No exemption to mask policy.

[Aladora]

I never said that kids could not be a vector for disease. Anyone who says so does not have kids. My question has always been “How can you prove that a disabled person who is presenting no symptoms has a particular illness?”

I never said you did say that, unless you are also @pixie921, because that is the poster I quoted...

 

[marikujawa]

True.

But should not we put some limits on the companies that now control the public square? By controlling what people are allowed to post, even if the banned speech is legal, they control what is said. Wrongthink is banned, but thoughts that align with those in power is allowed? So we get 1984 not from the government, but from Big Tech.

I am not sure which is worse. The control these multinational corporations that are not beholden to any freedoms has caused a massive divide. When only one thought is allowed, that is all everyone sees. Twitter currently has someone banned who is a political candidate for Congress. Is that a violation of election laws? It’s definitely wrong. Why can a company allow some politicians to use their service but ban their opponents and those who criticize them? Is that not election interference? And since foreign entities own part of these companies is that not foreign interference in elections?

I am a strict Constitutionalist who believes the First Amendment should apply to everyone, private and governmental. But we are getting off topic.

You probably mean strict constructionist and nothing you said fits that concept.

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

I am sorry that this is stressful for you and your daughter, but by telling people not to shop there because they wouldn’t let your daughter in without a mask, you may actually be supporting their store.

There are many people who are more apt to shop at certain stores when they know employees enforce the rules without exception.

I stopped shopping at Winn Dixie because they said "you don't have to wear a mask" stance (that they have now gone back on, and are requiring masks now...but it's too late for them to get me back). All my shopping has been done at Publix, Fresh Market or online (delivery or pickup) at Walmart or Target.

 

[maxiesmom]

I stopped shopping at Winn Dixie because they said "you don't have to wear a mask" stance (that they have now gone back on, and are requiring masks now...but it's too late for them to get me back). All my shopping has been done at Publix, Fresh Market or online (delivery or pickup) at Walmart or Target.

I stopped shopping at a local store I love for months after going in and seeing 1 out of 8 employees wearing a mask. And when I messaged them asking why was told they made it hard to communicate with the customers. Thankfully when the wear a mask went from an ask to a mandate started wearing them.

 

[daisy2013]

The wrong evidentiary standards are applied every day. I know for a fact that preponderance is used in domestic cases in regards to protection orders (which also violate the right to face your accuser so there is no way to fight false allegations until weeks or months later, at which point it is too late). SCOTUS ruling from the 80s states to deprive a parent of their kids requires clear and convincing.

I am of the opinion that the Constitution should apply to private enterprises as well. Why should we allow a CEO to get away with the kind of actions we would tar and feather politicians for. Why should some things be legal for a private party to do, but illegal for a politician or governmental authority to do? Rights are rights. If they can be suspended for a “good reason” you don’t have rights, you have permissions.
As an example, a politician cannot block anyone on Twitter as it’s a First Amendment violation. But Twitter can ban whomever they wish effectively achieving the same thing. A block or a ban, both prevent people from interacting with the political entity on the platform. Why is one legal and the other not?

Again I provided a simplified version of what is multiple semester long courses regarding burdens of proof. But beyond a reasonable doubt is not the usual standard for Ada cases unlike what you stated previously. Clear and convincing is used for permanent deprivation of parental rights - contested adoptions or CPS terminating rights because the right to raise a child is a constitutional right. The right to face an accuser happens at trial which yes is often months after the initial charge is levied.
Twitter is a private company and therefore the first amendment does not apply to it. First amendment applies to government interference in a person’s freedom of speech, religion, press etc. it’s why disboards can delete posts, ban people etc but your town Facebook page can’t. One is a private company one an arm of the govt.
to bring it back- disney is within their rights to regulate the health and safety of their guests and employees while they are on their property. They are applying the same rules to everyone. Just like certain rides require the ability to transfer, wear safety harnesses or other safety measures, the wearing of a mask can be mandatory.

