undue burden is also a useful term.

All well and good, but when the draconian mandate results in the business closing, then no one is accommodated not including the disabled and then you’ve “thrown the bay out with the bathwater”. The current ADA law allows for a disabled person to go bounty hunting with the goal of profiting from the monetary recovery of their suit even though they never intend to make use of the accommodation sued for in the first place.

I’m sure the narrative has been in politics since before recorded history.

The ADA sometimes leads to illogical conclusions. I’ve built commercial space, I’ve spent start up capital to have to comply with inane conclusions as to what is reasonable. That said, no complex law that has to be frequently interpreted is going to come out logically every time. In the end, I’d rather err on the side of people with disabilities. Reasonable people can differ on this but one thing is for sure: if you strongly disagree with me, I bet you don’t have a disability.

Would you apply the same logic to places that sell hamburgers and thereby “discriminate” against vegetarians or vegans? How about a store that decides to sell Pepsi but not Coke? Would they be discriminating against people who want to buy Coke?

At some point we have to step back and say that businesses have a basic right to make decisions based on the best interest of their business.

What do you say to a business that is forced to change a building at the costs of tens of thousands of dollars (if not more) and gets a return on investment of no where near that amount?

There is balance that needs to be struck and currently is not. If a restaurant cannot accommodate a person in a wheel chair without taking up so much space that they cannot serve or seat others, the business should be able to make that call.

Instead, we have a “cookie cutter” approach that says it is always on the business to accommodate and never on the person claiming a disability.

There is no balance to this at all. The ADA tramples on the rights of many while inventing “rights” that do not exist.