We do not get to choose who becomes accessible

[karlgroves]

I realize that these principles aren't meant to contain a ton of nuance, so I'm not sure how actionable the following is, but I want to share it anyway.

The section "Let Evil Fail" takes a bit of a paternalistic/ ableist stance that you'd be willing to allow inaccessibility to thrive because what the client does is bad. Taking the stance that you wouldn't help improve access to ICT because of your principles is no different than a bakery saying they won't bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. IMO, it is even worse, because you're making the decision "on behalf of" people with disabilities regarding what deserves to be accessible and that's not really your decision to make.

While there are some things that are clearly bad, such as systems which promote or celebrate genocide, there are a lot of situations that are not so clear. While it is easy to justify turning away self-proclaimed Neo-Nazis, what about others? For example, would you turn away Exxon-Mobil? Northrop Grumman? Google? Where is the line drawn?

[Heydon]

So you wouldn’t lend your accessibility expertise to a website that promotes or celebrates genocide?

For example, would you turn away Exxon-Mobil? Northrop Grumman? Google? Where is the line drawn?

The line is drawn, as the principle clearly states, according to your own moral compass.

Taking the stance that you wouldn't help improve access to ICT because of your principles is no different than a bakery saying they won't bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

I don’t think refusing to help "access wash" nazis is really comparable to being homophobic, though?

Edit: Tenuous comparisons/metaphors aside, I've reframed the principle as a matter of prioritization. Thanks!