 

[OurBigTrip]

The wrong evidentiary standards are applied every day. I know for a fact that preponderance is used in domestic cases in regards to protection orders (which also violate the right to face your accuser so there is no way to fight false allegations until weeks or months later, at which point it is too late). SCOTUS ruling from the 80s states to deprive a parent of their kids requires clear and convincing.

I am of the opinion that the Constitution should apply to private enterprises as well. Why should we allow a CEO to get away with the kind of actions we would tar and feather politicians for. Why should some things be legal for a private party to do, but illegal for a politician or governmental authority to do? Rights are rights. If they can be suspended for a “good reason” you don’t have rights, you have permissions.
As an example, a politician cannot block anyone on Twitter as it’s a First Amendment violation. But Twitter can ban whomever they wish effectively achieving the same thing. A block or a ban, both prevent people from interacting with the political entity on the platform. Why is one legal and the other not?

Regardless of your opinion, the rights protected under the Constitution are clearly protected against government, not personal, action. If you feel that strongly about it, I recommend you start a movement to amend the Constitution.

 

[EveDallas]

By the legal definition? Yes. Are there exemptions? Yes, the ADA is very clear on when they are legal.

Its more about convincing a jury at trail than spelled out in law.

And if this went to "trail", Disney would bust out dozens of high priced lawyers versus whatever ambulance chasing bottom feeder this guy finds to take his case. Guess who's going to win?

 

[OurBigTrip]

Yep, and they are the ones who should have spoken to the family at that time. ADA requires the reason for the denial of accommodation be made in writing at the time the accommodation is requested. So, the CM should have called for a manager who would call for whoever is needed to provide the paperwork.

The father never requested an accommodation.

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

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

I was thinking the same thing. You have to wear a seat belt in a car or in an airplane; you have to have a lap bar or harness on rides; you have to wear clothes that don't show your 'naughty bits'...all for the safety for yourself and others.

Disabled and non-disabled can enjoy the parks if they wear a mask. Both would be denied entry if they didn't wear a mask. Equal treatment in both cases. By the way, "equal enjoyment" can never be guaranteed for anyone. For example, my son-in-law is disabled due to a back injury. He can no longer ride roller coasters and even rides like Frozen are a problem because of how the boat is jerked around at times. and causes pain. No one expects Disney to re-engineer Frozen so the ride is as smooth as ice (pardon the pun). People with autism can physically wear a mask (and many do) it's just that their disability means some of them have difficulty wearing one for non-physical reasons. This is not much different than people who have difficulty wearing a mask for extended periods of time because they feel anxious or claustrophobic. People may need to practice wearing a mask over longer and longer periods of time if they want to go someplace where masks are required. Otherwise they should consider putting off visiting those places until mask wearing is no longer a necessity.

@piccolopat has it right. A disabled person or a nondisabled person without a mask cannot enter the parks. There is no discrimination against a disabled person here; they can access the parks, provided they follow the same guidelines as everyone else. Disney is not required to make exceptional requirements for specific people, when it is a safety issue. That's why you can only have x# of wheelchair users at one time, on a single ride; there are rules to how many can be on the ride at one time, because in the case of..oh, let's say a fire breaks out at the midpoint of the ride on Haunted Mansion, the CMs/firefighters have to be able to escort/remove guests from the ride in a quick manner....and wheelchair users take longer. Safety issues trump personal issues; and a pandemic is a safety issue.

I live in FL and the amount of people you run across that think the rules of wearing masks and following one way through the grocery stores doesn't apply to them...is staggering. You would think the number of older people wearing masks would be higher, because of their age and vulnerability, but nope....it's like they are daring themselves to get it. It's like the STD rates in The Villages, and other retirement communitites...those rates are among the highest in the nation for STDs. I just don't get it; you would think they would want to protect themselves from STDs, but.....nope.

