To be fair, the like for like comparison would be whether people would get upset at the suggestion of converting unused/unsold standard seats into accessible seats where there is a demand for more accessible seats. So for example, if we were regularly failing to sell 100 standard seats for games, but there were consistently say 25 unfulfilled requests for accessible seats. Maybe people would still get upset but at least that would be comparing apples with apples.
The way I read it was that somebody asked a straightforward question about the possibility of converting accessible areas only if demand consistently didnt meet the supply and notwithstanding legal requirements. Not really something I'd champion but hardly "disgusting". I get that you don't like it but I feel your response has been a touch disproportionate on this one.
As long as all those that want accessible seats get them then that's the main thing and if those seats are consistently left empty then personally I'd still leave them in just in case demand increases. Doesn't mean its abhorrent to even discuss it