No exemption to mask policy.

[OurBigTrip]

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?

Can you please point out the section of the ADA that mentions “reasonable doubt” in relation to safety?

 

[Mnemorath]

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?

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

Can you please point out the section of the ADA that mentions “reasonable doubt” in relation to safety?

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

 

[marikujawa]

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/

The answer to your biggest question is that the Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) generally acts to limit federal and state intrusion into fundamental liberties. This is because the government has the authority to enact laws and the power to punish people who don't comply. Private businesses do not have this authority, so constitutional challenges to their actions are not the same as those against government entities. This is why the police can't enter your hotel room without probable cause, but Disney employees can enter to conduct routine room checks. This is vastly oversimplified, but your question was general.

Although the ADA has constitutional underpinnings, it is primarily a legislative enactment. Traditionally, the courts have applied a lower level of scrutiny in determining whether a person's rights under the ADA have been violated. Judges do not simply pick and choose what law to apply because they are too lazy to reach the correct result. There will be challenges to mask requirements by private business (in fact there already are), but the issues are not simple and cogent arguments will be made by both sides.

 

[SteveMouse]

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?

Or anyone else, in any position. I, for, example, cannot sit down, so my mobility device, when I use one, is typically larger than most.

 

[marikujawa]

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.

Something like 3% of civil cases go to trial, and most of them do not involve juries. In the few jury trials that are held, the judge has the power to set aside the jury's verdict if it is contrary to the law.

 

[Betty Rohrer]

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.

what about people in wheelchairs that can not transfer they are being denied equal enjoyment of all rides. myself included in that I can ride spinning rides without getting sick and closing the ride to be cleaned. where does it stop

 

[piccolopat]

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.

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.

 

[daisy2013]

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.

Exhibit a in will be the video the father posted on YouTube of the child wearing a mask dancing around behind him.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the criminal law standard. Clear and convincing is the standard applied to most constitutional law questions while preponderance of the evidence is applied to most civil law matters.*

and now you are talking about the ADA where there is a clearly established public health exception. Current accepted science says masks are a necessary precaution to help prevent the spread. That is different than the WA case you cited before to support your claims that disney was in violation of FL state law.
* this is a very simplistic version of burdens of proof. There are exceptions where a different standard may be applied but it’s like three semester long classes in law school that talks about the nuisances so...

 

[piccolopat]

Oh and I suppose I can add, by Mnemorath's reasoning Disney discriminates against people (adults and kids) who are too short to ride some things, too heavy, to tall (Flight of Passage comes to mind for these last two), can't transfer from a wheelchair, toddlers who can't handle being in the parks all day (and Disney doesn't offer an hourly ticket), people with heart or lung disorders who can't handle all the walking in the heat, etc. Where does it stop?

 

[OurBigTrip]

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

Yep. And safety is one of those exemptions.

And ADA cases are rarely heard by a jury. Seeing as Disney just won a six year legal battle over an ADA complaint, I’m pretty confident that their lawyers feel they are on firm ground here.

If some did sue over the mask issue, I think it’s highly likely that the judges ruling from that case would hold sway in any proceedings. It basically came down to the fact that since Disney can’t ask for proof of disability, if plaintiffs were granted their desired accommodation, non-disabled guests could claim disability to get the same accommodation, which would in turn fundamentally alter park operations.

I can absolutely see a judge saying that since no proof of disability can be required in order to allow someone without a mask to enter, non-disabled people would claim a disability in order to not wear a mask. That in turn would create an unsafe environment for guests and employees.

And please stop with the Constitutional rights argument as it pertains to Disney. Private businesses have no obligation to uphold Constitutional rights.

 

[Mnemorath]

Exhibit a in will be the video the father posted on YouTube of the child wearing a mask dancing around behind him.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the criminal law standard. Clear and convincing is the standard applied to most constitutional law questions while preponderance of the evidence is applied to most civil law matters.*

and now you are talking about the ADA where there is a clearly established public health exception. Current accepted science says masks are a necessary precaution to help prevent the spread. That is different than the WA case you cited before to support your claims that disney was in violation of FL state law.
* this is a very simplistic version of burdens of proof. There are exceptions where a different standard may be applied but it’s like three semester long classes in law school that talks about the nuisances so...

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.

Yep. And safety is one of those exemptions.

And ADA cases are rarely heard by a jury. Seeing as Disney just won a six year legal battle over an ADA complaint, I’m pretty confident that their lawyers feel they are on firm ground here.

If some did sue over the mask issue, I think it’s highly likely that the judges ruling from that case would hold sway in any proceedings. It basically came down to the fact that since Disney can’t ask for proof of disability, if plaintiffs were granted their desired accommodation, non-disabled guests could claim disability to get the same accommodation, which would in turn fundamentally alter park operations.

I can absolutely see a judge saying that since no proof of disability can be required in order to allow someone without a mask to enter, non-disabled people would claim a disability in order to not wear a mask. That in turn would create an unsafe environment for guests and employees.

And please stop with the Constitutional rights argument as it pertains to Disney. Private businesses have no obligation to uphold Constitutional rights.

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?

 

[marikujawa]

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?

But the law isn’t a matter of your opinion.

 

[NaptownMom]

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?

Lawyer here. Because private entities have freedoms, and governments have limited powers. The last thing I want is limited powers being inflicted on private entities as if they were governments.

 

[ttintagel]

They’re not going to say, “Wait here at the gate while I go write the reply down.” I have no doubt that if this f

 

[ttintagel]

I’m sure that the family will receive a written response. I don’t fault the CM for not saying, “Wait here while I go write this down.” It’s the CM’s job to enforce the policy in person, and somebody in the legal department’s job to supply the paperwork.

 

[Mnemorath]

But the law isn’t a matter of your opinion.

True.

Lawyer here. Because private entities have freedoms, and governments have limited powers. The last thing I want is limited powers being inflicted on private entities as if they were governments.

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.

 

[Mnemorath]

I’m sure that the family will receive a written response. I don’t fault the CM for not saying, “Wait here while I go write this down.” It’s the CM’s job to enforce the policy in person, and somebody in the legal department’s job to supply the paperwork.

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.

 

[lanejudy]

But we are getting off topic.

Agreed, we've gone way off topic. I've left this thread open hoping for some first-hand accounts of accommodations for a mask requirements. Knowing that the current situation varies across the country, and rules vary, I thought it could be interesting. Let's leave the legal arguments to the lawyers and courts.

 

[NaptownMom]

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.

I’m sorry but you’re wrong about what it would mean to be a strict Constitutionalist. For example, I’m a member of the Federalist Society. We are free to invite only the speakers we choose to our forum (like Eugene Scalia, who recently have a rousing speech on the importance of amicus briefs) and to not invite AOC, who doesn’t agree with our positions on free enterprise. A true First Amendment absolutist would never support a requirement that a private enterprise, like twitter, be regulated as if it were the public square.

 

[Heather07438]

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?

A politician on their private account can block whoever they want. If that social media account is used as a means to their official public communication, then no they cannot block as the public has a right to access. No?
Twitter or any other social media platform can ban users who violate the agreed TOS.

How we got here from masks... ? Very good arguments have already been made in this thread that support WDW's current decision. I'm sure we'll see a mountain of various suits as the dust settles from this pandemic. I'd be shocked to see this particular case win.