I understand that wearing a mask (especially in hot and humid FL) sucks, but it is what is best...not only for yourself, but for the greater good. It's the same reason we get vaccinations, because yeah, you might get the chicken pox and just be itchy for a week or so, with no other side effects, but little Susie across the street is immunocompromised, and if she gets chicken pox, she will most likely die. It's the same thing with masks; I am fairly healthy and so is my son, but DH is not, so we mask up and stay away from those with masks, to protect him. But so many people are only about the 'me me me' and don't care about the 'we we we'; it really is sad.

 

[ladyjubilee]

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.

The whole point is that wearing masks DOES harm some people specifically due to disability. And, again, facilities and services that are open to the public should not create barriers based on disabilities. Further, its easy to say, "you don't have a right" to equal access to Disneyworld, but what about the grocery store? The court house? The hospital? (The hospitals in our area and the Department of Health recognize some people aren't able to wear masks, and make accomodation.)

I would also point out that limiting accomodation this way basically says that people with disabilities must surrender their right of access in order to protect others. I would point out that historically in the battle of rights the disabled were often the losers. Remember a random law about growing wheat in someone's yard was the turning point for courts to uphold the individual mandate. Those pain in that patootie autism kids with their show boat parents just might be the canaries in the coal mine.

My final point for those who see no harm, try walking in the other shoes. Try making a mask out of a brillo pad-nice and tight- be sure the ear loops pull on your ears, turn Demon Hunter on full blast, while a clock ticks next to you ear, have someone shine a bright flashing light in your eyes. Now you could just set a time for the experiment, but then imagine you have no real concept of time and for you each second is an eternity and torment will have no end.

ETA: There are accommodations under the law for people who can't wear a seat belt in a car. At amusement parks, if someone can't ride a specific ride, they can still access the park. Here we are talking about complete denial of service based on disability. Based on there now/just back threads, and Disney rules, not everyone wears a mask at all times. Some have chin mask, but aren't booted from the park, some are younger or appear to be younger than the requirement, yet are still allowed in the park (based on the same CDC exception that applies to for those with a disability), people can stop and eat and drink....I suspect no one has told the virus not to spread during those moments. Plus other parks and facilities have been able to offer individual accommodation.

 

[DisneyOma]

The whole point is that wearing masks DOES harm some people specifically due to disability. And, again, facilities and services that are open to the public should not create barriers based on disabilities. Further, its easy to say, "you don't have a right" to equal access to Disneyworld, but what about the grocery store? The court house? The hospital? (The hospitals in our area and the Department of Health recognize some people aren't able to wear masks, and make accomodation.)

I would also point out that limiting accomodation this way basically says that people with disabilities must surrender their right of access in order to protect others. I would point out that historically in the battle of rights the disabled were often the losers. Remember a random law about growing wheat in someone's yard was the turning point for courts to uphold the individual mandate. Those pain in that patootie autism kids with their show boat parents just might be the canaries in the coal mine.

My final point for those who see no harm, try walking in the other shoes. Try making a mask out of a brillo pad-nice and tight- be sure the ear loops pull on your ears, turn Demon Hunter on full blast, while a clock ticks next to you ear, have someone shine a bright flashing light in your eyes. Now you could just set a time for the experiment, but then imagine you have no real concept of time and for you each second is an eternity and torment will have no end.

ETA: There are accommodations under the law for people who can't wear a seat belt in a car. At amusement parks, if someone can't ride a specific ride, they can still access the park. Here we are talking about complete denial of service based on disability. Based on there now/just back threads, and Disney rules, not everyone wears a mask at all times. Some have chin mask, but aren't booted from the park, some are younger or appear to be younger than the requirement, yet are still allowed in the park (based on the same CDC exception that applies to for those with a disability), people can stop and eat and drink....I suspect no one has told the virus not to spread during those moments. Plus other parks and facilities have been able to offer individual accommodation.

How did those people (harmed by wearing a mask) get to wear clothing, wear a seatbelt, shoes, etc? And could you please post a link where someone doesn't have to wear a seatbelt by law (not NH) as i wasn't able to find anything that stated that? (But I did find a lot about seatbelt extenders)

never mind - I found one - https://iowadot.gov/mvd/medical-exemptions-from-safety-belt-use

Seems like if they can't wear a belt, they should be in the backseat though. And it states that they shouldn't be driving at all. Never heard about it being a risk to wear a seatbelt if you are pregnant, so I think a little less of Iowa right now.

