Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
thank you for validating how stressful this is for literally everyone
My husband's company has been painfully slow with information (small company, maybe 100 people max...flooring and restoration business, privately owned). We haven't really had much of an idea of how things are working until a couple of days after-the-fact...stressful is putting it lightly, so I understand exactly where you're coming from.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
Were agents promising the park would be open? No.
Were they telling people that was the first day open? No

They simply were willing to take reservations so the calendar would be ready.

Right you are saying the same thing 21 stamps and I seem to have posted. Neither of us seem to think opening in June was ever likely, but thatbit could make some customers feel duped, so it does not seem right to state that is mental gymnastics. It was a business decision to keep momentum. If movie theaters started preselling a big summer movie ticket again it would be the same. it is the opposite of mental gymnastics. It was obvious they were hopeful or at least willing to take people's hopes on it. They were taking money and giving an extra incentive(free dining is easy to give when you know it is not likely but you either keep their money longer or get more bookings. They were as hopeful as, if not more hopeful than the guests and willing to take their money.
 

TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Right you are saying the same thing 21 stamps and I seem to have posted. Neither of us seem to think opening in June was ever likely, but that coul make some customers feel duped, so it does not seem right to state that is mental gymnastics. It was a business decision to keep momentum. If movie theaters started preselling a big summer movie ticket again it would be the same. it is the opposite of mental gymnastics. It was obvious they were hopeful or at least willing to take people's hopes on it. They were taking money and giving an extra incentive(free dining is easy to give when you know it is not likely but you either keep their money longer or get more bookings. They were as hopeful as, if not more hopeful than the guests and willing to take their money.

This. It's not like they picked May 15th or May 1st. They picked June 1st because they believed that was the earliest date they could potentially 'honor' reservations. They could've still opened on May 20th and ease into things knowing that June 1st they would have some guaranteed attendance (potentially).
 

Angel Ariel

Well-Known Member
Mrs. Rowrbazzle had her temp checked this morning before work with one. She was 96°!
My "normal" temp is about 97.5. If my temp is 99, I know I am actually sick.

My daughter's normal temperature, however, is between 99.0-99.5. We have to have documentation filed with the school district that she's not considered to be symptomatic of sickness until her temp goes above 101, because her temp can reach 100 - 100.5 just by being slightly dehydrated and running around outside at recess. (Will note she has a genetic disorder, and it's possible that temperature regulation is part of it - but there's not much data on it yet).
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
This. It's not like they picked May 15th or May 1st. They picked June 1st because they believed that was the earliest date they could potentially 'honor' reservations. They could've still opened on May 20th and ease into things knowing that June 1st they would have some guaranteed attendance (potentially).
Just because they furloughed employees doesn’t mean they won’t still open by June 1st. Disney management is just like the rest of us, winging it as we go. I don’t think they would furlough the employees if they were certain to hit June 1 or sooner but since there is no certainty in any of this they are making this move now.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Plus. What is your basis to bring suit? Loss of profit?. You can't sue somebody for the money you "think" you would have made. You had no contract with John Smith down the street, guaranteeing he would see 5 movies per month in your theater.

The constitution:

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

ARTICLE XIV. SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These orders for "the public good" can be construed as essentially taking private property because I can no longer operate my business on said property. The business owner has certainly been deprived of the property and has not received due process.

And finally, and most clearly, allowing an "essential business" such as a grocery store to operate under social distancing guidelines but not allowing a movie theatre to operate under the same guidelines CLEARLY does not provide the movie theatre owner "equal protection of the laws" as applied to the grocery store owner. There can be no dispute of this final point. It is clear that "essential businesses" are treated differently by these orders.

A movie theatre can easily operate in a way to provide for 6 foot minimum spacing between parties while in the lobby, at the concession stand and in the auditorium. However, they are not allowed to do so while Publix is allowed to.

A restaurant can easily space the parties in the dining room for the same requirement but they aren't allowed to. I'd actually argue that customers dining in a "socially distanced" dining room are at less risk of becoming infected vs. having every customer come into contact with the same employee for takeout.

I understand the logic of Publix being open because people need to get food to survive but they don't need to see a movie. However, they don't need to go to Home Depot to survive either and Home Depot is considered essential.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
The constitution:

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

ARTICLE XIV. SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These orders for "the public good" can be construed as essentially taking private property because I can no longer operate my business on said property. The business owner has certainly been deprived of the property and has not received due process.

And finally, and most clearly, allowing an "essential business" such as a grocery store to operate under social distancing guidelines but not allowing a movie theatre to operate under the same guidelines CLEARLY does not provide the movie theatre owner "equal protection of the laws" as applied to the grocery store owner. There can be no dispute of this final point. It is clear that "essential businesses" are treated differently by these orders.

A movie theatre can easily operate in a way to provide for 6 foot minimum spacing between parties while in the lobby, at the concession stand and in the auditorium. However, they are not allowed to do so while Publix is allowed to.

