Disabilities are not binary; it's not perfect health VS quadriplegic.
For some people, it's just harder to do everyday things. It doesn't mean they can't move around. And for people getting older or with a degenerative disease, continuing to do things normally is also a matter of pride.
To put it in obvious terms, it's like saying that we can add 3-4 stairs at the main entrance, because anybody who don't like stair can enter via the damp alleyway in the back, besides the dumpsters.
Unless he put the promise in the sell contract, in which case he can sue Facebook and stop them from doing this nasty move, he should be getting all the blowback he's getting and more.
You are right. Some of the sibling replies argue the contrary by using a sleight of hand; stating the desire to associate from only one of the two parties.
Take for example the relationship between a man and woman.
If both want to live with each other, everything is fine.
What if the man wants to associate with the woman, but she doesn't? Do we force her to accept the man? Does he have a right to access her?
Obviously that's silly. We all know that the relationship is only valid if BOTH parties consent.
And yet in regards to neighborhoods the sibling replies act as if only the man's opinion mattered. "That Jew wanted to come in but was refused! People were not free to associate!" They ignore that refusing someone is also part of the freedom of association.
I think you missed the point the parent comment was making.
Obviously "finance guy" would not only breed other "finance guys". However if the society consumes a majority of its productive members without insuring their reproduction, then they'll be selected against.
> Ah, this is pretty close to the same claim that "JayMan" made once when explaining to me how "gay people shouldn't exist, evolutionarily speaking" (because, of course, the gays would be outcompeted genetically by non-gays, and the identity wouldn't persist, right?)
That's such a weird position and obviously made by someone who doesn't understand evolution, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it here. It's the equivalent of saying that diseases/cancer/handicaps couldn't exist because "evolution". That is not what parent is talking about when underlying the risks of hindering reproduction for a whole class of citizens.
The only remaining legal way to separate is via money. In other words: fuck the poor, they are not allowed to decide with whom they associate.
Instead of trying to fix the problem by allowing non-monetary ways to segregate, which would be available to everyone, people are busy trying to universalize the problem.
To answer your question: you're not an asshole, but you're the only one without a broken leg... and we'll break it to make things fair to everyone.