I agree. I remember during the initial discussion of this incident that it was clear that the CMs were simply being generous to her while allowing multiple re-rides. While I sympathize with her medical condition, it in no way entitles her to multiple re-rides without getting off the ride. And Disney had no cause to refund her money for an AP, since no one who visits WDW is entitled to such accomodations. If the poster who claims to be a CM is correct, it is clear that any outburst she may have had occurred at Guest relations.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney Sued Over Tower of Terror Ride
- Thread starter GoofyFan1
- Start date
I agree. I remember during the initial discussion of this incident that it was clear that the CMs were simply being generous to her while allowing multiple re-rides. While I sympathize with her medical condition, it in no way entitles her to multiple re-rides without getting off the ride. And Disney had no cause to refund her money for an AP, since no one who visits WDW is entitled to such accomodations. If the poster who claims to be a CM is correct, it is clear that any outburst she may have had occurred at Guest relations.
BuzzLite_Fran
Member
I have never understood how Disney could put a "lifetime" ban on someone. So if they not purchase an annual pass using a photo ID, she could always just purchase tickets through the mail using another name, or find a friend and use their name, etc. It seems hard to me that Disney could really keep someone out of the parks if they really wanted to go. They would find a way. As to her reported behavior, that is uncalled for, she should wait like everyone else. The times my wife has been sick (Chrones disease) she had used an ECV, but NEVER NEVER used it to cut lines, or expect any special treatment. She would use it traveling from one ride or area to the next, find the stroller parking area, and park the ECV and get in line like everyone else. We got a few strange looks a few times because I think some people expected us to use the ECV to get something special, or cut lines. I hate people who think they are "special" and are more important than all of the rest of us:shrug::fork:
Of course I am not saying that this lady was one of those people, I am just saying I would never expect any preferential treatment. My wife has had her problems, but we always go out of our way to follow the rules and be non confrontational. afterall its vacation!
Of course I am not saying that this lady was one of those people, I am just saying I would never expect any preferential treatment. My wife has had her problems, but we always go out of our way to follow the rules and be non confrontational. afterall its vacation!
Essentially Disney can't. From my days working at Six Flags (which has banned its fair share of guests), what happened generally was security had a database of pictures and names of banned guests. If they entered the park and were spotted by security (or anyone else who knew of the ban), they would be detained and then arrested for criminal tresspass, which is a felony. So essentially Disney would have to rely on employees knowing this person was banned to weed her out.
One could argue that since they tie the ticket to a fingerprint, then they could use that to locke her out. There are a few problems with that. One, I assume the technology only connects the fingerprint to a serial number on the ticket media, so there would have to be personal identifying information to the ticket media that ties it together. Second, Disney might not have the capability of recording that information long run. Third, it may be illegal for them to do so...there could be potential civil rights violations for them to keep the information long run (generally speaking).
So with that, Disney couldn't really keep her out physically, but if she's caught she can be arrested.
BuzzLite_Fran
Member
yeah I am a police officer, so I would think that keeping a "fingerprint database" would be hinging on the illegal side, as the criminal prints are kept in a national data base and only law enforcement personnel have access to it.
It just always cracks me up when I hear stories like this (whether true in this case or not) of how some guests feel the need to mistreat the CM's or become obnoxious in public......I guess it is the signs of our times and society. There are times we get frustrated at folks sometimes at WDW, but I always try to remember that we are on vacation, and I want to set a good example to my 4 children on how to treat others.
It just always cracks me up when I hear stories like this (whether true in this case or not) of how some guests feel the need to mistreat the CM's or become obnoxious in public......I guess it is the signs of our times and society. There are times we get frustrated at folks sometimes at WDW, but I always try to remember that we are on vacation, and I want to set a good example to my 4 children on how to treat others.
TigerBravo1977
New Member
In the US you can be banned form somewhere for any reason other than discriminatoin , right?
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
I like this "other reasons, period" category. Nice and broad. Could make things fun.
I propose banning the following people from property under this provision:
* Detroit Lions fans. Come on, nobody wants to be reminded you pathetic people exist on their vacation.
* People whose last names start with Q. Too hard to pronounce, so just move it along there, Mr. Qadaffi.
* Anyone from Vermont. Just join Canada already, you pinko commie Syrup Eaters. (But leave us Ben & Jerry's if ya don't mind.)
* People who say "fabulous" too often. More than twice in the earshot of a CM and out you go. It's just annoying.
* Black people. Wait, that one really is illegal, huh? Damn it. Fine, they can stay.
* People with cornrows. That's still kinda close, huh?