 

[Walt4ever]

No. There should not. Your friend might be reasonable but there is no way to make sure people keep them. Most won't.

Also, the tracheostomy tube...give me a break. They should not be going FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH. If someone in that condition got Covid, they would die.

My friend is a family practice docs. There clinic is not giving out any exemption notes period. If they have a health condition where they cannot wear a mask, their position is then it is to risky for you to be exposed to the general public ( for THEIR) safety.

So because others "may" not social distance, it is okay to discriminate against my friend?

The person with the tracheostomy tube knows the risk and is allowed to make their own decisions of where they go. A 75 year old, who is in the prime "going to die from it" demographic, is not denied entry simply because of their age and the presumed risk. By your reasoning, they should be denied entry, FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH. The fact remains, however, that the tracheostomy tube person can breath in and out of that unmasked tube all day at Disney. If you think my example absurd, consider that the real absurdity is Disney's actual policy.

My doctor and his staff have zero issues with people unable to wear a mask, for any reason. He treats his patients as grown ups. My friend's psychologist likewise does not require her to wear one to her sessions, and takes hers off once out of the public eye so that my friend can feel more comfortable.

 

[Mnemorath]

The father never requested an accommodation.

Asking to be let in without a mask on his disabled child IS an accommodation request.

 

[Mnemorath]

How did those people (harmed by wearing a mask) get to wear clothing, wear a seatbelt, shoes, etc? And could you please post a link where someone doesn't have to wear a seatbelt by law (not NH) as i wasn't able to find anything that stated that? (But I did find a lot about seatbelt extenders)

never mind - I found one - https://iowadot.gov/mvd/medical-exemptions-from-safety-belt-use

Seems like if they can't wear a belt, they should be in the backseat though. And it states that they shouldn't be driving at all. Never heard about it being a risk to wear a seatbelt if you are pregnant, so I think a little less of Iowa right now.

There is also a difference between a “law” passed by a legislature and an “mandate” (really an unconstitutional edict) issued by a governor. While a governor (like the one in WA who has flat out admitted he does not have the power to enforce it) may say that a business MUST enforce his edict, the actual guidance from L&I will have a medical and disability exemption in it. So Disney is going above and beyond what the government has said and it may come back around to bite them in the patootie.
https://coronavirus.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/Overview of mask order_July20.pdf

 

[marikujawa]

I can see arguments on both sides. Masks are not magic shields that protect 100% against transmission of the virus, and Disney does make an exception for children under the age of 2 for medical reasons, even though a child that age is capable of carrying and transmitting the virus.

But just as masks are not a guarantee against the virus, the ADA is not a 100% guarantee of equal access to the disabled. It requires only (objectively) reasonable accommodations, and there are exceptions to its application.

There is quite a bit of evidence now that masks, when worn by a large percentage of people, inhibit the transmission of the virus. Without getting into burdens of proof, Disney would not have to prove at all that a disabled person actually had the virus in order to deny entry without a mask. The unique circumstances of a pandemic combined with the large numbers of people inherent in a theme park setting could be sufficient to establish a public health exception under the ADA.

I can also see Disney arguing that an exception to the mask requirement would be an undue burden. If they did, in fact, include requiring masks in their bargaining with the cast members, allowing exceptions could put them at risk of breaching their promise. Also, they could argue - using their experience with the number of people with disabilities who visit the parks - that so many people would likely request exceptions that it would greatly reduce the effectiveness of mask-wearing by the rest of the guests.

Disney could also argue an undue burden associated with enforcement. If some people are legally permitted to enter the parks without a mask, and the ADA does not allow Disney to ask for proof of disability, how could they ever remove someone from the parks for violating the mask mandate? It's fairly easy to see a child is likely under age 2, but how would a cast member know whether older children or adults are exempt? An exception could also potentially increase confrontations between guests - I've seen posts suggesting that guests "remind" other guests to wear masks.

