With respect, I think the difference is the pro side is trying to convince the anti side that it won’t affect them or that they are exaggerating the effect.Respectfully that goes both ways. Someone bringing their dog with them on vacation gets to decide if that is good or bad for them with the new pet-friendly policy...you do not get to decide that for them.
The anti-side is trying to demonstrate that the possibility that this will affect them is already causing them stress & anxiety, never mind if their allergy/phobia is triggered on site. It’s a Disney trip. Everyone wants it to be as carefree as possible.
It’s as if we’re saying to someone with a malady “prove it’ll be that bad. Nah you’re exaggerating.” It feels like a personal attack. A lot of people (not me I’m more a cat person) are saying I love dogs, but I can’t be around them or my kid can’t be around them for a valid medical reason & the response is “you’re exaggerating. This is being blown out of proportion.”
When the response is to dismiss legitimate concerns, including those of someone with a guidedog that seemed to get skipped over (no one from the pro side addressed her concerns iirc) then the gap is unbridgeable.