The examples you cite are discriminatory, not disabilities. And in many cases I'm not totally sure I'm ready to call them illegal -- comfort is having a beer when I want one; luxury is having a pretty girl bring it to me :-)

I'm not likely to be hired to wait tables at Hooters', and that's as it should be (not enough experience (-; ) The question is what's relevant to job performance. Neither Peter nor Ashton is likely to get many tips as a stripper, nor am I; valid discrimination? Or not? I'm not tall enough to be an NBA player, not strong enough or big enough for NFL football -- am I disabled, discriminated against, or simply not qualified?

I repeat: there's free money going, and people are trying to scam it. If that's allowed to continue, it causes a real problem, because our legal system is based on precedent. The precedent this case was trying to squash was DISABILITY := ! QUALIFIED. If that continues, eventually you get the situation where everybody, or almost everybody, is defined as "disabled" or "discriminated against". No matter how rich our society may be or become, people who get compensation for either disability or discrimination have to remain a minority, or the whole system falls down in flames and nobody gets anything.

There are people with real problems, from situations like Christopher Reeve without the movie money to hands bit off by machinery and truck drivers with back problems. They need help. If the funds for that help get scammed off by freeloaders, that help won't be forthcoming.