'Fake' service dog & veteran kicked out of restaurant

[+Dick Montage Subscriber²]

I have a friend who's job it is to train service-dogs.  She has to take them EVERYWHERE - literally (watching a dog and a penguin eye each other up and realise they couldn't be bothered was awesome). 

The absolutely retarded crap she gets from people is astounding.  It's jacket says "In training" and yet people walk up and tell her she's not blind and doesn't need a dog.  She attempts to explain and is met with absolutely ignorant nonsense about germs, hair and fleas (the dogs are kept astoundingly clean and don't shed).  People grasp at straws to find reasons to be so negative about something so positive.  Some people are so full of hate, fear and ignorance that it just makes a mockery of being a human.  She has leaflets that explain (sad that these are even necessary because so many times this issue comes up) but they refuse to even look at them - so set into their argument of "It's just a joke".  Such sad, lonely, insecure people :(

 

One day they will need support of some form, that another person may not understand.  Hopefully our support networks will still be in place to help.  Maybe then they will realise...

[+Raze Subscriber²]

  On 28/08/2013 at 15:42, Nik Louch said:

Generally dog breeds are chosen that don't shed so as to mitigate the issue.  Eg: Some breeds are cross-bred with poodle genes to remove the shedding.  See, being educated on a matter leads to reasoned debate.  Being blind and acting like jerk leads towards, well, staying blind and acting like a jerk.  The owner = the latter.

 

 

Shedding hair is not the issue, it is the release of dander, saliva or urine that set off allergies. Also a person with asthma can suffer a severe attack, even life threatening.  A balance of can be very difficult to achieve, as brought up by Charisma.

[+Dick Montage Subscriber²]

  Quote

NO Dogs Allowed.

 

Always comes with the caveat though - legally unless it's a private residence.  Try again.

 

  Quote

Some people just don't like animals and eating around them.

 

I don't like being around kids.  I mean, they cry and crap their pants.  Let's ban them from restaurants shall we?  And old people, don't they smell of wee, spit and crap their pants too?  How about Asians?  Blacks? Gays? Jews?  I can invent a whole bunch of BS reasons to "DISLIKE" something.  Whereas there is a diagnosed reason that this man NEEDED his legally and professionally assigned dog.

 

  Quote

especially the majority of the people in the restaurant over the guy who brought the dog.

 

Oh sorry, I missed the part where they took a head count and presented this as a pie chart of how many people cared/didn't care.  Please quote it so I don't miss it again!?

[Denis W. Veteran]

  On 28/08/2013 at 14:22, Hum said:

^ It seems to me, that if you have emotional difficulties, you would avoid going out in public.

 

Flat out disagree with this. As someone who has suffered from anxiety problems recently (and still do) the last thing you would want to do is keep yourself shut in at home or keep yourself stuck in whatever small comfort zone you're in. That only validates the reason for the anxiety to exist and does not give you the opportunity to fight your fears. If this man needs a service dog to help him cope, he 100% should have it.

[+Dick Montage Subscriber²]

  Quote

Shedding hair is not the issue, it is the release of dander, saliva or urine that set off allergies.

 

This issue does get raised.  And once again, these dogs are well trained not to pee in public places.  They are not slobbering hounds.  Believe it or not, such things ARE taken into account by the agencies that train and select the dogs.

 

  Quote

Also a person with asthma can suffer a severe attack, even life threatening.

 

And a person with a nut allergy can die from a bag of peanuts being opened in the same room.  Do we ban peanuts?

[adrynalyne]

  On 28/08/2013 at 15:51, tytytucke said:

NO Dogs Allowed.

 

Some people just don't like animals and eating around them.

They can find them disgusting and everyone needs to be taken into consideration. 

especially the majority of the people in the restaurant over the guy who brought the dog.

A dog is a dog no matter how well bread, dressed and trained it is.

Dogs are cleaner than a lot of people.

 

Ironic...

 

I guess if people find wheelchairs disgusting, they shouldn't be allowed either.

 

I don't get this "sanitary" argument presented throughout this thread.  If it bothers you, stop eating off of the floor. :rolleyes:

[Joe User]

  On 28/08/2013 at 14:46, Hum said:

Anyone can have a dog if the want.

 

Just no need of a dog to eat in a restaurant.

 

He isn't blind.

 

Feel free to lobby to get the law changed. Make sure to take the time to personally determine what is and isn't a valid disability.

[Joe User]

  On 28/08/2013 at 15:51, tytytucke said:

NO Dogs Allowed.

 

Some people just don't like animals and eating around them.

