masks with special needs

Weather_Lady

Well-Known Member
I have been speaking with Disney's legal department about this in the past few weeks as it would be discrimination to not make exceptions for guests with special needs.

As the legal department probably informed you (correctly), "not making exceptions for guests with special needs" is not, by itself, discrimination, and merely having a disability doesn't allow an individual to dictate the terms of his access to places of public accommodation. The law requires that "reasonable" accommodations be made to ensure equal access by guests with disabilities -- it doesn't require businesses to allow guests to endanger themselves or others, even if their disability is what creates the hazard. That's why there aren't disability-related exceptions for seatbelt laws, helmet requirements, life jacket requirements, etc., and why a person with Tourette's who uncontrollably yells swear words and racial slurs, or someone with a disorder that causes them to fondle their genitals non-stop (yes, there is such a disorder, and I once worked on a legal matter involving someone afflicted with it), or to lash out and punch people for no reason (also an actual disorder), can be lawfully denied entry or asked to leave.
 
Last edited:

Weather_Lady

Well-Known Member
All I wish to say is that is a monumental waste of time AND I don't believe you. Have a good day!

I don't believe it either. No lawyer worth their salt would take their case, because it's too well-settled that reasonable accommodations don't include permitting threats to public health. (While I don't pretend to be an expert in many things, this happens to be something I know a little bit about: in real life, I'm an attorney with 20+ years of experience, much of it focused on federal anti-discrimination laws).
 
Last edited:

mergatroid

Well-Known Member
Come off it, a kid social distancing in fresh air poses no risk.

So what you're saying is people have just made up this preventative measure for the fun of it? How do you think the millions of people throughout the world who've had it, caught it? You obviously must know the answer to that question to make the above statement? To pose no risk he must be immune to it and you know this, that's great news because it means we've got this thing beat. When are you going to share this with the authorities as you know so much more about it than them, you'll become famous!!!

Now if people want to argue the 'science' behind masks, that's a whole different matter. I'm sure we could both find professionals arguing both for and against them. As a precaution though it's been decided that wearing masks helps prevent the spread, that's the opinion of many and even if they're wrong it's not as though it's that disruptive to try it.

If the science is wrong and masks end up not making a difference then what's the end result? People are inconvenienced a bit when they visit Disney and some can't go at all because they can't or don't want to wear masks.

Compare that to the outcome if the science is right and people go without masks, what's the end result? More people get infected and pass it on and more people die, yes people DIE. All because people didn't wear a mask and decided that their fun going to a theme park mask-less, outweighed the possibility of spreading a disease that could kill somebody else. Somebody please explain how that can be considered fair or just in a society where we should do our best to take care of each other?

Imagine a close friend or relative being killed by a drunk driver like happened to me 25 years ago. Imagine that drivers excuse being "Yeah but I wouldn't have done it if I thought I would hurt anyone". He probably meant that too, to some degree. He'd probably driven home drunk before and thought it's a quiet road, there's no chance I'll crash. There'll be people reading this who've driven drunk themselves but never been caught or had a crash, they'll probably know deep down that what they did was selfish though and that they're lucky nothing happened.

It's easy saying "Come off it, a kid social distancing in fresh air poses no risk". It's not so easy justifying it if you're wrong and somebody dies as a result of this attitude though is it?
 

mergatroid

Well-Known Member
As the legal department probably informed you (correctly), "not making exceptions for guests with special needs" is not, by itself, discrimination, and merely having a disability doesn't allow an individual to dictate the terms of his access to places of public accommodation. The law requires that "reasonable" accommodations be made to ensure equal access by guests with disabilities -- it doesn't require businesses to allow guests to endanger themselves or others, even if their disability is what creates the hazard. That's why there aren't disability-related exceptions for seatbelt laws, helmet requirements, life jacket requirements, etc., and why a person with Tourette's who uncontrollably yells swear words and racial slurs, or someone with a disorder that causes them to fondle their genitals non-stop (yes, there is such a disorder, and I once worked on a legal matter involving someone afflicted with it), or to lash out and punch people for no reason (also an actual disorder), can be lawfully denied entry or asked to leave.

Ah, I see we've met ;)
 

mdktf

Well-Known Member
If they can’t use the precautions...they are “at risk” by default

(Please don’t be one of the few left that don’t get it?)
Please don’t patronise. The term ‘at risk’ refers to certain categories of people linked to Covid. Respiratory/Heart disease etc. A child with Autism is not at risk.

