masks with special needs

[Lilofan]

Again, this isn't about common sense. It's about having easy to follow rules that are consistent and can be effectively enforced.

I'm not sure why you want "common sense" to be the rule of the day, while simultaneously pointing out how it's lacking.

It's like the violators are acting like ignorant rebellious children and the teacher has to put their foot down to restore law and order.

 

[HongKongFooy]

Anyone taking legal action to insist they don't have to wear a mask in a theme park during a pandemic is just selfish.

The fact that the venue is a themepark has no bearing on the validity of the discrimination claim. The claim will have merit or be laughed out of a courtroom due to the issue at hand.

Disney, 7-11, Outback Steakhouse or a grocery store.....it does not matter.

 

[HongKongFooy]

Agreed--going to a theme park is NOT an essential task such as shopping for food

That is not a prerequisite for a discrimination claim. The potential issue is not about essential vs non essential. It's about ADA compliance and equal protection.

Again, I'm not saying such a suit would have merit or traction but I am saying that the fact that it's Disney has little relevance.

 

[thomas998]

And to stop people jumping.

If you believe they are altruistic then that might be true. I suspect most hotels just care about the money and the odds of someone that committed suicide or their family winning a lawsuit against the hotel is far less than the odds of some poor slob that gets hit from bottles, rocks or anything else that originate from the open window suing or having their family sue them.

 

[mergatroid]

The fact that the venue is a themepark has no bearing on the validity of the discrimination claim. The claim will have merit or be laughed out of a courtroom due to the issue at hand.

Disney, 7-11, Outback Steakhouse or a grocery store.....it does not matter.

It matters to what I said in my sentence I feel, which is that it's 'selfish'. You see at no point was I inferring that the case would be won or lost due to it being illegal, in Disney, 7-11, Outback Steakhouse, a grocery store or whether it had legal merit.

My stance is that if there's a disease out there that is believed to or can be spread by people not wearing masks, then people with a social conscience would not want to risk spreading it. The world however is full of selfish people many of whom have legal degrees and to make a buck will sue anyone for anything if they think they can. Wanting to attend a theme park during a pandemic where safety measures are in place knowing that you are trying to ignore those safety measures is selfish.

Selfish may not be a legal term, but then again that's not my argument. For somebody to try to twist the law that was created to try to stop being 'discriminated' against for having a disability is selfish. We all can see that nobody is creating a rule to intentionally make it harder for people with respiratory problems or learning difficulties to attend Disney. The rule is temporary and an effort to save lives, to try to use a legal technicality to get around it is selfish. The fact that this action could result in people dying goes beyond being selfish, in fact it's downright despicable.

It would be interesting to see what those who insist they can't wear masks and are willing to risk other people's lives would do were they on a plane at 30,000 ft that suddenly lost cabin pressure? When the oxygen masks lowered would they refuse to wear the masks or refuse to put them on their kids who they use the law to try to say can't wear masks. I think in those cases where their life or the life of their kids were threatened, then suddenly the masks wouldn't be such an issue?

So I think the good and sensible people who can't or won't wear masks, will think "Let's wait till the pandemics over and the mask requirement at Disney exists no more, it sucks but it's there for a reason and the reason is to save lives"

Meanwhile the selfish folk can try and use 'the law' to endanger others lives for their own short term gain. Legally they can challenge it, but if they do then I hope karma bites them in the behind in return.

 

[Chi84]

It matters to what I said in my sentence I feel, which is that it's 'selfish'. You see at no point was I inferring that the case would be won or lost due to it being illegal, in Disney, 7-11, Outback Steakhouse, a grocery store or whether it had legal merit.

My stance is that if there's a disease out there that is believed to or can be spread by people not wearing masks, then people with a social conscience would not want to risk spreading it. The world however is full of selfish people many of whom have legal degrees and to make a buck will sue anyone for anything if they think they can. Wanting to attend a theme park during a pandemic where safety measures are in place knowing that you are trying to ignore those safety measures is selfish.

