Basically they are saying accomodations provided by THEIR merit, not the law, they can decide how the system works. Certainly true, but would be a nightmare in both customer service and legality. It opens them up to the notion that 'if the better perk is available, it should be a reasonable accomodation as well'... so by excluding someone from that 'better' system... they've basically just screamed to be sued under ADA provisions.
In that same grain... by 'reducing' accessibility to a degree Disney has exposed themselves to the same risk here. But there is alot of things Disney could do to argue why the old system was not sustainable. If you offer two systems... its a lot harder to argue one is not viable if you are doing it every day
I'm also curious who you called.. since there is no 'ADA' entity in itself. Just people in the DOJ and local jurisdictions responsible for interpreting the ADA and publishing things.