Sounds like whoever sold her the theme didn't bother with accessibility. I think laws like this are good, but at the same time they will end up pushing people to stick to larger sites like shopify or just listing on ebay/amzn to avoid all this.
This just sounds to me like "I like regulation, but hate over-regulation". Except that here, like potentially many other cases, there weren't any sane bounds on said regulation.
To be fair, proposing regulation on people is really easy if you're not affected.
And individual rules can often sound nice at first glance, only to have disastrous consequences in practice. Add in the fact that repeal of regulation is an... onerous process, and things get even more tricky.
And also to be fair, it is very easy to dismiss advocacy for regulations as naive ideals from inexperienced people who like things that sound nice but are ignorant of the realities of the world.
Because the actual outcome isn't that you now have a website that's accessible. The actual outcome is that you now don't have a website at all. I suppose that does mean that everybody has equal accessibility - none.
That is needlessly black and white and hyperbole.
Out of 100 websites you will have now, some of them are currently discriminatory. Some of them will shutdown, some will stop discriminating, some never discriminated to begin with.
Instead of going for the hyperbolic "none" put an actual number to it.
Is not discriminating worth it if we then only have 99 websites? 95? 50? 20?