Selfish may not be a legal term, but then again that's not my argument. For somebody to try to twist the law that was created to try to stop being 'discriminated' against for having a disability is selfish. We all can see that nobody is creating a rule to intentionally make it harder for people with respiratory problems or learning difficulties to attend Disney. The rule is temporary and an effort to save lives, to try to use a legal technicality to get around it is selfish. The fact that this action could result in people dying goes beyond being selfish, in fact it's downright despicable.

It would be interesting to see what those who insist they can't wear masks and are willing to risk other people's lives would do were they on a plane at 30,000 ft that suddenly lost cabin pressure? When the oxygen masks lowered would they refuse to wear the masks or refuse to put them on their kids who they use the law to try to say can't wear masks. I think in those cases where their life or the life of their kids were threatened, then suddenly the masks wouldn't be such an issue?

So I think the good and sensible people who can't or won't wear masks, will think "Let's wait till the pandemics over and the mask requirement at Disney exists no more, it sucks but it's there for a reason and the reason is to save lives"

Meanwhile the selfish folk can try and use 'the law' to endanger others lives for their own short term gain. Legally they can challenge it, but if they do then I hope karma bites them in the behind in return.

Several posters (including one extremely knowledgeable one) have weighed in on whether the ADA would require WDW to make an exception to the mask requirement for the disabled/those with special needs. The consensus is no because it would not be a reasonable accommodation where a contagious disease is involved.

Even though I don't think the disabled/special needs community is entitled to a mask exemption, I probably wouldn't label them selfish for asking. They're so used to the word that it probably wouldn't make an impact. All of the accommodations we consider commonplace now (accessible buses, wheelchair ramps, special education classes, etc.) were bitterly challenged as selfish when first proposed. I remember reading several editorials on how the "selfish" disabled were having seats removed from buses to the detriment of elderly customers more likely to use them. I'm not saying it's the same thing, just something to consider.

Lawyers don't make the laws, although they do file cases on behalf of people who want to test the limits of those laws. They also defend serial killers despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. That kind of goes along with the job. It's our legal system, like it or not. That doesn't, in itself, make them selfish or morally deficient.

As far as the airplane example, the overwhelming majority of people in this country do not have Covid. If you had to choose, would you rather be without an oxygen mask on a plane that lost pressure, or walk past a child at WDW who was not wearing a mask? This kind of hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[mergatroid]

Several posters (including one extremely knowledgeable one) have weighed in on whether the ADA would require WDW to make an exception to the mask requirement for the disabled/those with special needs. The consensus is no because it would not be a reasonable accommodation where a contagious disease is involved.

Even though I don't think the disabled/special needs community is entitled to a mask exemption, I probably wouldn't label them selfish for asking. They're so used to the word that it probably wouldn't make an impact. All of the accommodations we consider commonplace now (accessible buses, wheelchair ramps, special education classes, etc.) were bitterly challenged as selfish when first proposed. I remember reading several editorials on how the "selfish" disabled were having seats removed from buses to the detriment of elderly customers more likely to use them. I'm not saying it's the same thing, just something to consider.

Lawyers don't make the laws, although they do file cases on behalf of people who want to test the limits of those laws. They also defend serial killers despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. That kind of goes along with the job. It's our legal system, like it or not. That doesn't, in itself, make them selfish or morally deficient.

As far as the airplane example, the overwhelming majority of people in this country do not have Covid. This kind of hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.

Some fair points there.

