[@Iuniper], it still does not change my opinion that people should not receive special compensation or consideration to somehow "make it even" and I do believe it can be argued. The notion otherwise invents an environment similar to the one we see today where people [i]want[/i] to be marginalized in some cases so they receive more benefits or even worse because it is "trendy". No less, in a number of situations some of the fixes and solutions are counterproductive to the intended and desired end state. Lastly, it develops an air of "competition of oppression" or a "comparison of lacking" by which I mean these various "socially disadvantaged" people try to measure their various areas of weakness in life against each other, in addition to the normal populace, and go, "Why do they get that? I want that too." or even more foolishly, attempt to argue they are the most "burdened" by whatever status they claim.

My stance is that I do not feel obligated to encourage it.

You could argue, "What about wheelchair access to a government building?" Fair point, but depending on the building and its function, it may or may not have a need. Some of those laws may have already been in the books as well. I have seen plenty of buildings that have no need for it, as with the above example these facilities do not allow people with that kind of disability in them by virtue of their function, having them only at all because regulation [i]mandates[/i] they do; the same can be said for a handicapped parking space. For me, that is a waste of time and resources.

If no such law existed, it should have been up to that state to make that determination for themselves through their population. Why? Because if someone does not like it, they can simply move somewhere else and should.