To Fat to get on a roller coaster?????? (BMI, daily basis, patients)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have read somewhere that obesity could officially be considered a legal disability. It is still not recognized but with medical records showing that you are disabled because of your weight you can be eligible for disability, privileges to park in disabled parking spaces, etc. If that happens then fat people will have to be accommodated by law.
That's awesome. I think I just heard a number of city-data members' heads explode. Can't wait till that happens. LOL
That's awesome. I think I just heard a number of city-data members' heads explode. Can't wait till that happens. LOL
(5) Normal Deviations in Height, Weight, or Strength -- Similarly, normal deviations in height, weight, or strength that are not the result of a physiological disorder are not impairments.13 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630 app. § 1630.2(h); see also Jasany v. United States Postal Service, 755 F.2d 1244, 1249, 36 EPD Par. 35,070 at 36,835, 1 AD Cas. (BNA) 706, 709 (6th Cir. 1985). At extremes, however, such deviations may constitute impairments. Further, some individuals may have underlying physical disorders that affect their height, weight, or strength.
(i) For example, a four foot, ten inch tall woman who was denied employment as an automotive production worker because the employer thought she was too small to do the work does not have an impairment. See American Motors Corp. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, 119 Wis. 2d 706, 350 N.W.2d 120, 36 EPD Par. 34,936, 1 AD Cas. (BNA) 611 (1984) (interpreting state law). The woman's height was below the norm, but her small stature was not so extreme as to constitute an impairment and was not the result of a defect, disorder, or other physical abnormality. On the other hand, a four feet, five inches tall man with achondroplastic dwarfism 14 does have an impairment. See Dexler v. Tisch, 660 F. Supp. 1418, 1425, 43 EPD Par. 37,280 at 48,207, 1 AD Cas. (BNA) 1086, 1092 (D. Conn. 1987). The man's stature was the result of an underlying disorder, achondroplastic dwarfism, which is an impairment.
(ii) Being overweight, in and of itself, generally is not an impairment. See 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630 app. § 1630.2(h) (noting that weight that is "within 'normal' range and not the result of a physiological disorder" is not an impairment); see also id. § 1630.2(j) (noting that, "except in rare circumstances, obesity is not considered a disabling impairment"). Thus, for example, a flight attendant who, because of avid body building (which resulted in a low percentage of body fat and a high percentage of muscle), exceeds the airline's weight guidelines does not have an impairment. See Tudyman v. United Airlines, 608 F. Supp. 739, 746, 38 EPD Par. 35,674 at 40,015, 1 AD Cas. (BNA) 664, 669 (C.D. Cal. 1984). Similarly, a mildly overweight flight attendant who has not been clinically diagnosed as having any medical anomaly does not have an impairment. Underwood v. Trans World Airlines, 710 F. Supp. 78, 83-84, 51 EPD Par. 39,297 at 59,106-07 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (plaintiff's state action preempted by federal law where plaintiff failed to establish that being mildly overweight brought her within class protected by state human rights law with broad definition of disability).
On the other hand, severe obesity,15 which has been defined as body weight more than 100% over the norm, see The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy 981 (Robert Berkow ed., 16th ed. 1992), is clearly an impairment. See Cook v. Rhode Island Dep't of Mental Health, Retardation and Hosp., 10 F.3d 17, 63 EPD Par. 42,673, 2 AD Cas. (BNA) 1476 (1st Cir. 1993). In addition, a person with obesity may have an underlying or resultant physiological disorder, such as hypertension or a thyroid disorder. A physiological disorder is an impairment. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h).16
There were a couple of gals your size who died at Six Flags Magic Mountain when they were thrown from the rollercoaster. They were too fat to have the safety bars fit adequately, and as such, they were killed. You should at least go, because there may be some rides that you can get on.
Have fun.
I heard about this as well. It was Colossus wasn't it ? Back in the 80s ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn
Then you'll be happy to know that Disneyland re-inforced their boats for It's A Small World. Really. Heavy people were starting to swamp the boats.
Really ????? Wow...I've been on that ride many times as a kid. I thought there were already reinforced/strong because of the numbers of people they service 365.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreasuredJewel
However, these companies are bordering on discrimination towards fat people. Here is United Airlines "Fat Policy".
If I were bumped out of a flight that I paid for and wanted to get there on a specific date and time, I would be outraged. I know this thread is about amusement parks, but airlines and amusement parks are in similar situations when it comes to seating large people. These companies will just have to make the seats bigger, sorry but that is a fact of life. But no matter how you put it, these greedy companies will gladly take your money whether you are satisfied or not.