With regards to labeling somebody selfish for asking, is wasn't those 'asking' I was referring to. Rather those (including a poster in this thread) who wants to take legal action because they want to go into Disney mask less (don't we all), knowing that doing so can endanger others but putting their 'perceived' needs first. That's pretty much the definition of selfish

Selfish - concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

I've personally never read an article calling disabled people selfish for having bus seats removed etc, however I'm sure those articles exist and have no doubt that you've seen them. I'll happily consider it though as requested as I'm one of those disabled people myself. I suffer from dystonia which affects my co-ordination in both my arms and legs. I only really use a wheelchair in airports when changing terminals and do so only because I may not be fast enough to walk to my connecting flight and it's extremely tiring travelling to America from the UK and having to drive upon arriving after travelling for up to 20 hours. I actually feel guilty when the airport assistance person takes us through a shorter line for security and immigration as my disability appears to give me an advantage at the airport, though it's actually done to utilise the airport assistance person's time more efficiently rather than benefiting me. I'm very stubborn though and walk through discomfort at Disney and appreciate all the things that society does to make my life better, though I try to live as normally as possible and rarely take advantage of these 'perks' for disabled people.

You make a good point about lawyers and yes, even serial killers deserve a defence. However I think we'd both agree that there are lawyers (not all, but enough) who's morals are in the gutter and hide behind the 'law' and use it in a way that it was never intended to be used in. For instance an example would be a lawyer who's defending a rapist. The woman who was raped begged the rapist to at least use a condom as she had children and didn't want to catch anything that could kill her. The rapist remarkably agreed (true case), raped her and was eventually caught. The defence his lawyer gave was that as she requested he wear a condom that meant it was consensual, it takes a pretty selfish mind to try to pull that. That of course doesn't mean all lawyers are morally corrupt, but likewise I think you get the point I'm making about them even though that example is extreme.

As for my aircraft example being 'hyperbole and adds nothing to the discussion', again I used an extreme example. I knew that myself when I made it but thought I had to as some folk just seem blind to anything other than that which affects them. For somebody to not see that trying to do something that could endanger others (and it not being ignorance) so they can visit a theme park not being wrong means they need it pointing out in a more 'exaggerated manner'.

To answer your question "If you had to choose, would you rather be without an oxygen mask on a plane that lost pressure, or walk past a child at WDW who was not wearing a mask? ", obviously I'd rather walk past a child not wearing a mask as the risk is less. However the risk of passing an unmasked child doesn't need to be there at all, as preventative measures have been put in place already. It's absolutely avoidable and unfair on the many thousands of other folk many of whom have gone to Disney on the understanding that everyone will be wearing masks. A plane losing cabin pressure is usually caused by a fault in the aircraft and isn't as preventable as wearing or not wearing a mask.

Finally I'm not having a go at you and enjoy debating on here, having different opinions on things doesn't mean we're falling out and I hope that you take it that way which your post to me certainly seemed to signify.

 

[Chi84]

Some fair points there.

With regards to labeling somebody selfish for asking, is wasn't those 'asking' I was referring to. Rather those (including a poster in this thread) who wants to take legal action because they want to go into Disney mask less (don't we all), knowing that doing so can endanger others but putting their 'perceived' needs first. That's pretty much the definition of selfish

Selfish - concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

I've personally never read an article calling disabled people selfish for having bus seats removed etc, however I'm sure those articles exist and have no doubt that you've seen them. I'll happily consider it though as requested as I'm one of those disabled people myself. I suffer from dystonia which affects my co-ordination in both my arms and legs. I only really use a wheelchair in airports when changing terminals and do so only because I may not be fast enough to walk to my connecting flight and it's extremely tiring travelling to America from the UK and having to drive upon arriving after travelling for up to 20 hours. I actually feel guilty when the airport assistance person takes us through a shorter line for security and immigration as my disability appears to give me an advantage at the airport, though it's actually done to utilise the airport assistance person's time more efficiently rather than benefiting me. I'm very stubborn though and walk through discomfort at Disney and appreciate all the things that society does to make my life better, though I try to live as normally as possible and rarely take advantage of these 'perks' for disabled people.

