The history of EMH

[smitch425]

But they are denying someone something based on who they are. They are off site / day guests and therefore do not get EMH.

I completely agree with that it is a perk for staying on site. And see NOTHING wrong with them doing so. Just saying it IS a type of discrimination.

In general when we see the word discrimination we think of only the illegal type, based on protected class (sex, race, age, etc). We forget that discrimination is not always illegal.

Offsite guests can stay in the park for the duration of evening EMH, though. They don't kick them out of the park.

 

[tvguy]

But they are denying someone something based on who they are. They are off site / day guests and therefore do not get EMH.

I completely agree with that it is a perk for staying on site. And see NOTHING wrong with them doing so. Just saying it IS a type of discrimination.

In general when we see the word discrimination we think of only the illegal type, based on protected class (sex, race, age, etc). We forget that discrimination is not always illegal.

Strictly speaking, we all discriminate. We buy Coke, thus we discriminate against Pepsi, RC and Sam's American Choice. We buy Chevy, thus we discriminate against Ford, Toyota, Mercedes etc.

You discriminate and don't book a Disney hotel, they discriminate in return and don't offer you a perk.

One of the high end furniture stores here ( in the 1960's) whole marketing campaign was they were the furniture store for "The Discriminating Buyer".

 

[disneychrista]

Strictly speaking, we all discriminate. We buy Coke, thus we discriminate against Pepsi, RC and Sam's American Choice. We buy Chevy, thus we discriminate against Ford, Toyota, Mercedes etc.
You discriminate and don't book a Disney hotel, they discriminate in return and don't offer you a perk.
One of the high end furniture stores here ( in the 1960's) whole marketing campaign was they were the furniture store for "The Discriminating Buyer".

Thank you for understanding my comment. Like I said it is not that this type of discrimination is illegal or even wrong. But technically it is still discrimination.

 

[asta]

I prefer to think of it as preferential treatment. The original E-ticket nights were fantastic. You did have to pay $10-12 extra and Disney claimed to cap the number sold so that there was no guarantee that all resort guests would be able to purchase the pass. EMH are a very poor substitute. They are open to more guests and every one that I have attended was much, much more crowded than an E-ticket night.

If she doesn't use this topic I would recommend that she research the dirty, back door way that concert tickets are sold. This is a hot topic right now. And certain people are given a huge advantage in buying tickets before the greneral public ever gets a chance. Most of the good tickets go to individuals with connections based on who they know. They might have to pay for the ticket but do not pay for the situation/ connection that lets them buy ahead of the public. The record labels and arena management grab 80% and up of the seats for the more popular concerts. That sounds more like discrimination to me.

 

[mfd25wife]

Thank you for understanding my comment. Like I said it is not that this type of discrimination is illegal or even wrong. But technically it is still discrimination.

It is no more discrimination than Embassy Suites serving breakfast free to those staying at their hotels or the Disney resorts not letting just anyone off the streets swim in their pools. It's like any other resort. There are certain things you receive just because you stayed there.

I'm kind of wondering if this thread was not just for the OP to . IMO, Disney does all they can to make sure they don't discriminate against anyone.

 

[tvguy]

I'm kind of wondering if this thread was not just for the OP to ..

Certainly possible, but there is a lot of gray area between legitimate "discussion" and "stirring the pot". Not much excitement to a discussion where every reply is "I agree" or "I disagree" without explanation.

 

[disneychrista]

IMO, Disney does all they can to make sure they don't discriminate against anyone.

As you (and others) are failing to understand is that there is huge difference between every day legal discrimination and the illegal protected discrimination.

By only offering Coke products they are "discriminating" against those who prefer Pepsi products. By offering overpriced admission, food & hotel rooms they are "discriminating" against those with limited means. None of these everyday discriminations are illegal but they are in fact types of discriminations.

That does not mean that Disney needs to start offering Pepsi products or lower their admission, food & hotel rates.

 

[crashbb]

As you (and others) are failing to understand is that there is huge difference between every day legal discrimination and the illegal protected discrimination.

By only offering Coke products they are "discriminating" against those who prefer Pepsi products. By offering overpriced admission, food & hotel rooms they are "discriminating" against those with limited means. None of these everyday discriminations are illegal but they are in fact types of discriminations.

That does not mean that Disney needs to start offering Pepsi products or lower their admission, food & hotel rates.

But what kind of paper is someone going to write about that kind of "discrimination"? I think most of us are using the assumption that the OP means discrimination worthy of a research paper.

 

[disneychrista]

But what kind of paper is someone going to write about that kind of "discrimination"? I think most of us are using the assumption that the OP means discrimination worthy of a research paper.

I am not sure how baseball instant replay would make a good topic for a 12-page paper on discrimination either.

 

[crashbb]

I am not sure how baseball instant replay would make a good topic for a 12-page paper on discrimination either.

I just assumed that the theme wouldn't be discrimination if she went with baseball instant replay (not that I have a clue what it would be - but I know that the use of instant replay has been controversial, so I figured it could be something about that).

 

[Tiggerish]

OP here. I posted for my niece at her request because she does not have her own account. I am not doing her paper. The term discrimination comes from my having a background in law and was in the classic sense of one group getting something another group does not. As was noted, we all discriminate, but not all discrimination is illegal. I am very sure she would not be using it for her paper. The paper does have to be about a controversy but is not allowed to do any of the common ones, performance enhancing drugs, medical mj, etc. She was trying to come up with the controversy with a Disney theme and this was the best we could do.

I am wowed with the information about how the EMHs have evolved. I do remember the time when you could buy the extra nighttime hours but had forgotten it until it was mentioned here.

 

[Schmeck]

So, she needs a controversy involving Disney, enough for a 12 page paper? Is it a persuasive paper, or a research paper?

What did she come up with when she googled "Disney Controversy"? (hint, hint)

 

[minnie mum]

Thank you for understanding my comment. Like I said it is not that this type of discrimination is illegal or even wrong. But technically it is still discrimination.

The problem with all of this "Is it discrimination?" argument is that people are using different definitions of the word. Many are taking it in it's current usage, which is pejorative. Some are, instead, using it as a synonym for discernment.

Both are technically correct. However I would suggest that there is nothing in the restrictions of EMH that is discriminatory in the first definition- anyone is free to pay for a WDW resort room and enjoy the perks attached to it. It is no different than paying for a membership to Costco, or paying extra for a first class airline seat. EMH is an amenity offered to onsite guests just like use of their resort swimming pool.

As a synonym for discernment, then yes, it is properly used here.

And I would be very interested to meet the teacher who thought that this subject would be worthy of a 'research' paper. Or who thought that EMH was in any way controversial.

 

[minnie mum]

What did she come up with when she googled "Disney Controversy"? (hint, hint)

Well THERE'S a wealth of possibilities.

 

[ckay87]

Thank you for understanding my comment. Like I said it is not that this type of discrimination is illegal or even wrong. But technically it is still discrimination.

You realize that is like saying that on an airplane, the coach passengers are being discriminated against because first class passengers are offered perks that are not offered to the coach passengers. That's just weird and inaccurate.

When you purchase a room at WDW, you get certain things, such as transportation and EMH. You paid for that, you get it. You stay off site, you did not pay for that, you don't get it. That's so black and white-obvious to me.

I realize you're not saying it's "bad" but the term discrimination does not apply in commerce like this. You get what you pay for, period.