(Please don’t be the one who confuses special needs as at risk).
 

mdktf

Well-Known Member
So what you're saying is people have just made up this preventative measure for the fun of it? How do you think the millions of people throughout the world who've had it, caught it? You obviously must know the answer to that question to make the above statement? To pose no risk he must be immune to it and you know this, that's great news because it means we've got this thing beat. When are you going to share this with the authorities as you know so much more about it than them, you'll become famous!!!

Now if people want to argue the 'science' behind masks, that's a whole different matter. I'm sure we could both find professionals arguing both for and against them. As a precaution though it's been decided that wearing masks helps prevent the spread, that's the opinion of many and even if they're wrong it's not as though it's that disruptive to try it.

If the science is wrong and masks end up not making a difference then what's the end result? People are inconvenienced a bit when they visit Disney and some can't go at all because they can't or don't want to wear masks.

Compare that to the outcome if the science is right and people go without masks, what's the end result? More people get infected and pass it on and more people die, yes people DIE. All because people didn't wear a mask and decided that their fun going to a theme park mask-less, outweighed the possibility of spreading a disease that could kill somebody else. Somebody please explain how that can be considered fair or just in a society where we should do our best to take care of each other?

Imagine a close friend or relative being killed by a drunk driver like happened to me 25 years ago. Imagine that drivers excuse being "Yeah but I wouldn't have done it if I thought I would hurt anyone". He probably meant that too, to some degree. He'd probably driven home drunk before and thought it's a quiet road, there's no chance I'll crash. There'll be people reading this who've driven drunk themselves but never been caught or had a crash, they'll probably know deep down that what they did was selfish though and that they're lucky nothing happened.

It's easy saying "Come off it, a kid social distancing in fresh air poses no risk". It's not so easy justifying it if you're wrong and somebody dies as a result of this attitude though is it?
Not even bothering. You are clearly right.
 

mergatroid

Well-Known Member
Please don’t patronise. The term ‘at risk’ refers to certain categories of people linked to Covid. Respiratory/Heart disease etc. A child with Autism is not at risk.

(Please don’t be the one who confuses special needs as at risk).


From a practical standpoint...you are incorrect.

“At risk” for virus transmission/contact...not semantics.

I'd say you're both right to some degree in my opinion. Whilst 'at risk' is viewed by many in context with covid 19 as meaning 'less likely to be able to fight off the virus if contracted', it can also mean just more likely to contract it. For instance with 'special needs' people, the level of their understanding about how to 'remain safe' would have to be considered. So for instance if the person with 'special needs' is likely to touch things and then lick their hands (not many special needs people do this, hence me saying if they do this as most don't) or run up to others as they don't understand social distancing, then this would put them more 'at risk' of contracting it. Once contracted though, their autism wouldn't make them less likely to survive it than somebody without autism.

Ideally though, we don't want anyone catching it anyway regardless of whether it just means them feeling unwell, making them seriously ill, or worse.
 
Last edited:

mdktf

Well-Known Member
I'd say you're both right to some degree in my opinion. Whilst 'at risk' is viewed by many in context with covid 19 as meaning 'less likely to be able to fight off the virus if contracted', it can also mean just more likely to contract it. For instance with 'special needs' people, the level of their understanding about how to 'remain safe' would have to be considered. So for instance if the person with 'special needs' is likely to touch things and then lick their hands or run up to others as they don't understand social distancing, then this would put them more 'at risk' of contracting it. Once contracted though, their autism wouldn't make them less likely to survive it than somebody without autism.

Ideally though, we don't want anyone catching it anyway regardless of whether it just means them feeling unwell, making them seriously ill, or worse.
Yes fair enough, I’d seriously consider editing your post though. All special needs people do not touch excessively and lick their hands. Quite the opposite in many cases.
 

mergatroid

Well-Known Member
Yes fair enough, I’d seriously consider editing your post though. All special needs people do not touch excessively and lick their hands. Quite the opposite in many cases.

Indeed. I at no stage implied that all special needs people touch excessively and then lick their hands, that's why I specifically used if in the sentence. I will edit it though just to save any misunderstandings.
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Three pages of responses later and the original poster still hasn't responded.

Joined 2014. Only 15 messages. Not putting her down. She's a grandma after all, a WDW forum is not her regular bag of tea, and she had a specific need for checking in. It may be a while before she checks back.
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Actual ad that just popped up.

That mask better be plastic.
 
Top Bottom