truly I just love a good debate and I am interested in hearing different points of view.
THANK YOU for being a good debater! I love a good debate as well, and so often, things devolve into name calling instead.
I don't honestly know which rides the face shields don't work for. When I first read it, my thoughts were things with over the shoulder restraints, because the face shield could easily be cracked or broken, posing a greater risk to the wearer. If it's across the board "indoor requires masks", regardless of your thoughts on mask efficacy, the reasoning behind "outdoor = less risk" makes sense. If the shield is allowed in theaters, or slow boat rides, that too, makes sense, but not on rides with more jostling, that makes sense too. But more importantly, they have actively considered different situations to see what reasonable accommodations could be made. Disney has not. There are pics all over the internet of how empty Epcot is. When we were there, it certainly seemed that the CMs out numbered the guests. There were several areas of the park, at several times throughout the day, where no one was within 30 yards of us. How can a face shield accommodation not even be considered given how empty the outdoor space is? They could make the accommodation only at Epcot or AK, while claiming that MK and HS are too dense, but they aren't even doing that.
Looking at your grocery store:
Store "A" has a policy that says that masks are mandatory everywhere in the store and no one is allowed to enter without one.
Store "B" has a policy that says that face shields are allowed for those who cannot or will not wear a mask, however the produce section is an area where masks ARE mandatory and no one is allowed to shop for produce unless they are wearing a mask.
Is store "A" discriminating against those who cannot or will not wear a mask? Is store "B"?
It has more to do with offering, or at least discussing, possible accommodations. If store A did not even discuss accommodations, then yes, they are discriminating. There are a handful of lawsuits against one grocery store chain in the NE as they wouldn't allow a shield, that on the surface sound like the store is clearly in the wrong. Eventually a judge, or appeals court, will decide. Some stores have offered online shopping and curbside pickup as an accommodation. Whether that suffices, is up to a judge. I personally like to pick my own stuff out. For Store B, do they offer a shopper that can get the produce for the disabled person, or are they denying the disabled person the ability to buy the produce?
