What you can't seem to differentiate is the difference between a Disability and illnesses/conditions. Not all illnesses or conditions are subject to the Disability Act or accommodations. If that was the case the vast majority of all parties visiting WDW would have a GAC since someone in their group likely has some sort of medical condition or illness.
Another point... I have not made. Whose posts are you reading? How do you conclude I don't know how to differentiate between what is covered as a disability or not when you haven't seen me argue for one being included or not? Or maybe you can quote one of my posts in this thread where you see me saying 'condition XAC limits major life activities' you don't agree with? I await your backing of your claim.
The ADA is it was explicitly written to cover virtually an open spectrum. It's intent WAS to be wide embracing. The problem is.. when you combine that with an open ended definition of 'reasonable accommodation' it is highly volatile to be contentious. And it has... and the DOJ has been EXTREMELY liberal in expanding the Design Standards to (IMHO) absurd levels in recent years (the latest pool rules are a good example).
What you will see me advocate is 'the right accommodation for the limitation the person has'. Disney was too liberal in what accommodations it offered under the GAC. Thus the flaw in the GAC system was they offered too sweat of a carrot in front of people and people 'helped themselves'.
It's akin to knowing you need a welfare system for nutrition... so you decide to just leave all the food out in the open for the needy. People can't help themselves and everyone starts taking the food. The needy then get squeezed out.
It is interesting you are telling many of us we don't understand the Disability Act and you seem to be less than well versed. I've been a Board of Ed member for many years dealing with students and our facilities. What we do have to offer and what we do not
Well I was the one actually designing the spaces - so I'm pretty well versed. Plus, there is no reason for people to not be in this topic considering all of it is readily available on the web. If people just freaking READ the law, this thread would be a hell of a lot shorter.
and your examples of waiting for a bus are world's apart from lines in a theme park. It's not even worth discussing... what is reasonable for a school system to provide across an entire district obviously is going to be very different from what is reasonable within the confined space of a theme park. From staffing to presence, to flexibility. World's apart.
There are disabled Vets and others guests that utilize Segways and Segways only. Yet it was upheld by the courts that disabled guests that primarily use Segway or only use Segways for mobility are not entitled to have their Segway in the parks.
That was a specialized case argued under the exception of safety.. not that the need wasn't necessary.
But I still don't know what any of this has to do with what I responded to you in the first place, which is where you said:
Very few areas of WDW property are not ADA compliant through the main entrances. If DAC and DAS ever becomes too big of a headache or if guests become too demanding for additional services beyond ADA requirements Disney can discontinue DAS all together aside from the few attractions that are not accessible.
Complying with the ADA does not mean 'I built to the accessibility standards and now I'm done.. go away'
The Design Standards for accessibility are a set of accommodations the DOJ feels should be present in all designated facilities by default -- they believed this was necessary to raise the
default level of accessibility in our country. So for a subset of disabilities they decided were significant enough, they have codified premise requirements that they made sure would always be available and not open to interpretation.
By incorporating those standards, someone can feel comfortable they have provided accommodations
for those restrictions covered by the standards. But the design standards do not cover every possible disability or restriction.. and those not covered by the standards are still on the table for places of public accommodation to provide reasonable accommodations for.
The ADA intentionally does not define what specific disabilities are covered... congress have only defined a standard and then excluded certain things. Because of this open-ended nature, it is literally impossible to write a building code that would accommodate everything. Most things must simply be covered by policy adjustments and flexibility in operations. THAT is why you can't just say 'I built to code' and I'm done... buildings may be ADA compliant.. but that doesn't make the organization compliant. That can only be achieved through adaptive policies combined with facilities that meet the law's requirements.
