> The extra time it takes to for those other methods you listed is a "material inconvenience" for a blind person. All of the methods you listed require the assistance of another person.

How convenient that you've completely ignored the intentfully positioned point (4) and purposely withheld point (5) mobile app, then proceed to conflate subjective inconvenience with objective disadvantage, then fail to address the asymptotic counter-point given. There exists more than one method to acquire the same coupons: none of which are exclusive to a particular distribution medium, all of which are subjectively inconvenient to some degree, and at least one of which is accessible to the visually impaired.

> And a blind person doesn't have to wait...

How convenient that you've completely ignored the prepostured phone call alternative remark, then substantiate your realigned definition of disadvantage with conditionally objective points and still fail to acknowledge that the mentioned alternative affords the same privilege which is not inaccessible to the visually impaired. There exists more than one way to expedite a prescription refill: none of which are exclusive to a particular process, all of which are subjectively inconvenient to some degree, and at least one of which is accessible to the visually impaired.

> There is also the question of privacy. A blind person has no way of telling who is listening...

A blind person doesn't have to vocalize a single word to conceal privacy-sensitive information and still effectively communicate at an open pharmacy counter: fold a prepared (written, typed, whatever means favorable to the blind) piece of paper containing sensitive information, pass said private message to pharmacist when applicable. Paper not accessible? Try text on mobile. Keypad not accessible? Try any speech-to-text mobile app. Mobile not accessible? Try a phone call from your favorite secluded location. Common sense for anyone who isn't mentally impaired and doesn't have a thinly veiled legal agenda. There exists more than one way to achieve derivative privacy: none of which are exclusive to a particular channel, all of which are subjectively inconvenient to some degree, and at least one of which is accessible to the visually impaired.

But I'm protecting my privacy under HIPPA, says Gil. If this claim were even remotely legitimate, pharmacy counters wouldn't have any semblance to physically adjacent open check-out lines, and HIPPA would mandate it so, not the ADA. Even if on some Twin Earth privacy in a deliberately open public accommodation were a legitimate concern, it would impact all in-store customers without discrimination...and since both normal and visually impaired customers have alternative means of achieving the same benefit of derivative privacy, no inherent disadvantage exists.

> And perhaps the onus is on you to stop making assumptions about the life of a blind person, and to read the court ruling in full...

The plaintiff describes his "inconveniences" in sufficient detail for me to opine at will...no unfounded assumptions required. I really don't care what is and isn't inconvenient to the visually impaired because the contention I was initially remarking on was the court's decision of classifying Winn-Dixie's website as heavily integrated...to which you've provided no relevant argument against, and in which it appears you've lost complete sight of. This discussion has clearly digressed to the point where nothing constructive may come of it. Therefore, I submit privilege of the last word to you.