You make a good point about lawyers and yes, even serial killers deserve a defence. However I think we'd both agree that there are lawyers (not all, but enough) who's morals are in the gutter and hide behind the 'law' and use it in a way that it was never intended to be used in. For instance an example would be a lawyer who's defending a rapist. The woman who was raped begged the rapist to at least use a condom as she had children and didn't want to catch anything that could kill her. The rapist remarkably agreed (true case), raped her and was eventually caught. The defence his lawyer gave was that as she requested he wear a condom that meant it was consensual, it takes a pretty selfish mind to try to pull that. That of course doesn't mean all lawyers are morally corrupt, but likewise I think you get the point I'm making about them even though that example is extreme.

As for my aircraft example being 'hyperbole and adds nothing to the discussion', again I used an extreme example. I knew that myself when I made it but thought I had to as some folk just seem blind to anything other than that which affects them. For somebody to not see that trying to do something that could endanger others (and it not being ignorance) so they can visit a theme park not being wrong means they need it pointing out in a more 'exaggerated manner'.

To answer your question "If you had to choose, would you rather be without an oxygen mask on a plane that lost pressure, or walk past a child at WDW who was not wearing a mask? ", obviously I'd rather walk past a child not wearing a mask as the risk is less. However the risk of passing an unmasked child doesn't need to be there at all, as preventative measures have been put in place already. It's absolutely avoidable and unfair on the many thousands of other folk many of whom have gone to Disney on the understanding that everyone will be wearing masks. A plane losing cabin pressure is usually caused by a fault in the aircraft and isn't as preventable as wearing or not wearing a mask.

Finally I'm not having a go at you and enjoy debating on here, having different opinions on things doesn't mean we're falling out and I hope that you take it that way which your post to me certainly seemed to signify.

I welcome substantive, open-minded debate. I suspect Americans may be more litigious than those in other countries; if the disabled had politely asked for accommodations, their answer likely would have been a polite "no." Right or wrong, we frequently use the courts to address social issues.

I wonder if, in practice if not in theory, our criminal justice system is more adversarial than other countries. The idea is that because the government, with its vast resources, is prosecuting a person, the defense should use every means ethically available to it. In your example, if the attorney did not use a defense that was legally available under the facts (despite being unlikely), the attorney could be found incompetent on appeal. The primary ethical duty placed on the attorney is to defend the client, not to achieve a just result - somehow the system is supposed to arrive at the truth as a result of both sides doing their best to prevail. It doesn't always work that way, and I can understand how it looks to those not familiar with the duties of a defense attorney.

As far as the plane example, I'm not a fan of extreme examples or straw man arguments. In my opinion, they don't help further the discussion because they aren't focused on the actual problem at hand. Whether or not I personally agree, I can envision a person seeking a WDW mask exemption for a special needs child while still putting an oxygen mask on that child in a plane that lost pressure. Most times an argument is just as strong or even stronger without the extreme example.

 

[21stamps]

Several posters (including one extremely knowledgeable one) have weighed in on whether the ADA would require WDW to make an exception to the mask requirement for the disabled/those with special needs. The consensus is no because it would not be a reasonable accommodation where a contagious disease is involved.

Even though I don't think the disabled/special needs community is entitled to a mask exemption, I probably wouldn't label them selfish for asking. They're so used to the word that it probably wouldn't make an impact. All of the accommodations we consider commonplace now (accessible buses, wheelchair ramps, special education classes, etc.) were bitterly challenged as selfish when first proposed. I remember reading several editorials on how the "selfish" disabled were having seats removed from buses to the detriment of elderly customers more likely to use them. I'm not saying it's the same thing, just something to consider.

Lawyers don't make the laws, although they do file cases on behalf of people who want to test the limits of those laws. They also defend serial killers despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. That kind of goes along with the job. It's our legal system, like it or not. That doesn't, in itself, make them selfish or morally deficient.

As far as the airplane example, the overwhelming majority of people in this country do not have Covid. If you had to choose, would you rather be without an oxygen mask on a plane that lost pressure, or walk past a child at WDW who was not wearing a mask? This kind of hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.

