Sorry let me rephrase that. People do not want separate sites because separate sites rarely get updated as regularly and most blind users will tell you they feel they get given less information.
Why should they have to cope with separate, crappy text-only sites when a professional web designer who actually knows what he's doing can make the main site accessible quite easily?
I think the hostility to the whole idea of building well-coded, standards compliant accessible sites points to the reason there needs to be legislation about it. People think they shouldn't have to think about the needs of others, that it's someone else's problem "It's MY shop I can do what I like" or "let them go to another shop if they can't access mine" but not only are 80% of websites NOT ACCESSIBLE so going somewhere else is not an option in most cases, but general social concern suggests that people simply should think about others. You know, in the 19th century they had to pass legislation to require children up to the age of 16 to go to school. The parents didn't want it because they wanted their kids working in factories and bringing in money. At the time it was considered a blow to the free market. Today, we realise education is invaluable and can be thankful that we were given that nudge towards something that benefitted society as a whole.
Besides, you're not designing websites for yourselves. You're designing websites for your customers. So why design a site that automatically excludes up to 10% of the population from the get-go? Never mind the senior surfers with degenerating eyesight who aren't registered disabled....or the people using mobile phones, or PDAs or old computers or....