They can find them disgusting and everyone needs to be taken into consideration. 

especially the majority of the people in the restaurant over the guy who brought the dog.

A dog is a dog no matter how well bread, dressed and trained it is.

 

See above.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

  On 28/08/2013 at 16:04, Nik Louch said:

This issue does get raised.  And once again, these dogs are well trained not to pee in public places.  They are not slobbering hounds.  Believe it or not, such things ARE taken into account by the agencies that train and select the dogs.

 

And a person with a nut allergy can die from a bag of peanuts being opened in the same room.  Do we ban peanuts?

Nothing was said about urinating or slobbering.  Animals are not the cleanest, they will have dried urine and saliva on them along with their dander.  I am not advocating preventing people who need service animals from being able to use public places, but because of the potential for allergies (possibly life threatening), etc., we may consider having areas for them. Comfortable areas for the patron and their service animals.  We see the use of service animals a lot in my area being next to a major military installation and a large number of active and retired military personnel.  There have been no problems here at all, but people do have concerns about the potential health issues, discussion of the situation not derision is the answer.

 

I will ignore the 2 other very patronizing remarks.

[adrynalyne]

  On 28/08/2013 at 16:23, Raze said:

Nothing was said about urinating or slobbering.  Animals are not the cleanest, they will have dried urine and saliva on them along with their dander.  I am not advocating preventing people who need service animals from being able to use public places, but because of the potential for allergies (possibly life threatening), etc., we may consider having areas for them. Comfortable areas for the patron and their service animals.  We see the use of service animals a lot in my area being next to a major military installation and a large number of active and retired military personnel.  There have been no problems here at all, but people do have concerns about the potential health issues, discussion of the situation not derision is the answer.

 

I will ignore the 2 other very patronizing remarks.

Can you think of a life threatening incident recently (or ever) where someone was allergic to (wet or dry) urine or saliva?

[Charisma Veteran]

Those dogs are bathed as often as most humans are. I really don't think they are any less sanitary than the average person just by nature of being a dog.

 

Anyway, they are legally allowed to be in places where Joe Average's pet dog would not, on the basis that they are meticulously trained and kept clean and presentable for the public--there are very specific requirements for service dogs.

 

Personal opinions vary wildly but the law is the law in public places. Adding to that, this being a privately owned restaurant, the owner did have every right to refuse him service as well. It doesn't make him a nice person, and the resulting outcry is just as it should be--imagine what would happen if he refused service to a gay person, or a race he didn't like, or some other type of disability... this is just the same. I still maintain that the man should have taken his business elsewhere, but letting people know what sort of person the owner of this place is a good move too. People vote with their wallets and the guy may get his karma ;)

[+Dick Montage Subscriber²]

If you find them patronising so be it. I am sure that segregating those with special needs feel similarly so... Partitioned off from the normals. I know that's not your intent but its how it would be seen, you know how these things are... Integration is key not segregation.

And I would lay money that there are just as many allergens and germs in the street that has dogs and birds and so on.

[+Dick Montage Subscriber²]

Did the owner have right to refuse him? That surely counts as an illegal discrimination act. Yes its privately owned but as a business there are laws against that.

[ILikeTobacco]

  On 28/08/2013 at 15:58, Raze said:

Shedding hair is not the issue, it is the release of dander, saliva or urine that set off allergies. Also a person with asthma can suffer a severe attack, even life threatening.  A balance of can be very difficult to achieve, as brought up by Charisma.

And all of those are non issues. Saliva and urine are not an issue because we are talking about highly trained dogs. Dander is not an issue because the dogs used are usually bred to not cause problems with that.

[adrynalyne]

  On 28/08/2013 at 16:31, Nik Louch said:

Did the owner have right to refuse him? That surely counts as an illegal discrimination act. Yes its privately owned but as a business there are laws against that.

They can't deny you for disabilities.

 

http://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm

http://www.ada.gov/smbustxt.htm

[+Raze Subscriber²]

  On 28/08/2013 at 16:24, adrynalyne said:

Can you think of a life threatening incident recently (or ever) where someone was allergic to (wet or dry) urine or saliva?

 

No I can't, certainly doesn't mean it hasn't or can't happen.

  On 28/08/2013 at 16:27, Nik Louch said:

If you find them patronising so be it. I am sure that segregating those with special needs feel similarly so... Partitioned off from the normals. I know that's not your intent but its how it would be seen, you know how these things are... Integration is key not segregation.

And I would lay money that there are just as many allergens and germs in the street that has dogs and birds and so on.

 

Education is the most important key.