Personally, I would equate a lawsuit over a refusal for mask exemption, to the lawsuit over a front of the line pass... more than I would a bus accommodation for wheelchairs. One is practical and needed, the other really is wanting above and beyond what is reasonable.

 

[Chi84]

Personally, I would equate a lawsuit over a refusal for mask exemption, to the lawsuit over a front of the line pass... more than I would a bus accommodation for wheelchairs. One is practical and needed, the other really is wanting above and beyond what is reasonable.

I'm sure ADA agrees with you - a mask exemption during a pandemic would not be a reasonable accommodation. I didn't equate the two examples you mentioned, just pointed out why I thought it was a little heavy-handed to use the term "selfish."

Also, at the time the bus accommodations were first sought, many did not consider them practical and needed. Now they are accepted, but it was not always so.

 

[mergatroid]

I welcome substantive, open-minded debate. I suspect Americans may be more litigious than those in other countries; if the disabled had politely asked for accommodations, their answer likely would have been a polite "no." Right or wrong, we frequently use the courts to address social issues.

I wonder if, in practice if not in theory, our criminal justice system is more adversarial than other countries. The idea is that because the government, with its vast resources, is prosecuting a person, the defense should use every means ethically available to it. In your example, if the attorney did not use a defense that was legally available under the facts (despite being unlikely), the attorney could be found incompetent on appeal. The primary ethical duty placed on the attorney is to defend the client, not to achieve a just result - somehow the system is supposed to arrive at the truth as a result of both sides doing their best to prevail. It doesn't always work that way, and I can understand how it looks to those not familiar with the duties of a defense attorney.

As far as the plane example, I'm not a fan of extreme examples or straw man arguments. In my opinion, they don't help further the discussion because they aren't focused on the actual problem at hand. Whether or not I personally agree, I can envision a person seeking a WDW mask exemption for a special needs child while still putting an oxygen mask on that child in a plane that lost pressure. Most times an argument is just as strong or even stronger without the extreme example.

In the UK now we seem to be catching up a little bit with yourselves in the litigation department. We have far more 'ambulance chasers' than ever with far more adverts for them on tv than I can ever remember. Slogans like "Where there's blame, there's a claim" being common. I was 'rear ended' about 8 years ago and my insurance company practically begged me to say I was injured when I wasn't. Even saying "Well sir you may be physically ok but how about mentally, are you having nightmares over the trauma or even just less sleep". Random text messages are common from companies saying "We believe you're owed up to £5,000 for an accident recently that you've not claimed yet" even though I've not had one and they just have had a computer send this message to every number they've acquired and are going fishing.

You make a good point about the attorney being found incompetent on appeal. Sadly I suppose the system that's in place is better than a police state, perhaps a fair price to pay for that even if it can be 'abused' at times. I guess the practicality of living in a fair world is unrealistic in practice, it's a shame but there you go.

 

[Gramma4]

I was skeptical about wearing the masks in the Florida heat, but was pleasantly surprised that it did not bother me much. The Disney-brand masks were helpful on the water rides as they did not stay wet due to the polyester print layer. After awhile, I didn't even notice I was wearing one. The only problem I had with the masks was when I had to wear the 3D glasses. They kept fogging up, but my husband (who wears glasses) figured out a way to adjust the mask (and still keep everything covered) to stop it.

My
Grandson wears glasses too. How did he fix it from fogging ?

 

[Hcalvert]

My
Grandson wears glasses too. How did he fix it from fogging ?

He only did this when he was wearing the 3D glasses and his glasses at the same time. He pulled his mask higher up his nose so that his glasses sat lower on the mask and also pulled his mask at one side to allow the air to escape by one of his cheeks instead of up above his nose. Hopefully, these directions make sense.

 

[EdnaMode]

He only did this when he was wearing the 3D glasses and his glasses at the same time. He pulled his mask higher up his nose so that his glasses sat lower on the mask and also pulled his mask at one side to allow the air to escape by one of his cheeks instead of up above his nose. I don't know if that makes sense or not.

