ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
Yes and no... if the pattern is the kid “has” to do something “now”... or on a soecific schedule... das doesnt cover it. I’m not saying they should be entitled to that kind of accommodation... but thats the argument against return times. It does not allow them to set their own schedule fully.
Me, I’d point to the long fastpass return lines and ultimate waits we face in those lines and say “well how did junior survive that? Return lines are not immediate boarding. Why can you tolerate an unpredictable wait in line there... but insist other waits are not tolerable?
I'm really not trying to argue with you - as I've stated before, my boys both have disabilities - but this is a very important topic and warrants discussion (and I think we're pretty much on the same page, anyway). However, that being said, this sort of lawsuit really ticks me off because it reeks of entitlement and creates resentment among the general population towards ANYONE with disabilities - including those whose families work very hard to help them learn to adapt and cope. It also opens the floodgates for those scumbags who are willing to lie in order to abuse laws meant to protect those with disabilities. The poodle lady also really bothered me - she *may* have had good intentions and been trying to help, but her "service animals" didn't behave as such, nor did she behave properly..."holding court" and the like, and she drew negative attention to a demographic that desperately needs society's attitudes to change.not as easy as it would seem when people have these impossible restrictions that somehow only rear themselves at disney parks
The law does not define limits on what is reasoanble or not for these kinds of accommodations... so it boils down to the courts. And the law is stacked against the business in this regard.
People even challenged the idea and burden people had to go through to register for the das access, etc. and they are right... but disney has to prove to the court it is a practical balance and that the burden is not too great. I think disney is correct in their argument for it being a practical limitation that does not pose too much of a burden... but there is basis to challenge it.
The whole schedule thing gets me - and I really hope whichever judge hears this case is smart enough to do some math and use some common sense. It's not like you could enter the park in 2014 (this case is 5 years old if memory serves) and do exactly what you wanted exactly when you wanted to. This young man was 22 when they filed the suit. So that means that (rough estimate, of course, based on when my youngest started remembering things regarding his schedule/routine) between the ages of 5 and 22 (approximately 1997-2014), they visited WDW often enough that the young man established his needed routine. What did they do when one of the experiences in their routine was closed? What did they do when they had to wait to enter the parks? What about waiting for transportation? Or waiting for food? What if there was a line for the bathrooms? What if a downpour started while they were in Magic Kingdom? What if they wanted to sit in a particular spot to rest or eat and someone else was sitting there? What if his viewing spot for parades/fireworks was already taken? There is NO WAY he could have followed such a rigid routine that he could be doing the same thing at the same time, for the same length of time, during every trip. It just isn't possible because (as we are all too aware) crowd levels increased dramatically during that time-frame and there are too many variables beyond their personal (or Disney's) control that would have disallowed it. The way they are framing their argument, this young man is unable to tolerate even the smallest deviation, and I really believe that's a lie. I could go even further and posit the question: What do they do when something else he wants isn't immediately available?
As you said earlier, there is a landmark case needed in order to establish a sort of "line in the sand" in regards to what is reasonable and what is not - especially when one considers some of the crazy judgments we've seen in recent years. In my opinion, risking further abuse of already existing laws should be enough to count as crossing that line of what is reasonable.