Is this piece a joke? If it is, I can't find the punchline. I don't even know where to start on this, so I'll give my favorite highlight:

For example, let's say that there are two grocery stores on the same street. One of them has access for disabled people, while the other one does not. As a result, all disabled people (and even people who support the idea of helping others), will come into the handicap accessible store instead of going to the other one. Therefore, the store that has more resources to offer will be the one that sells more of its products. And that's why the one that offers access will succeed in the long-term.

Before ADA, there weren't any stores whose business model was access for the disabled. Why? Because implementing handicapped-accessible features is an expense that will never be recouped. Equality isn't the goal of affirmative action, of ADA, or of any other social program. Expanded opportunity is. One has to be incredibly deluded to pretend that a poor child and a rich child have even similar opportunities in life. We can certainly argue about a better way to help less fortunate people increase their opportunities, but if you try to frame the debate about equality, you're missing the point entirely.