It was written in Braille – and the customer burned his fingertips reading the warning.

Even in the daytime, he still wouldn’t be allowed to walk through the drive-thru.

@markm–
The same way he gets there in daylight hours (eg using his cane to stay on sidewalks), provided the neighborhood has sidewalks and a reasonable amount of streetlighting. Not being blind, I don’t know if blind pedestrians try to wear bright clothing at night; if so, someone else would have to pick it out for them.

How would the blind person safely get to McDonald’s after dark, anyway?

“Why can’t he eat at that open restaurant a mile down the road. Any idiot can see it. Is he blind or something? (Oh…)”

Sorry, folks, I still support the blind guy.

Hugo,

Assume for a second that the person who wanted the service was sighted.

Who would pay for the taxi then?

Being served in a drive-thru requires a car.

This person is not being denied a meal because he is blind, but because of a lack of a car.

He is being treated and given the same level of service as everyone else who doesn’t have a vehicle.

In essence, the man doesn’t want an accommodation or consideration because he is being denied a service on the basis of his disability. Instead, he is wanting to be treated differently than others who are lacking a caras well.

Sorry, but he has no right to demand that McDonalds or any company put their employees at risk in order for him to get special treatment above and beyond what others are offered.

Jim–
Some areas, particularly in cities with robust medallion laws, have spotty taxi service. And, to preserve equal access, who should pay for it?

Sorry Hugo, but you can’t get away with that type of thinking. It is far too limited in scope. (sarcasm alert!)

A fifteen year old doesn’t have a car. (Wouldn’t that be age discrimination?)

The elderly can’t see well at night. Some no longer have cars. Shouldn’t McDonald’s then be required to deliver to the elderly’s homes? (More age discrimination!)

What about people who don’t have cars? (Transportation discrimination! Abuse of the poor!)

Public transportation won’t take people through the drive-thru! (More discrimination against those who don’t have cars!)

The drive-thru cannot accommodate (there’s that word again) semi-trucks and the “big rigs.) To say nothing of large mobile homes. (Isn’t that job discrimination because the truck driver can’t choose what he is driving?)

As to the mobile home people, they can afford a mobile home so they must be too “rich.” Forget them. They’re vehicles hurt the environment anyway.

What about people in wheelchairs? (Another ADA violation!)

What about people whose licenses have been suspended? (Disparate impact!)

So you see, you really need to think this thing through more than you have. There is lot more opportunities for lawyers to appear in front of a judge arguing that their client(s) have a Constitutional right to a Happy Meal.