All Club Coolobplic said was that Disney would tell the guest with a shrimp allergy that they cannot make shrimp scampi shrimp-free while keeping the shrimp in the dish.
Go back and read more. It was Disney refusing the dish. Someone with a shellfish allergy is allowed to order shrimp scampi with the shrimp. This was the latest hypothetical after others about preventing people from riding attractions if they seek accommodations for an issue that could be aggravated by the attraction. It’s a whole series of hypotheticals that seek to deny agency to those with disabilities.
It is true that our criminal justice system is predicated upon the notion that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to put one innocent man in jail. Unfortunately your analogy falls pretty flat when you change it to: “It’s better to let 100 cheaters lying about or exaggerating their disability and needs skip a line at an amusement park than it is to force one disabled person to use the return to queue feature.”
Letting individuals decide “Hey I need DAS” contributed as well.
That makes sense. I doubt very many outright cheaters/liars were posting in that thread to begin with, so Disney is weeding out those with legitimate disabilities that nonetheless can be accommodated with RTQ, as they should.
Sounds like the same plan going forward.
Under the old system it appears anyone could get it by providing any credible reason why they could not wait in line. That is not really very different from “I need DAS because I want DAS.”
It's not the same as "I want DAS because I need DAS" - but whatever.
Mind, I don't think the discussion of food allergies is all that relevant to this thread.
I think most would agree its 100% on Disney. If you come up with a system that is advantageous to exploit and not expect it to be exploited, the onus is on you.
I agree that Disney bears responsibility for underestimating how awful people would be in abusing this accommodation meant for people who are so disabled they have no ability to wait in a conventional line.
Given the GAC change and lawsuit change to DAS had already occurred, so Disney had prior experience with people doing worse things to game the system, it's going quite easy on them to chalk it up to underestimating.
Yes. I was responding to the idea that Disney must accommodate every situation like they do with allergies. They certainly will attempt to but they cannot always. @lazyboy97o I am simply stating how it works, not how someone would want it to work
Yes go back. It wasn't refusing the dish, it was refusing to provide an Allergy Accommodation for the dish, because there is none, if the customer is asking to leave in the shrimp which they are allergic to.
Just to put an end to this conversation, my dh has a shellfish allergy, CHH has or had up until recently had a sign out front saying they could not accommodate fish/shellfish allergies due to risk of cross contamination or something close to that.
Interesting - indeed that still seems to be the case. It’s weird they don’t list the uncrustable pb&j as an option.
I’m not sure how much good comes from assigning blame. The only true bad guys here are people who lie to get DAS. Everyone else is trying to make the best of a difficult situation.