A restaurant can easily space the parties in the dining room for the same requirement but they aren't allowed to. I'd actually argue that customers dining in a "socially distanced" dining room are at less risk of becoming infected vs. having every customer come into contact with the same employee for takeout.

I understand the logic of Publix being open because people need to get food to survive but they don't need to see a movie. However, they don't need to go to Home Depot to survive either and Home Depot is considered essential.
Home Depot makes sense. Just like plumbers and electricians make sense. Stuff will break and need to be fixed.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
It is absolutely enforceable. There are a host of restrictions on your "rights" for the greater public good. This virus is extremely transmittable and there's countless examples of dozens of people being infected from one get together. States that acted early (California) are seeing positive results from these measures, meanwhile there's many stories of spring breakers becoming community spreaders when businesses in Florida refused to close or church groups getting together and a superspreading event occurring.

I don't feel like spending the night in jail to prove it but it is absolutely not enforceable to tell me that I can't walk across the street to my neighbor's house and talk to him if neither of us is infected with SARS-CoV-2. That is a violation of my liberty and his private property rights. I can not be forcibly constrained to my property if I do not have the disease. If I do, then I can be ordered to be quarantined.
 

"El Gran Magnifico"

Mr Flibble is Very Cross.
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It's NOT being taken for "Public Use". If you're going to reference something. Understand the context. If they are intending to turn theaters into quarantine facilities - That's a different story. Haven't read that yet. If you have a source. Please post.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Home Depot makes sense. Just like plumbers and electricians make sense. Stuff will break and need to be fixed.

I can still go in there and buy a new ceiling fan because I have the time to install it. They're still allowed to sell everything they normally do, not just things essential to life or health.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
The constitution:

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

ARTICLE XIV. SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These orders for "the public good" can be construed as essentially taking private property because I can no longer operate my business on said property. The business owner has certainly been deprived of the property and has not received due process.

And finally, and most clearly, allowing an "essential business" such as a grocery store to operate under social distancing guidelines but not allowing a movie theatre to operate under the same guidelines CLEARLY does not provide the movie theatre owner "equal protection of the laws" as applied to the grocery store owner. There can be no dispute of this final point. It is clear that "essential businesses" are treated differently by these orders.

A movie theatre can easily operate in a way to provide for 6 foot minimum spacing between parties while in the lobby, at the concession stand and in the auditorium. However, they are not allowed to do so while Publix is allowed to.



I understand the logic of Publix being open because people need to get food to survive but they don't need to see a movie. However, they don't need to go to Home Depot to survive either and Home Depot is considered essential.

Well if your home is in need of a dire repair during this time than it can be argued it is essential for safety of your shelter.

Another one that gets me is a library could ha e operated with pick up procedures only to keep access of information for the people, but liquor stores are open? $$ talks with those taxes.

I agree with you whole heartedly but I feel that the theaters closed due to the money loss of everyone not going and the dry time with no content that was happening as all releases were moving their dates out. It was a business decision at the time.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
I can still go in there and buy a new ceiling fan because I have the time to install it. They're still allowed to sell everything they normally do, not just things essential to life or health.
Yeah...Walmart and Target are problem spots too - people are using them as a means to blow time while browsing the non-essentials. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a means to curb that unless you start having security patrol those sections of the stores.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Well if your home is in need of a dire repair during this time than it can be argued itnis essential for safety of your shelter.

Another one that gets me is a library could ha e operated with pick up procedures only to keep access of information for the people, but liquor stores are open? $$ talks with those taxes.

I agree with you whole heartedly but I feel that the theaters closed due to the money loss of everyone not going and the dry time with no content that was happening as all releases were moving their dates out. It was a business decision at the time.
Liquor stores being open prevents hospitals from seeing a spike in patients suffering from alcohol withdrawal. It's nothing to mess with and can literally kill a person.
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Huh? Nobody is saying take away alcohol. Gas stations, grocery stores etc. sell it. It’s available if you “must” have it.
Where I live, very very few places that aren't liquor stores sell liquor. There's one gas station and I think it's only beer. I don't know of anyplace in surrounding towns, either.

(I'm not counting restaurants or bars)
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
It's NOT being taken for "Public Use". If you're going to reference something. Understand the context. If they are intending to turn theaters into quarantine facilities - That's a different story. Haven't read that yet. If you have a source. Please post.

I understand the context and the way it was written. However, conceptually it's the same thing. It's akin to the right to privacy used in Roe v. Wade (I'M USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE. PLEASE DO NOT MENTION THE SUBJECT OF ROE V. WADE AS I HAVE NOT DONE SO ON PURPOSE. THIS ISN'T A POLITICAL POINT, IT IS A LEGAL ANALOGY).

Here is an excerpt from an article written by a former Judge:

"The Contracts Clause of the Constitution prohibits the states from interfering with lawful contracts, such as leases and employment agreements.

And the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from interfering with life, liberty or property without a trial at which the state must prove fault.

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation when the state meaningfully interferes with an owner’s chosen lawful use of his property."

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-liberty-coronavirus

And, BTW, I found this article to back up my opinion to answer your post so I formed these opinions on my own first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom