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

[flynnibus]

(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

No - it does not state 'receive equal treatment' - if that were the requirement, there would be no need to provide accommodations at all.. you basically just couldn't discriminate against someone and you expect them to somehow make themselves equal..

But the reality is you left out the significant portions of the law regarding providing 'reasonable accommodation' to ensure the person with the disability is NOT excluded. So to take your example...

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.

In this situation, you assume the person can handle the attraction's queue the same as everyone else.. you ignore other possible disabilities that might impede the individual from equal participation.

'Handicap accessible' is just a tiny sliver of the ADA and standards of design. The law enabled the government to define a set of standards that construction must adhere to for accessible design. But a private entity's responsibilities do not stop with simple accessible design in their building.

A simple example... if there is a blind person in your restaurant... you must provide accommodations to that person so they have the chance at equal participation. That can be as simple as having your wait staff read the menu to the patron. A simple example that has absolutely nothing to do with 'handicap accessible' or accessible design standards.. yet is required under the ADA.

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.

Should be.. might be... but really is irrelevant because the law does not require the patron to provide such documentation... and the private entity is still on the hook to provide accommodations to the individual without proof. The deck is stacked against the private party... they must take the person on their word.. because if it were to be proven they are disabled, and you excluded them because they failed to provide documentation at the time.. you're screwed. The person would have to prove their disability in court.. but not at the time they were in your establishment, etc. That's just how it is. The law was written to protect those that are disabled so they do not have to go through extra hurdles or extra burdens to get that equal access the law entitles them to. The law is not concerned with people faking it - it's not covered at all. The limits are more about ensuring the accommodations fit the need, and when accommodations maybe impacting others.

And as for other people in your party - the precedent is there in the statutes to include people traveling with the disabled person. For instance, in seating areas, you must provide companion seating in addition to the seating for the disabled person. Same thing in ticketing, etc. Having to provide access like that in a theme park would be easy to argue under the language in the law (overly broad) and the interpretations that the DOJ has already taken in their accessibility standards.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Not really.. and your hatered is misguided.

One, he didn't interpret it correctly, he cherry picked a slice that suited his own purpose without reading the rest of the law. Two, the people that decide the scope of the law is the DOJ, not the ACLU. The DOJ is the entity empowered to write the standards that are an interpretation of the original Law.

See, in this case, instead of writing all the details into the law, the law basically was written to include design standards and implementations that were to be written later by federal entities. It's actually been the government, not so much lawsuits, that keep extending the scope of this act.

 

[TRONorail10]

Sec. 12182. Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations

(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.

No - it does not state 'receive equal treatment' - if that were the requirement, there would be no need to provide accommodations at all.. you basically just couldn't discriminate against someone and you expect them to somehow make themselves equal..

Let me phrase it for you again, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities..." This way the world can see how YOU contradicted yourself. And I will reinforce my point one last time. When the ADA reflects a public accommodation as defined by Subchapter III, Section 12181, the law states "equal enjoyment" shall not be discriminated. Therefore, Disney cannot prevent a disabled person from entering their theme parks, entering a queue or riding an attraction.

The law is in place so that disabled individuals are not DENIED the right to public accommodations. Yes, a BLIND person may need assistance from a cast member as to what direction to follow, the cast member being the accommodation or instructions written in brail for the guest, but the blind person cannot be denied the right to ride an attraction under the ADA, as long as the person is physically capable of following safety requirements.

 

[flynnibus]

Tronorail10 - I don't even know wth your point is with that post. Of course Disney can't deny someone participation... Who said otherwise? You're arguing against no one

You made the point that if things were handicap accessible... The GAC would effectively be moot - and you are simply wrong. Handicap accessible only covers a tiny slice of who are protected under the Ada and other disability laws.

Simply not turning someone away is NOT inclusion - inclusion is the intent of the law and why the entire concept of 'reasonable accommodation' exists

 

[TRONorail10]

You don't even look at what you write yourself. Stop wasting my time flynnibus and find something else to complain about at WDW. The GAC were added as a way to "accommodate" disabled individuals so that Disney would never have to deny someone the ability to ride an attraction or enter a queue. However, due to all of the changes Disney has made to attractions, queue lines, and other areas of the parks recently, there are very few people who have a medical condition so severe that it PHYSICALLY does not allow them to either stand or sit in a wheelchair in a queue line to wait the EQUAL amount of time that any other guest would wait.

Why do I even bother to keep up with these replies? Because I was physically disabled and in a wheelchair for 2 years. Not once did I ever feel I deserved special treatment because I was "different." The point of ADA is EQUALITY. Therefore, skipping lines with a GAC is INEQUALITY because a disabled person is being given special treatment when their disability can be accommodated already and waiting a half hour to ride an attraction will not effect or alter their disability. Like I said, there are very few people who have a condition so severe that they can't wait in line for an attraction. But the GAC creates discrimination against able bodied guests because of the extra incentive of skipping the line which nulls equality. Every individual has the ability to obtain a Fastpass if they feel they cannot wait the entire length of a queue.

 

[flynnibus]

You don't even look at what you write yourself. Stop wasting my time flynnibus and find something else to complain about at WDW. The GAC were added as a way to "accommodate" disabled individuals so that Disney would never have to deny someone the ability to ride an attraction or enter a queue

You are seriously confused. Am I complaining about this at WDW? You need to do some reading.

The GAC was created as a form of removing the the burden/risk of CMs screwing up. Instead of having guests approach CMs at each part of the park and risk the CMs creating a liability, Disney created a system that removes any possibility of the front-line CMs causing a problem... because Disney doesn't trust it's lowest tier CMs. As a benefit, the guest is also unburdened from having to repeat the same conversation over and over.

Disney was providing this type of guest accommodation LONG before it was required by law.

However, due to all of the changes Disney has made to attractions, queue lines, and other areas of the parks recently, there are very few people who have a medical condition so severe that it PHYSICALLY does not allow them to either stand or sit in a wheelchair in a queue line to wait the EQUAL amount of time that any other guest would wait.

I'm glad you know the full scope of the population and what everyone needs. The law isn't concerned with how many people need a type of accommodation - only that you provide reasonable accommodation to those that do. You have in your mind you know what everyone needs...

People shouldn't be forced to use a wheelchair unless they actually need it. As someone who was tied to one for 2 years by your claim - you should recognize that.

The point of ADA is EQUALITY. Therefore, skipping lines with a GAC is INEQUALITY because a disabled person is being given special treatment when their disability can be accommodated already and waiting a half hour to ride an attraction will not effect or alter their disability

Yes, sometimes doing something results in a negative consequence or lack of true equality. The ticketing example cited before is a great example of how as a consequence of ensuring equal access for the disabled, we in turn have to give them some extra possibilities that others do not have... not because we are rewarding them, but because we want to avoid burdening them. That can leave the door open for those with less moral standards to game the system. And that is also what is happening at Disney.

But the GAC creates discrimination against able bodied guests because of the extra incentive of skipping the line which nulls equality. Every individual has the ability to obtain a Fastpass if they feel they cannot wait the entire length of a queue.

First, not everyone can obtain a fastpass as an alternative.. because it's obvious that fastpass isn't always available!

Second, you use the word discriminate.. but I do not think you know what it means.

Third, yes, **DISNEYS** current system creates a situation that many people simply can not resist abusing. In addition, **DISNEYS** system is setup too lazy in Disney's favor that creates that situation many unethical people can not resist abusing. Disney's model is flawed... but flawed in a way because Disney wants to take the easy way out for them.. while simultaneously catering to those in true need.

That said.. we know Disney's model is flawed... we know Disney goes above and beyond what is required (if you've read the threads on this.. you'd have seen this dozens of times). But that does NOT mean simply making everything handicap accessible solves their problem and absolves them from all other accommodation needs. That is simply wrong and shows an ignorance of the law.

 

[luv]

When the people I know complain that they can no longer go through FP lines with a GAC, I'll believe that Disney made changes.

Would love to hear that it happened, but doubt it will.

 

[Goofyernmost]

When the people I know complain that they can no longer go through FP lines with a GAC, I'll believe that Disney made changes.

Would love to hear that it happened, but doubt it will.

I'd say that's a good bet.