This rubs me wrong. It would be impossible for small businesses operating websites to comply with these directives unless they're made really simple to implement, which I doubt is realistic.
My father was blind for 30 years until he died but never tried to impose on society in any way in that period - I can't imagine him ever agreeing in the slightest with the proponents of these ideas.
Like all things, there's a balance, and like all good balances it should be flexible.
"No" is not acceptable, at least not to me. I have no disabilites, but I think that there should be accommodation for disabilities in society. Perhaps below a certain business income or traffic the requirements are reduced or go away, and that's where we're not very good at balance.
As commerce, government and social interaction move online, it becomes imperative (yes) that we make accommodations for disabilities. The more we are, the better we are, so it's good for "the rest of us" as much as for "them."
In the end, it's likely an "eat your spinach" issue as said in the article: you bring more people and benefit in by your accommodation than the accommodations cost. Where that falls down is the micro-operations, and that's where I think we need some balance. Big ops can afford all this and more, but you won't get more big ops unless you let the small ops grow through that stage.
My father was blind for 30 years until he died but never tried to impose on society in any way in that period - I can't imagine him ever agreeing in the slightest with the proponents of these ideas.