There is a slight difference between glasses and hiring someone actually disabled - blind, deaf, can't do physical labor, autistic, etc.
Yes, you can try to assert fuzzy boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the thing we're pointing to doesn't exist. There are actually plenty of people that cannot do plenty of jobs.
Nobody minds hiring a software dev with a wheelchair or a person wearing glasses. This is not objectionable. Your proposed way to view this dilemma has to also be able to address the more problematic cases - what happens with an Amazon worker who can't stand up for longer periods of time? Or a blind person applying to be a QA?
>There is a slight difference between glasses and hiring someone actually disabled - blind, deaf, can't do physical labor, autistic, etc.
Except you can be legally blind, have glasses, and still have nearly perfect vision. You can be legally deaf, but listen fairly well with correctives etc. all of these are reasonable accommodations too.
>what happens with an Amazon worker who can't stand up for longer periods of time?
There's 0(generally -in most cases) justification for workers not being able to sit on their stations in amazon warehouses except for "we don't want you to," so nothing happens.
>a blind person applying to be a QA?
Believe it or not, blind QA people who work in accessibility exist.
Yes, you can try to assert fuzzy boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the thing we're pointing to doesn't exist. There are actually plenty of people that cannot do plenty of jobs.
Nobody minds hiring a software dev with a wheelchair or a person wearing glasses. This is not objectionable. Your proposed way to view this dilemma has to also be able to address the more problematic cases - what happens with an Amazon worker who can't stand up for longer periods of time? Or a blind person applying to be a QA?