* Anyone carrying a copy of Twilight. It's Disney World, not "sissyboy vampire world," in case you didn't notice.
* Anyone wearing a Red Sox cap. We know most of you only started giving a crap after 2004, so we're drawing the line here.
* Excess nose hair people. It's gross, it's unsightly, and we're not putting up with it anymore.
* People who listen to Michael Bolton. And yes, we DO know who you are.
Don't like it? Tough! It's private property, pal. This is America and in America you do not question the final decisions of property owners. Also in America, you do not go to court to settle disputes. This "seeking an impartial ruling from a disinterested magistrate" business is highly overrated and probably violates the Constitution. Also, it's a little bit sissy.
TigerBravo1977
New Member
I have no idea what happened in this case, but my understanding is that the law is pretty clear. If Disney, as a property owner, decides to refuse service to anyone for any reason (other than discrimination) then they can. That's freedom. Despite popular belief, you don't lose rights in this country for having more money than other people, or for being a big corporation.
Nobody has the right to go to WDW, and it's not the business of the justice system to decide who gets to go. It's a privilege that WDW grants to people at their discretion.
Disney built it, they own it, and they get to decide who goes.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Well, that's a pretty well-reasoned response, so I'll try to respond in kind.
My issue isn't so much with the provisions of the law as it is with people who seem to enjoy wallowing in the private property catch-all instead of considering the merits of any individual case. I suspect if companies actually started exercising said catch-all with the frivolousness of the examples I pointed out, the burning affection for this provision might cool off a little. Some of these responses give me the impression that a guy should pull out a miniature flag and start humming "God Bless America" if a ticket attendant tells his wife she's ugly as hell and refuses her entry on that basis. Basically, just because the law gives somebody a right to be a prick is no reason to celebrate the exercise of said right, in my view. And that's a general conclusion, since like you I have no idea what happened in this case.
Also, if the provisions of the law are so clear, why all the hostility (not exclusively from you) to someone taking the issue to court? I presume they have lots of law books in courthouses.
archangel2790
Member
I don't know about Disney or other amusement parks, but I know that when I was a restaurant manager a few years back (and yes, the law may have changed since, or may be different as applies to theme parks), the phrase was, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time for any reason as allowed by law." That last line covers any claims of discrimination.
Now as I understand it, there doesn't have to be a reason. More specifically, management (Disney in this case) doesn't have to give a reason. Does that make it right? Not necessarily. But is what is legal always right? Hmmmmm....
This is just my take on it.
Right or wrong, it's Disney's playground, and if they don't want you to play there, they don't have to let you....
Now as I understand it, there doesn't have to be a reason. More specifically, management (Disney in this case) doesn't have to give a reason. Does that make it right? Not necessarily. But is what is legal always right? Hmmmmm....
This is just my take on it.
Right or wrong, it's Disney's playground, and if they don't want you to play there, they don't have to let you....
Ausdaddy
Active Member
Everyone has to follow the law. I guess I need to list every possible, legal reason to make you happy.
Edit: I'm feeling generous this morning. Since you seem to be confused about legality, I edited my post.
Uncle Lupe
Well-Known Member
Found this this morning
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co....10m-Disney/article-707276-detail/article.html
"Lawyers fighting for a girl left severely brain-damaged after going on a Walt Disney World ride have revealed they are hoping to win $14 million for her family"
"Last night, Robert Melton, Leanne's American lawyer, told the Leicester Mercury he thought the 20-year-old deserved at least $14million – about £10 million – to pay for her future medical care and to cover the "pain and suffering" caused to her family."
Even if they settle out of court they probably get something.
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co....10m-Disney/article-707276-detail/article.html
"Lawyers fighting for a girl left severely brain-damaged after going on a Walt Disney World ride have revealed they are hoping to win $14 million for her family"
"Last night, Robert Melton, Leanne's American lawyer, told the Leicester Mercury he thought the 20-year-old deserved at least $14million – about £10 million – to pay for her future medical care and to cover the "pain and suffering" caused to her family."
Even if they settle out of court they probably get something.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
The lawyer certainly will.
Most Mercury readers seem to think that while its tragic it seems like an ambulance chasing job. That said Leicestershire has the poorest rated education in the UK so maybe the family were illiterate and couldnt read the signs.
BuzzLite_Fran
Member
actually if you would have read my post through completely It reads as follows:
Of course I am not saying that this lady was one of those people, I am just saying I would never expect any preferential treatment. My wife has had her problems, but we always go out of our way to follow the rules and be non confrontational. afterall its vacation!
