Visiting Walt Disney World is a privilege, not a right. Riding rides is a privilege, not a right. Not everyone will be able to do everything. It's unfortunate, but not criminal.
I think I understand what you are trying to say but, respectfully, I suggest you read the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA):
The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation
Amusement parks are covered under ADA. Being able to do business with WDW is a right protected by ADA.
This does not mean Disney has to offer free admission to those with disabilities. Instead, this means that Disney cannot create barriers for those with disabilities who want to do business with Disney.
The obvious example of this is wheelchair access. Disney has spent
many millions making its parks, busses, pools, hotels, etc. accessible to those with mobility issues.
Those in wheelchairs have ADA-protected rights to do business with WDW.
ADA protects both physical
and mental disabilities. Those with mental disabilities have the same rights as those with physical disabilities.
By law, Disney must accommodate them if a
reasonable modification can be made.
That's the crux of the matter. What is a reasonable modification?
Per ADA, discrimination occurs when there is a "failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities,
unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations".
Per the Federal Government's ADA webpage:
“What is a fundamental alteration?
A fundamental alteration is a modification that is so significant that it alters the essential nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered.”
What constitutes a “reasonable modification” or a “fundamental alteration” is what the lawsuit is about. Are the plaintiffs asking for a reasonable modification? Does what the plaintiffs seek alter the essential nature of what Disney offers?
Note that safety plays a vital role in determining what's reasonable. Effectively, safety takes precedence.
Surprisingly, there isn't much established case law on the subject that's applicable to the lawsuit.
One way or the other, the ruling is going to set a precedent that could have far-reaching consequences.
.