 

  On 28/08/2013 at 16:27, Charisma said:

Those dogs are bathed as often as most humans are. I really don't think they are any less sanitary than the average person just by nature of being a dog.

 

Anyway, they are legally allowed to be in places where Joe Average's pet dog would not, on the basis that they are meticulously trained and kept clean and presentable for the public--there are very specific requirements for service dogs.

 

Personal opinions vary wildly but the law is the law in public places. Adding to that, this being a privately owned restaurant, the owner did have every right to refuse him service as well. It doesn't make him a nice person, and the resulting outcry is just as it should be--imagine what would happen if he refused service to a gay person, or a race he didn't like, or some other type of disability... this is just the same. I still maintain that the man should have taken his business elsewhere, but letting people know what sort of person the owner of this place is a good move too. People vote with their wallets and the guy may get his karma ;)

 

Service dogs are often cared for by the owner, bathing, etc.  My aunt has one because she suffers from seizures.  She bathes Fred weekly, brushes him every other day.

[Joe User]

  On 28/08/2013 at 16:31, Nik Louch said:

Did the owner have right to refuse him? That surely counts as an illegal discrimination act. Yes its privately owned but as a business there are laws against that.

 

The disabled are a protected class, the owner does not have the right to refuse service.

[Charisma Veteran]

  On 28/08/2013 at 16:34, adrynalyne said:

They can't deny you for disabilities.

 

http://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm

^Aha, there you go then. I know in some private places (residences, I guess? small shops? I don't know..) they can refuse anyone for any reason, although one obviously should avoid being a jerk if they want to attract business. I wouldn't go to this restaurant after this incident, anyway.

[+Dick Montage Subscriber²]

  Quote

Education is the most important key.

Best thing said in this whole sorry subject

[adrynalyne]

  On 28/08/2013 at 16:37, Charisma said:

^Aha, there you go then. I know in some private places (residences, I guess? small shops? I don't know..) they can refuse anyone for any reason, although one obviously should avoid being a jerk if they want to attract business. I wouldn't go to this restaurant after this incident, anyway.

There might be some private businesses that can be excluded.  Restaurants just aren't one of them.

[Joe User]

  On 28/08/2013 at 16:37, Charisma said:

^Aha, there you go then. I know in some private places (residences, I guess? small shops? I don't know..) they can refuse anyone for any reason

 

Not if they're a business.

[ILikeTobacco]

  On 28/08/2013 at 16:40, Joe USer said:

Not if they're a business.

If it is a privately owned business, it is legal to deny service to anyone for any reason. You can straight up be racist. It just isn't advised since you'd be on the internet pretty quick and the community would stop supporting you.

[Vykranth]

I am going to post this

 

  Quote

AMVETS, a Congressionally chartered veteran service organization, working with Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) & Congressman Kilmer (D-6th/WA), recently got legislation introduced in both the House (H.R. 2654) and Senate (S. 1281) which would make it illegal, at the federal level, to discriminate against an individual based on their military or veteran status. Fewer than 7 percent of Americans have ever served in the Armed Forces & less than one percent wears the uniform today. These figures suggest that veterans, taken as a group, are in the minority. While other minority groups enjoy certain protections and advantages under the law, those who have served & fought for their country currently enjoy no such comprehensive legal consideration. In fact, just the opposite is often true; frequently those who have served & sacrificed are at a disadvantage in comparison to their peers. The value & importance of appropriate, living wage employment cannot be underestimated in the overall transition from the military to the civilian workforce. Since the best approach for dealing with transition issues is a holistic approach, it must be understood that employment is an integral facet of a veterans overall continuum of well-being. The negative effects of long-term unemployment are especially devastating to service members who may also be suffering from additional stressors such as: repeated deployments; marital discord; domestic violence; multiple moves; substance abuse; depression/PTSD; homelessness & suicidal thoughts. Employment is often the lynchpin that holds families & lives together.

http://www.amvets.org/antidiscrimination-initiative/

 

And today is the 50th birthday of Martin Luther King's 'I have a dream' speech against discrimination ....

[+Dick Montage Subscriber²]

I'm pretty sure you're wrong

[adrynalyne]

  On 28/08/2013 at 16:44, ILikeTobacco said:

If it is a privately owned business, it is legal to deny service to anyone for any reason. You can straight up be racist. It just isn't advised since you'd be on the internet pretty quick and the community would stop supporting you.

Not in the US.

http://www.ada.gov/smbustxt.htm

 

ADA protects the disabled, and the Civil Rights Act protects people based on origin, color, race, etc.