We don’t look down upon anyone. We treat everybody with dignity and respect.

Man who just passed a rule looking down on and disrespecting a single specific person.

Plenty of unhoused people have mobile phones and corresponding plans.

Who? Which library is at #2?

That’s the topic of discussion at hand.

I’m not saying we should exclude people for what they may or may not have. I am saying that it is better to serve everyone, and that serving more than 0 people is a better option than serving exactly 0 people.

If a service is no longer available offline and preventing accessing the online replacement for anyone using a library’s services (such as those experiencing homelessness; many of whom are able bodied) you harm the entire population that doesn’t have other means of access. If however, you have access at the library for some people but not others you are harming fewer people. It is better to harm fewer people.

Society will not rewind to the point that online access is not a requirement for comfortable living. Blocking some people from accessing services because others cannot use them will not fix that inequity, it will just hurt more people already dependent on public services.

As I said previously, the solution is to fund libraries adequately and provide them with the proper guidelines, training, and equipment so that they can help everyone rather than shutting everyone out because some people can’t access their services today.

1. Removing services for being inequitable is equality, in that it now harms everyone the same way–this is bad.
2. Providing services for some people based on what they have access to or what they can provide is inequal and inequitable, in that some characteristic defines your eligibility and passively excludes people–this is bad.
3. Providing services for everyone and providing additional assistance to those that require it is inequal but equitable, in that everyone gets different amounts or access necessary to achieve the same outcome–this is good.

We’re at #2. I think we should get to #3. My understanding is that you are arguing for #1.

Having services for some rather than none is quintessential harm reduction. It is exactly as difficult to establish accessibility guidelines and help libraries reach them than it is to legislate defunding if libraries don’t meet accessibility guidelines. I’m proposing the former option is better.

“If I can’t play with a ball then no one can” is extremely childish and harmful.

Honestly, this seems like a great way to force the closure of libraries. There are other solutions than just forcing them to fend for themselves without any significant revenue stream.