Today show does a follow up on the "Rich Manhattan Moms"

[flynnibus]

True, but courts (when reaching decisions that become case law) often turn to the "plain meaning" of terms, and often cite to dictionaries (like Oxford and Websters) when attempting to determine the plain meaning of a term as it pertains to statutory construction. The idea is that words that compromise law ought not be attributed definitions that are removed from common sense (plain meaning). If the legislature gets too creative, then we're left with law that for example could be deemed unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

It's a moot tangent because the poster who raised the question failed to look at the actual law... which does elaborate on the definitions in use.

 

[luv]

I find it sad that we have to look to laws for what should be handled by common sense and decency.

The GAC wasn't made for everyone who could use it because it would make their trip easier. It was made for those who truly need it in order to get on rides, avoid stairs or be able to visit at all.

We should all try our best not to use one and be as pleasant and accommodating as possible to those who need it. Instead, we have taken advantage of the GAC and started giving a hard time to those who really need it.

No law will be able to do what we should have been able to do (and once DID do) as a society of civilized and compassionate people.

Depressing.

 

[Timekeeper]

As they say, it only takes one bad apple...

 

[RSoxNo1]

There are professional plaintiffs as a result of the new legislation.

Like the guy that sued for being stuck on it's a small world for 45 minutes?

 

[asianway]

Like the guy that sued for being stuck on it's a small world for 45 minutes?

Yeah, lol. But there are people out there walking around with rulers measuring doorways, counting handicap parking spaces, etc

 

[dadddio]

True, but courts (when reaching decisions that become case law) often turn to the "plain meaning" of terms, and often cite to dictionaries (like Oxford and Websters) when attempting to determine the plain meaning of a term as it pertains to statutory construction. The idea is that words that compromise law ought not be attributed definitions that are removed from common sense (plain meaning). If the legislature gets too creative, then we're left with law that for example could be deemed unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

Many (most?) laws avoid this problem by simply defining the terms used.

 

[Timekeeper]

Many (most?) laws avoid this problem by simply defining the terms used.

True, but then it becomes an infinite domino effect of definitions of definitions. For example, if a law prohibits bad fashion choices, and bad fashion choices is defined as "wearing red shoes," what exactly is "red," and what exactly constitutes a "shoe"? Is the law intended to include burgundy, cardinal, and crimson? How about cherry blossom? What if my shoes are "rose" colored, between what are commonly understood to be pink and red? What if my shoes are a combination of colors that include a majority of red? Do slippers and sandals constitute "shoes"? What about thick socks that have rubber soles? Or disposable pedicure slippers? Are those "shoes" as contemplated by this law? And what does "wearing" mean? Do the shoes have to be on my feet? What if they are on my hands? Or what if they are draped over my shoulder as I'm leaving the gym? Am I "wearing" them for purposes of this law?

We'd like to think that some common sense controls (and in the absence of specificity, plain meaning will typically apply), but when it comes to law, especially criminal law in which a person's liberty is at stake, what might seem like tiny technicalities become tremendously important.

 

[flynnibus]

We'd like to think that some common sense controls (and in the absence of specificity, plain meaning will typically apply), but when it comes to law, especially criminal law in which a person's liberty is at stake, what might seem like tiny technicalities become tremendously important.

Yes, but you're comparing apples and oranges.... no extra definition needed of an apple either

These laws are written to be INCLUSIVE.. and case law has largely supported that.. because the law has a lot of verbiage both supporting the intent of the law and in the law, and following federal statutes as well.

I understand your point from a theoretical point of view... but it really doesn't have much merit in the practical sense as it applies to this law and case law since it's introduction. The practice has shown support and leniency to support those seeking assistance.

 

[Timekeeper]

I understand your point from a theoretical point of view... but it really doesn't have much merit in the practical sense as it applies to this law and case law since it's introduction. The practice has shown support and leniency to support those seeking assistance.

I have not disagreed with you.

I'm simply pointing out - in response to the plethora of wannabe legal experts out there - that things usually aren't as straightforward as laymen might think. The reason that we even have case law to begin with is because issues have been litigated, meaning, intelligent minds (attorneys and judges) have differed, requiring further judicial action. If things were as straightforward and easy to understand as others have suggested, then there would not be any need for complex judicial opinions that attempt to interpret and clarify the law. These are issues that have gone as high as the SCOTUS, so it's always humorous when someone uses google to grab a snippet from the law and then attempt to draw a definite conclusion on its applicability to Disney and its practices.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm simply pointing out - in response to the plethora of wannabe legal experts out there - that things usually aren't as straightforward as laymen might think

Except in this case the question posed... was simply because the poster had failed to actually look at the law and see the term was explicitly defined.

Context...

 

[rct247]

UPDATE: From what I hear from some friends, in light of all the media exposing GAC card abuse, Disney is forming more committees consisting of operation leaders to discuss the impacts felt in their areas and possible ideas to change the long standing GAC card service and policies. Changes may start to take affect as soon as July 2013. No word on what changes are in store.

 

[dadddio]

UPDATE: From what I hear from some friends, in light of all the media exposing GAC card abuse, Disney is forming more committees consisting of operation leaders to discuss the impacts felt in their areas and possible ideas to change the long standing GAC card service and policies. Changes may start to take affect as soon as July 2013. No word on what changes are in store.

