Um, your analogy only works if the person not wearing a mask has no nose or mouth
Wrong. The reason the person cannot wear a mask, or shoes, doesn't matter. If they can't, they can't. Asking them to explain, or acting like they "aren't disabled enough" just compounds the problem. And I know a lot of people in the "it's not that hard, just wear it" camp do not understand all the legitimate reasons why some people can't. Some reasons have to do with oxygen restriction, but some have to do with other types of disabilities. A dear friend of mine was raped as a young woman. Her assailant covered her mouth to keep her from screaming for help. She CANNOT wear a mask or have anything over her mouth because of PTSD, even tho the attack happened over 30 years ago. Someone asked "what if they got really sick and had to have oxygen". My friend would have to be sedated. While the current state mandate allows her exception, the stores that are the most anal about it force her to remember the incident each time she walks in because she has to tell them she has a medical exception. She is now fighting depression because of the "it's not that hard" and "just don't go, stay home" crowd.
But for the record, Disney's current policy requires a disabled person that breaths via a tracheostomy tube in their throat to still wear a mask over their mouth and nose. If the breathing without a mask is the "direct threat", then that disabled person should be required to wear a mask over their tube, correct? But they aren't required to. They are only required to have one over the nose and mouth they aren't using. THAT is Disney's policy because they make zero exceptions and aren't even willing to have a discussion about it. Think about it. Before you say that person shouldn't be going because they might get sick, that is the person's choice to go knowing the risks. Sure the tracheostomy tube is a rare example, but it illustrates the point that the law requires a conversation to see if a reasonable accommodation can be made. Disney is refusing to have the conversation.
If the double amputee’s lack of shoes was causing a threat to anyone else’s health, absolutely.
That is the crux of the matter. Can it be proven that a disabled person who cannot wear a mask is a threat when the presumed active cases (those that have tested positive and those who may be asymptomatic) are around 1% of the general population? Generalizations don't cut it and are also discriminatory. Something repeated a gazillion times online is not proof, and even then, it is said that masks "may" help reduce community spread. If you believe there is a direct threat, are there any other means that could mitigate that threat? Shouldn't there at least be the opportunity to discuss? My friend with PTSD takes extra precautions to maintain distancing of over 6 feet. She can wear a face shield for a limited time (it freaks her out a bit too, but for 15-20 minutes she can deal with it).
In the end, I have no doubt that courts, and most likely appeal courts, will have the chance to weigh in on things.