1.You can’t expect the world to adapt for him, but you sure can advocate for a world that is more accepting of who he is as he is.
2.Yes I understand that, but it is also understandable someone would be upset with something that was essentially once free costing money now. I’m not saying suing is the right avenue, but I understand the frustration behind the change that essentially makes something that was once accessible no longer accessible for you.
3.On paper, yes that makes sense. In practical application, it fails to account for how routine bound some individuals on the spectrum can be when it comes to the parks AND that they’re completely different environments for waiting on a plane/car vs the parks. I completely agree that it is an above and beyond benefit that provides increased access, which is well beyond the legal threshold Disney needs to abide by. I wouldn’t say that the
DAS provides equal access consistently (some rides it might provide less and more for others depending on the ride and how well Disney is keeping up with ride times) but its intent is to provide more equal access in a sustainable manner and it does do a better job than the GAC.
4.Whether Disney ever intended the GAC to act like that or not, it did. People were ultimately accommodated in that capacity, and it is impossible to say that a CM never told them that it could help them in the waiting capacity. CMs do a lot of things they’re not supposed to unfortunately. Last week I heard a CM asking about a diagnosis of a guest for the DAS at guest relations, which they’re not supposed to do. I’m sure with lower crowds, CMs would let the DAS function with more instantaneous access at times and we’d end up in a situation like the GAC all over again. I know I’ve been waived on through when I’ve gone to get a return time for a ride with a wait over 45 minutes and there was almost no one in the FP line because the CM apparently didn’t feel like dealing with their device.