Sometimes committees are created to look into issues and nothing ever comes of it. Just saying

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

UPDATE: From what I hear from some friends, in light of all the media exposing GAC card abuse, Disney is forming more committees consisting of operation leaders to discuss the impacts felt in their areas and possible ideas to change the long standing GAC card service and policies. Changes may start to take affect as soon as July 2013. No word on what changes are in store.

Over the last year or so, there has been repeated leaks and reports/rumors about reviews and changes to be made to the GAC system because of many issues and abuses. From what I have read on Magic and other forums there are a obvious problems.

My only hope is that they can fix the issues, while not making it harder for the folks that really need the GAC and assistances in general.

 

[asianway]

Over the last year or so, there has been repeated leaks and reports/rumors about reviews and changes to be made to the GAC system because of many issues and abuses. From what I have read on Magic and other forums there are a obvious problems.

My only hope is that they can fix the issues, while not making it harder for the folks that really need the GAC and assistances in general.

Just another example of WDWs crackerjack leadership team in action. Every ops CM on both coasts knows this abuse was a real problem, but it takes the %^#$ hitting the fan on NBC News for anything to be done. Bravo.

 

[TRONorail10]

One of the main reasons Disney had the GAC is because not all areas of the parks were handicap accessible. Now that Disney has gone through and modified existing pathways and has built all new areas to ADA compliance, the GAC is losing it's own value. Operations is starting to get stricter with enforcement of the GAC especially if the queue is handicap accessible. If a queue line, pathway or whatever else meets ADA guidelines, then Disney is fulfilling their end of the law. And that is going to be where Disney will have their best chance to eliminate the cards all together or make it to the point where some form of medical documentation is needed to show why Disney should make alternate accommodations when they have already complied with federal regulations.

 

[flynnibus]

If a queue line, pathway or whatever else meets ADA guidelines, then Disney is fulfilling their end of the law

no, no, no - this is a misunderstanding the law. ADA does NOT stop at handicap accessible nor does simply being built to the proper building standard mean 'you are done' and need to do nothing else.

 

[OFTeric]

I don't see why people with this card get to skip a line along with a group that they bring along. Why not have a line for them that is more comfortable (shaded, air) where they wait like everyone else. That would cut down on the abuse quite a bit I would think. And restrict it to one guest who can accompany the disabled.

I like what Universal does. Universal built every ride with a nice air conditioned lounge, where kids, and persons with disabilities can wait for their parties. Once your party reaches the front of the queue, you then join them on the ride. If you are unable to ride, you are able to enjoy a nice air conditioned lounge.

I know some families do not like that way because they are separated from their party. But now most of Universal's attractions are built to accommodate wheelchairs. So that the entire family can enjoy the experience of queuing together.

 

[TRONorail10]

no, no, no - this is a misunderstanding the law. ADA does NOT stop at handicap accessible nor does simply being built to the proper building standard mean 'you are done' and need to do nothing else.

(a) General rule
"No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."

This clearly states that a person with a disability should receive equal treatment in a place of public accommodation to the extent that a person without a disability should receive. If a purpose of a theme park (other than making money) is to allow guests to queue for an attraction of their choice and participate in an a attraction of their choice, then I would believe that making every queue line, pathway and handicap accessible vehicle accommodating for an individual fulfilling of the law. If a guest with a disability has the opportunity to ride the same attraction, and wait in the same area, then the GAC card is (almost) irrelevant, because disabled guests are not being DENIED the opportunity to participate in equal activities.

Also:

For purposes of paragraph (1)(C):
"(A) An individual meets the requirement of being regarded as having such an impairment if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity."
"(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less."

If a person claims of having a disability, it must be something that has a permanent effect on their life. The ADA does not account for people with any short-term medical conditions and as such, Disney has no obligation to accommodate anything that is a short term impairment or any person traveling with a disabled individual. ADA is only accountable for permanently impaired individuals. Therefore, if a person has a permanent disability, then it should be documented by somebody from the medical field and account for the person's inability to perform specific lifestyle functions.

 

[NoChesterHester]

Like the guy that sued for being stuck on it's a small world for 45 minutes?

I got stuck on Small World once and I haven't been the same since.

 

[Tom]

(a) General rule
"No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."

This clearly states that a person with a disability should receive equal treatment in a place of public accommodation to the extent that a person without a disability should receive. If a purpose of a theme park (other than making money) is to allow guests to queue for an attraction of their choice and participate in an a attraction of their choice, then I would believe that making every queue line, pathway and handicap accessible vehicle accommodating for an individual fulfilling of the law. If a guest with a disability has the opportunity to ride the same attraction, and wait in the same area, then the GAC card is (almost) irrelevant, because disabled guests are not being DENIED the opportunity to participate in equal activities.

Also:

For purposes of paragraph (1)(C):
"(A) An individual meets the requirement of being regarded as having such an impairment if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity."
"(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less."

If a person claims of having a disability, it must be something that has a permanent effect on their life. The ADA does not account for people with any short-term medical conditions and as such, Disney has no obligation to accommodate anything that is a short term impairment or any person traveling with a disabled individual. ADA is only accountable for permanently impaired individuals. Therefore, if a person has a permanent disability, then it should be documented by somebody from the medical field and account for the person's inability to perform specific lifestyle functions.

Well, see, now you've gone and interpreted law in a logical and intelligent manner. That just doesn't work these days...especially with the existence of the ACLU.