It totally makes sense. You described how to force the exhaled carbon dioxide out the side(s) of the mask instead of up inside the lenses.

 

[Hcalvert]

It totally makes sense. You described how to force the exhaled carbon dioxide out the side(s) of the mask instead of up inside the lenses.

I meant that I hope my directions make sense. I edited it. I should have proofread before and after posting.

 

[Jabbas]

My son is almost 3 and was diagnosed with ASD during the pandemic. I took him to Disney for the first time In February and he absolutely loved it. We are having the mask issue too. We have been social distancing pretty hardcore due to health problems in both of our families. My son won’t wear a mask. These past few months have been hard. I’m not going to force the mask thing on him, he has enough challenges. Disney can wait and will always be there. But that is my personal situation.

 

[Queen of the WDW Scene]

It totally makes sense. You described how to force the exhaled carbon dioxide out the side(s) of the mask instead of up inside the lenses.

Unfortunately that only works if you have large enough frames.
I have a small face and very small frames and if I pull the mask up far enough to tuck under the frames its in my eyeballs.

 

[thomas998]

It matters to what I said in my sentence I feel, which is that it's 'selfish'. You see at no point was I inferring that the case would be won or lost due to it being illegal, in Disney, 7-11, Outback Steakhouse, a grocery store or whether it had legal merit.

My stance is that if there's a disease out there that is believed to or can be spread by people not wearing masks, then people with a social conscience would not want to risk spreading it. The world however is full of selfish people many of whom have legal degrees and to make a buck will sue anyone for anything if they think they can. Wanting to attend a theme park during a pandemic where safety measures are in place knowing that you are trying to ignore those safety measures is selfish.

Selfish may not be a legal term, but then again that's not my argument. For somebody to try to twist the law that was created to try to stop being 'discriminated' against for having a disability is selfish. We all can see that nobody is creating a rule to intentionally make it harder for people with respiratory problems or learning difficulties to attend Disney. The rule is temporary and an effort to save lives, to try to use a legal technicality to get around it is selfish. The fact that this action could result in people dying goes beyond being selfish, in fact it's downright despicable.

It would be interesting to see what those who insist they can't wear masks and are willing to risk other people's lives would do were they on a plane at 30,000 ft that suddenly lost cabin pressure? When the oxygen masks lowered would they refuse to wear the masks or refuse to put them on their kids who they use the law to try to say can't wear masks. I think in those cases where their life or the life of their kids were threatened, then suddenly the masks wouldn't be such an issue?

So I think the good and sensible people who can't or won't wear masks, will think "Let's wait till the pandemics over and the mask requirement at Disney exists no more, it sucks but it's there for a reason and the reason is to save lives"

Meanwhile the selfish folk can try and use 'the law' to endanger others lives for their own short term gain. Legally they can challenge it, but if they do then I hope karma bites them in the behind in return.

Unfortunately the ADA has been turning into a tool for lawyers to make a quick buck by twisting it far from what it was originally intended to be used for. This is a great example of a law that was poorly written in such a way that it pretty much guaranteed that judges would be making it up as they went along which makes it very difficult for businesses to understand what is and isn't actually required. Even worse is you can get conflicting ruling from different federal judges in different districts that make it even more problematic. It would have been nice if they had simply spelled out each and everything it was supposed to have covered, they could have then simply added onto the law later if they realized the left something critical out... But it is what it is and short of repealing it and starting all over it will be a mess for generations to come.

 

[britdaw]

You may be surprised... My son has autism and has no problem wearing a mask- especially if it's in a fabric he likes. I found some "Cars" themed fabric and he is so excited to wear his Lightning McQueen masks! Hopefully by then you won't have to worry about it though!!

 

[Jabbas]

I belong two one of those Disney Facebook groups and one of the posters claimed that a Disney cast member said the mask rule will be in effect until September 2021. Can anyone else confirm?