So just to be completely clear I wasnt saying you were acting like this I was just saying in general about ppl who act that way
thedisneyfan
Member
It seems as though this woman's problems go well beyond the physical. Maybe she entered the Twilight Zone and hasn't completely returned?
thedisneyfan
Member
Generally speaking if it's not a Constitutionally prohibited form of discrimination, then they have the right to refuse service for any reason. Hence, why you see no shoes/no shirt/no service signs in establishments. This form of discrimination is not Constitutionally prohibited. The policy applies equally regardless of race, gender, religion, age, etc. The tricky situations come into play when you apply a uniformed policy like the example above although the effects are felt primarily by a specific group. An example of this would have been a poll tax. It applied equally to everyone, but the result was to disenfranchise most black voters (and that really was the hidden intent behind poll taxes).
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your generosity, sir. But in all fairness to my confused mind, I did note a little below the post you quoted that I was less interested in legality than in what seemed to be the celebration of the potential @$$-hattery given license by the law. (The thing is, most of those examples I listed WOULD BE legal, based on the interpretation of private property law given around here.)Everyone has to follow the law. I guess I need to list every possible, legal reason to make you happy.
Edit: I'm feeling generous this morning. Since you seem to be confused about legality, I edited my post.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Hey, a little nuance. I like it.
This is why we have courts, folks. Because sometimes something that looks legal on the face of it might actually be determined otherwise after a deeper look, based on its actual effects or circumstances specific to the situation.
BuzzLite_Fran
Member
hey I know, I think I may sue Disney because when I go to WDW I spend way too much money.....they are contributing to my spending habit, which causes me to eat too much which causes high blood pressure, which may lead to an early demise on my part. Perhaps I can squeeze a little out of em so I can not spend too much which leads to other health rellated issues....
........................................ummmm on second thought......maybe I will just keep going to WDW....spending money........and enjoying myself......yep its decided not SUING :ROFLOL::wave::sohappy:
........................................ummmm on second thought......maybe I will just keep going to WDW....spending money........and enjoying myself......yep its decided not SUING :ROFLOL::wave::sohappy:
As a place of public accomodation, yes they do. Yes, they have a right to establish policies of guest behavior, absolutely. But those policies must be reasonable. By your statement, Disney would be within its rights to throw out anyone with green hair or cornrows. After all it is private property. However, by allowing anyone who holds a ticket access to its property, it becomes a place of public accomodation, and therefore the policies must be reasonable. Many restaurants ask people to leave after they've lingered a long time after their meal. Yes they ate and paid for their meal, but if other people are waiting, it is very reasonable for the restaurant to ask them to leave. It isn't reasonable for them to refuse service to the girl with orange hair. But again, there is no law specifically protecting her. But if the restaurant has no real specific dress code (outside of the no shirt, no shoes, no service) then they must serve her. What protects her is the fact that the restaurant is a place of public accomodation. A restaurant with a more specific dress code (like Victoria and Alberts) can reasonably claim that the business was designed to be more upscale and everyone must conform to the dress code. I show up with a lime green suit blazer, I've met their requirement. If they try to deny me entry, I would have no choice but to sue them for denying me access. They would then have to clarify their policy.
The way our legal system is designed, a lawsuit is the method with which it can be determined if a policy is reasonable. As a theme park, Disney's policies must be more broad because of the sheer number of people they are dealing with. If they institute a policy banning blue shirts, they would technically be within their right. But because the are a public accomodation, they would have to offer a legal reason for their policy (i.e., exactly how does banning blue shirts advance their business interest). Obviously, everything must be reviewed on a case by case basis. While the policy may look good on paper (banning blue shirts), in reality it may not be practical. And unfortunately, many businesses are too stubbourn to chnage, making lawsuits a necessary evil.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
And this is a good thing, ladies and gents, honestly it is. As it is, Disney advertises through countless TV stations, billboards, websites, smoke signals, etc. inviting literally the whole friggin' world to come visit their Happy Kingdom of Magic.
Do we really want to stick up for a company's right to be entirely capricious and arbitrary with its admission standards, without anybody looking over their shoulder to keep 'em honest? I sure as heck don't.
The idea that Disney could invade every corner of your private space through the media begging you to come pay them a visit, then turn you away after you've spent all the money and time to get there because they don't like the color of your eyebrows doesn't appeal to me at all. So I for one like the fact that these policies require justification on a legal basis a little more substantive than "we can do whatever we feel like." You should like it, too...because otherwise it could be your eyebrows coming up for scrutiny one day.