This^^
This is the last socially acceptable prejudice. If they were to refuse a minority a seat you'd see major outrage/riots. But fat is ok to poke fun at and discriminate against
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick
Lose weight, and stop complaining. No one "should" accommodate people just becuase those people have chosen to be fat. If they have a valid legal disability, then THAT should be accommodated.
Do you believe that McDonalds and other FF places like it should be shut down or (IMO) burned to the ground because all they do is peddle poison ? If you do, then I may agree to some of what you say, even though I wouldn't be as mean-spirited about it. If you don't, then it's hypocritical.
If our society hates "fat" so much, then we need to start seeing healthier fast food places going up and more organic shops. Don't tell me it can't be done. Healthy food doesn't always equal "taking forever to make". McDonalds and other places like it need to be taken off their pedestals. I wouldn't consider by any means the "healthy" options they are offering, because they would still contain a bazillion chemicals & preservatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreasuredJewel
No one is obligated to lose weight. If a company goes out of business they either can't keep up with their competitors or customers were dissatisfied. A business is nothing without the consumer. Both of these factors eventually will lead to bankruptcy causing the place of business to shut down. I never seen any fat people complaining about hotels because they refused to provide them services based on their weight. And most severly overweight people do not even leave the house let alone go to hotels or amusement parks.
I have read somewhere that obesity could officially be considered a legal disability. It is still not recognized but with medical records showing that you are disabled because of your weight you can be eligible for disability, privileges to park in disabled parking spaces, etc. If that happens then fat people will have to be accommodated by law.
This^^
Also, since we apparently have no choice to put up with PCness..then it needs to include not making fun of people who weren't fortunate enough to be born stick figures.
It's interesting. I eat a balanced diet with lots of whole grain, veg and little meat. I walk daily for exercise and feel great. But I'm a big girl. My husband always called me his Goddess, because that's the body type I have.
But I still get looked through and around by men as if I don't exist, passed over for jobs that existed till I walked in the door, yelled at by passing cars. YET, I could still run rings and have more self control in my diet then many of the anorexic things walking around in their tight, crotch bearing jeans and midriff tops.
But back on topic: I lovvvvvvvvve rollercoasters. But if a restraint/seat was too tight, I wouldn't insist on riding even though It would be a bummer not to be able to. I like living lol
Yes, Bandon. Disneyland shut down "Small World" for months because they had to re-tool the boats. Not only were the boats sinking, they couldn't put enough (wide) bodies on them to keep the lines moving. (Small World was originally built for the 1964 World's Fair. People were smaller then.)
Here's hoping nobody expects them to flatten and re-build the Matterhorn.
There is a safety issue involved. If you don't fit properly into the seats on some rides at Disneyland, they will not let you onto that ride. Meaning if there is a safety harness of some kind and it can't be closed properly you will not be allowed on that ride.
Yes, Bandon. Disneyland shut down "Small World" for months because they had to re-tool the boats. Not only were the boats sinking, they couldn't put enough (wide) bodies on them to keep the lines moving. (Small World was originally built for the 1964 World's Fair. People were smaller then.)
Here's hoping nobody expects them to flatten and re-build the Matterhorn.
There is a safety issue involved. If you don't fit properly into the seats on some rides at Disneyland, they will not let you onto that ride. Meaning if there is a safety harness of some kind and it can't be closed properly you will not be allowed on that ride.
Lol. Well it did turn out to be a "Wide world after all".
I was a ride operator at the park years ago when I was in school. We rarely had to turn someone away from a ride because of their weight and/or shape. (Usually it was some big-guy football player or the like.)
"Do you believe that McDonalds and other FF places like it should be shut down or (IMO) burned to the ground because all they do is peddle poison ? If you do, then I may agree to some of what you say, even though I wouldn't be as mean-spirited about it. If you don't, then it's hypocritical."
I would certainly approve of publicly shaming McDonalds Corp management into changing. I think that kind of pressure is why they have made such changes as they have recently made.
Burning places to the ground or banning them is a bit extreme for me.
Its odd though, if you feel your weight is simply a result of being born with a particular body type, that you blame FF restaurants.
certainly I think that discriminating against fat people is not the way to solve the obesity problem. I am for educating people about diet and exercise, improving choices available in schools, making our cities more pedestrian/bike friendly, making healthier food available at retail, changing policies that subsidize HFCS, etc. I would CONSIDER a sugary drink tax, though I realize thats controversial.
I am still concerned about equating obesity (except where its a result of a diagnosable disorder) with certain other physical disabilities. I fear that would take us in the wrong direction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's awesome. I think I just heard a number of city-data members' heads explode. Can't wait till that happens. LOL