I think the mistake people make when it comes to the law is believing that it provides a satisfactory answer for every possible scenario. It doesn't. The ADA requires only reasonable accommodation, not whatever accommodation is requested. Sometimes there is no accommodation that can be made - that does not necessarily mean the business is violating the ADA.

 

[KPeterso]

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.

I have stayed out so far, but the concept "full and complete enjoyment" has me intrigued... For the record, I cancelled my trip as I do not consider it safe.

So I am going to flip the idea of "full and equal enjoyment" another way. I have asthma and crappy lungs (blame the pneumonia when I was a kid). I get a cold and it usually turns to bronchitis with a cough that will not go away for months. But as someone with crappy lungs, if I saw a person next to me in line with no mask, it will take away from my full and complete enjoyment. I would immediately be worrying about that person breathing on me. And that would lead trigger my anxiety leading to a panic attack. I would have to get out of line to get away from the person and may end up having to leave. This is a time of a public emergency and the ADA has said masks are not covered under the ADA due to creating a health risk for others. So that person's accomodation to create a full and equal enjoyment just created a not full and complete enjoyment situation for me. And mine would also be a disability situation due to an illness out of my control.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Um, no - he doesn’t get to mandate his preferred accommodation.

I doubt there is an accommodation, but he didn’t even ask, he just tried to bully the CM into letting her into the park with no mask.

“My daughter can’t wear a mask due to her disability. I need to speak to someone in management about what accommodations, if any, are available for her.”

 

[marcyleecorgan]

and remember the ADA is about providing some form of accommodation, if possible, NOT the preferred one.
that's why you can't say, "My Lil' Jimmy can't wear belts, seatbelts or lap bars! I brought enough bungee cords to strap him in, though!" XD

Public Safety is The Goal and that overrides anyone's preferred accommodations.

as pointed out, there are so many studies and data that show that the traditional face mask DOES indeed, prevent juicy humans from splattering all over each other. and that most "alternatives" to the the traditional face mask DOES NOT keep your fluids in your own face. also, we have no way of knowing if Lil' Wheezy over there is somehow a genetic supermutant and is asymptomatically carrying COVID19 while also having asthma!!!!! XD

therefore, just in the same manner as Disney has to say, "kids have to be big enough to fit into the safety harnesses on rides", "we cannot allow a wheelchair on this ride, it would trap the occupant should we need to evacuate", "tell us you're deathly allergic to fish before you order something at Coral Reef", etc. they also have to say, "people who are capable of wearing a face mask" must do so. and if you really cannot wear a face mask, then right now, in the midst of a pandemic with no vaccine in sight, you should not be mingling with thousands of other people in close quarters!

why is there any harm in taking a small step to protect yourself from others? it is the considerate, and compassionate thing to do.... for YOURSELF.
this is a totally non-debatable issue for Disney right now.

 

[Simba's Mom]

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?

Interesting idea. The only ride I know of is Pirates of the Caribbean. Wait-what about Rise of the Resistance, Flights of ? in Pandora?

 

[TCRAIG]

Again I provided a simplified version of what is multiple semester long courses regarding burdens of proof. But beyond a reasonable doubt is not the usual standard for Ada cases unlike what you stated previously. Clear and convincing is used for permanent deprivation of parental rights - contested adoptions or CPS terminating rights because the right to raise a child is a constitutional right. The right to face an accuser happens at trial which yes is often months after the initial charge is levied.
Twitter is a private company and therefore the first amendment does not apply to it. First amendment applies to government interference in a person’s freedom of speech, religion, press etc. it’s why disboards can delete posts, ban people etc but your town Facebook page can’t. One is a private company one an arm of the govt.
to bring it back- disney is within their rights to regulate the health and safety of their guests and employees while they are on their property. They are applying the same rules to everyone. Just like certain rides require the ability to transfer, wear safety harnesses or other safety measures, the wearing of a mask can be mandatory.

AMEN!