No exemption to mask policy.

[Mnemorath]

What you seem to be willfully ignoring is that the Florida Public Accommodation law just states that there can’t be discrimination - it’s boiler plate civil rights language. It doesn’t go into the specifics of what constitutes discrimination.

The same law limits religious discrimination, but no one would argue that this means Disney has to allow people to practice tenets of their religion inside the parks if it poses a danger to others or disrupts park operations.

The problem with boiler plate language is it is open to interpretation. So, yes someone can sue Disney for not allowing them to practice their religious tenants inside the parks. Wether or not the judge allows the case to proceed is another question.

As for the lack of specifics, it actual does say what constitutes discrimination. FL law requires the "full and equal enjoyment". So, Disney refusing to allow a disabled person entry for not being able to wear a mask it refusing them "full and equal enjoyment" as those who can wear a mask. Thus discrimination.

 

[daisy2013]

There is case law here in WA in regards to a disabled person being refused service. It may have to deal with a service dog so the details are not identical. And lawyers get paid a lot of money to argue the details. But it can be used as case law in a discrimination case.

Basically, a major grocery and department store refused to allow a disabled woman to do her own shopping because she had a service dog. They lost big under WA accommodation law. While ADA may give Disney an out, FL public accommodation law does not.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591473cbadd7b049343960b1

But a service dog is not a public health concern. Not wearing a mask currently is. Also WA state case law is not precedent in Florida. ADA cases are incredibly fact specific. Seriously you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[Mnemorath]

But a service dog is not a public health concern. Not wearing a mask currently is. Also WA state case law is not precedent in Florida. ADA cases are incredibly fact specific. Seriously you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Case law in other states can be used in other states for similar cases. This happens all the time. I am currently arguing a domestic case using court decisions on similar circumstances in other states as examples as to why the judge should decide in my favor. Judges rarely like being the first to render an opinion on a particular issue. So, yes, I do know what I am talking about.

 

[daisy2013]

Case law in other states can be used in other states for similar cases. This happens all the time. I am currently arguing a domestic case using court decisions on similar circumstances in other states as examples as to why the judge should decide in my favor. Judges rarely like being the first to render an opinion on a particular issue. So, yes, I do know what I am talking about.

Yes they can be persuasive but not precedent. What you are trying to argue is not similar facts nor the same law. They are not neighboring states (which judges are more likely to take notice of) and as you said previously you’re not a judge nor an attorney so I would wonder how you are arguing anything in a court of law.

 

[Disney Frenhines]

There is case law here in WA in regards to a disabled person being refused service. It may have to deal with a service dog so the details are not identical. And lawyers get paid a lot of money to argue the details. But it can be used as case law in a discrimination case.

Basically, a major grocery and department store refused to allow a disabled woman to do her own shopping because she had a service dog. They lost big under WA accommodation law. While ADA may give Disney an out, FL public accommodation law does not.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591473cbadd7b049343960b1

Sherry Storms has a Rottweiler trained to put itself between her and other people.
Can you imagine how intimidating and frightening that must be for people who encounter her and her dog and I wonder as to what it actually does to create a space between her and other people? What is it's body language like? I also wonder if it is a properly trained service dog or one she bought and trained herself as a emotional support animal rather than a seeing or hearing dog.
Rottweilers are actually great dogs, when owned by responsible people, I feel this woman is not one of those.

 

[Mnemorath]

Yes they can be persuasive but not precedent. What you are trying to argue is not similar facts nor the same law. They are not neighboring states (which judges are more likely to take notice of) and as you said previously you’re not a judge nor an attorney so I would wonder how you are arguing anything in a court of law.

You can argue yourself. Its called Pro Se. If you can't afford an attorney in a civil case, you have to. Thus my interest in law. I have even taken the LSAT. I think I have previously linked both WA law and FL law. If you give them a read you will see they are similar law. The cases mentioned are similar at their base. Refusal to allow a disabled person to enjoy the "full and equal enjoyment" as a non-disabled person.

Sherry Storms has a Rottweiler trained to put itself between her and other people.
Can you imagine how intimidating and frightening that must be for people who encounter her and her dog and I wonder as to what it actually does to create a space between her and other people? What is it's body language like? I also wonder if it is a properly trained service dog or one she bought and trained herself as a emotional support animal rather than a seeing or hearing dog.
Rottweilers are actually great dogs, when owned by responsible people, I feel this woman is not one of those.

I grew up with Rotties. If you do not train them to be mean, they are big puppies no matter the age. Very friendly dogs. They love everyone unless you become a threat to their family. There is a guy I know who has a Shepard as a service dog. The dog is trained to prevent him from going near things he is allergic to. He does this by physically interposing himself between the threat and his master and pushing him away if need be. I would presume that Sherry Storms dog was similarly trained. So, you would have a 200lbm dog trying to push you away if you got near its owner.

 

[Disney Frenhines]

You can argue yourself. Its called Pro Se. If you can't afford an attorney in a civil case, you have to. Thus my interest in law. I have even taken the LSAT. I think I have previously linked both WA law and FL law. If you give them a read you will see they are similar law. The cases mentioned are similar at their base. Refusal to allow a disabled person to enjoy the "full and equal enjoyment" as a non-disabled person.


I grew up with Rotties. If you do not train them to be mean, they are big puppies no matter the age. Very friendly dogs. They love everyone unless you become a threat to their family. There is a guy I know who has a Shepard as a service dog. The dog is trained to prevent him from going near things he is allergic to. He does this by physically interposing himself between the threat and his master and pushing him away if need be. I would presume that Sherry Storms dog was similarly trained. So, you would have a 200lbm dog trying to push you away if you got near its owner.

Rotties are lovely dogs, it's the owners who cause Rotties to have a bad reputation. I knew someone who had the sweetest Rottie and she trained him for agility shows, he lumbered around having the best time and everyone loved him for it. But, they have this unfair reputation and I think Ms Storm is using that for her own ends. She could easily use a Labrador or similar, but, I feel she has ulterior motives for her non service, ESA dog.

 

[piccolopat]

The problem with boiler plate language is it is open to interpretation. So, yes someone can sue Disney for not allowing them to practice their religious tenants inside the parks. Wether or not the judge allows the case to proceed is another question.

As for the lack of specifics, it actual does say what constitutes discrimination. FL law requires the "full and equal enjoyment". So, Disney refusing to allow a disabled person entry for not being able to wear a mask it refusing them "full and equal enjoyment" as those who can wear a mask. Thus discrimination.

People are refused entry for not wearing a mask in places like medical facilities and government facilities. I haven't seen any exemptions there for people who can physically wear a mask but believe their disability makes it so they can't wear one. IMHO, requiring everyone to wear a mask puts everyone on equal footing. Of course, this may end up in the courts.

 

[daisy2013]

You can argue yourself. Its called Pro Se. If you can't afford an attorney in a civil case, you have to. Thus my interest in law. I have even taken the LSAT. I think I have previously linked both WA law and FL law. If you give them a read you will see they are similar law. The cases mentioned are similar at their base. Refusal to allow a disabled person to enjoy the "full and equal enjoyment" as a non-disabled person.


I grew up with Rotties. If you do not train them to be mean, they are big puppies no matter the age. Very friendly dogs. They love everyone unless you become a threat to their family. There is a guy I know who has a Shepard as a service dog. The dog is trained to prevent him from going near things he is allergic to. He does this by physically interposing himself between the threat and his master and pushing him away if need be. I would presume that Sherry Storms dog was similarly trained. So, you would have a 200lbm dog trying to push you away if you got near its owner.

I do understand about pro se litigants I also understand how they have a very low chance is success because they don’t have the training lawyers do. Tens of thousands of people take the lsat every year it does not mean they are equipped to practice law. That takes three years if you go full time four or more if part time and if you are successful in graduating, then you can take the bar exam. Some states only 50% of those that take the exam pass it. Then of course there is the required continuing legal education all lawyers must complete each year to continue to be licensed to practice law.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Given that I linked the actual study? I did! Did you even read the results and conclusions of the paper?

Given that FL law does not have a public safety exemption? Someone could make that argument and potentially win. That’s the bad thing about boilerplate language. There is no wiggle room.

It does go into what is discrimination. The section I quoted states that everyone is entitled to “full and equal enjoyment”. How is denying a disabled person entry allowing them to experience “full and equal enjoyment”? It’s not. It’s discrimination. Plain and simple.

Define “full and equal enjoyment”.

 

[SteveMouse]

Define “full and equal enjoyment”.

Not to mention that the entirety of what is in statute is part of the law and may be relevant. In this case, the same paragraph includes the sentence “This section [of the law] does not require any person, firm, business, or corporation, or any agent thereof, to modify or provide any vehicle, premises, facility, or service to a higher degree of accommodation than is required for a person not so disabled.”

 

[Mnemorath]

Define “full and equal enjoyment”.

Same and equal access. Meaning if you allow non-disabled persons in, you HAVE to allow disabled persons in.

Not to mention that the entirety of what Is in statute is part of the law and may be relevant. In this case, the same paragraph includes the sentence “This section [of the law] does not require any person, firm, business, or corporation, or any agent thereof, to modify or provide any vehicle, premises, facility, or service to a higher degree of accommodation than is required for a person not so disabled.”

And how does allowing an accommodation who cannot wear a mask for a disabled person providing a higher degree of service than one who is not? Especially as they are not enforcing the mask mandate on every, such as young children.

 

[minthorne]

I’d guess the no exemptions to masks is akin to no exemptions for seat belt and lap bars.

 

[Mnemorath]

I’d guess the no exemptions to masks is akin to no exemptions for seat belt and lap bars.

The problem is you would have to prove that the mask-less person presents a danger to themselves or others. With the amount of contradictory information on the subject (not debating it, just stating a fact), that becomes VERY difficult in a court.

 

[Mnemorath]

The Constitutionality of mask mandates are an interesting read. Most arguments are based on a decision from 1905. But Jacobson has its own issues with due process precedent set in the time since. The mask mandate at Disney is based on a CDC recommendation (not going to debate that). The legal requirement from the governors and such is murky. The only reason they are still in effect as no-one has challenged them legally. Also, judges can be lazy and will likely rely on Jacobson. By biggest question has always been why we allow a private company to get away with actions that the Constitution flatly prohibits simply because they are big, multinational companies and not a government.

https://reason.com/2020/06/28/mask-mandates-and-broccoli-mandates/
https://reason.com/2020/04/08/jacob...05-and-lochner-v-new-york-1905-in-april-2020/

 

[ladyjubilee]

From my point of view, a right that can be taken away isn't right. Either ADA calls for reasonable individual accomodation at all times or its fails as a law to protect the disabled. Remember, at first we were just suspending rights for 14 days, 30 days, then just through the end of the year, then oh the next 24 months, now we're talk "new normal". Are we really OK with excluding human beings based on their disability being our new normal? Because that is exactly what this inflexible rule does.

How will you feel when your disability is next? Sure, its easy to curtail the rights of severe AU kids, cause let's be honest they can't say anything and their parents are just like this jerk. Easy to dismiss. ((Seriously, why is everyone always so ready to dismiss the needs of people with autism. Would our view have been different if this was a child with Downs Syndrome?)) Still whose rights are next? And if we don't insist Disney use individual accomodation, and we don't insist a grocery store, or a school or fill in the blank, the law serves no purpose. The next limitation of participation in society might just come for your disability.

Like I said before, my son will wear a mask, not because I had some great parenting skill, but because his unique individual disability isn't impacted by a mask. But that's the point. INDIVIDUAL accomodation should be individual.

I would also add in some of the cultures referenced as being mask friendly, kids with autism aren't well integrated into society. For me, that isn't an acceptable goal.

So anyway, I'm glad he challenged the system. I know I've emailed my representatives because there has to be another answer besides excluding those who can't wear masks from society. There should be accomodations, and the CDC should be more proactive in clarifying what those are. Only by drawing attention to the issue can change occur.

 

[Mnemorath]

From my point of view, a right that can be taken away isn't right. Either ADA calls for reasonable individual accomodation at all times or its fails as a law to protect the disabled. Remember, at first we were just suspending rights for 14 days, 30 days, then just through the end of the year, then oh the next 24 months, now we're talk "new normal". Are we really OK with excluding human beings based on their disability being our new normal? Because that is exactly what this inflexible rule does.

How will you feel when your disability is next? Sure, its easy to curtail the rights of severe AU kids, cause let's be honest they can't say anything and their parents are just like this jerk. Easy to dismiss. ((Seriously, why is everyone always so ready to dismiss the needs of people with autism. Would our view have been different if this was a child with Downs Syndrome?)) Still whose rights are next? And if we don't insist Disney use individual accomodation, and we don't insist a grocery store, or a school or fill in the blank, the law serves no purpose. The next limitation of participation in society might just come for your disability.

Like I said before, my son will wear a mask, not because I had some great parenting skill, but because his unique individual disability isn't impacted by a mask. But that's the point. INDIVIDUAL accomodation should be individual.

I would also add in some of the cultures referenced as being mask friendly, kids with autism aren't well integrated into society. For me, that isn't an acceptable goal.

So anyway, I'm glad he challenged the system. I know I've emailed my representatives because there has to be another answer besides excluding those who can't wear masks from society. There should be accomodations, and the CDC should be more proactive in clarifying what those are. Only by drawing attention to the issue can change occur.

Precisely. It boils down to two questions. One: is the disabled person enjoying the same access to the parks as a non-disabled person? Answer: No, no mask no entry. Question two: Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the disabled person is a danger to themselves or others based upon the asked for accommodation? Answer: No.

Therefore you are discriminating against the disabled person and violating those rights and the law. End of story. Would you allow Disney to force a vaccine on you or force sterilization in the name of “safety”? Same thing in the end. Why do we allow corporations and “private companies” to do things the government is prohibited from?

 

[minthorne]

The problem is you would have to prove that the mask-less person presents a danger to themselves or others. With the amount of contradictory information on the subject (not debating it, just stating a fact), that becomes VERY difficult in a court.

But then it’s super easy: When in doubt always err on the side of caution. Wearing a mask harms no one. Going to Disney World during a pandemic isn’t a right.

 

[Mnemorath]

But then it’s super easy: When in doubt always err on the side of caution. Wearing a mask harms no one. Going to Disney World during a pandemic isn’t a right.

And there is where you are wrong. Under FL accommodation laws, if the parks are open to non-disabled guests than a disabled person has the right to the same “full and equal enjoyment”. So, yeah, going to WDW is a right as long as they allow others in the parks.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Same and equal access. Meaning if you allow non-disabled persons in, you HAVE to allow disabled persons in.

Got it. So in your opinion, it is discrimination for Disney to have rides that can’t be equally enjoyed by those in wheelchairs , correct?