So several stories have been popping up about restaurants throwing out disabled vets with their service dogs. Most of these vets have PTDS. Of course, the vets usually sue the restaurant because, by law, the service dogs can go anywhere. They are protected, just lying "seeing eye" dogs. And the business owner is really not allowed to even ask what the person's disability is. All they have to say is that it is a service dog. I don't like this. I think if a restaurant owner does not want to have a dog in their restaurant, they should have that right. Here is a recent story about this issue: LINK
Devils advocate: Is this any different than Arizona? By refusing a service dog, you are refusing the person it services. No different than a seeing eye dog IMO.
I wouldn't want a dirty hippie eating next to me either. ... or an obese person. ... or a cheesehead.
I think that it would have negative ramifications on your business to refuse service unless the dog was in some way causing trouble. I think I wouldnt have a problem with it in a dinener but in a more high class restaraunt it would probly make the manager more upset. interesting that there is a law defending seeing eye dogs, I had no knowledge of that.
I don't think I'd want a dog in a restaurant I owned either. It's mostly because of how the other customers would feel I think, I wouldn't have a problem eating next to someones dog if it wasn't trying to steal food off my plate. Other people might have a problem with it though.
They should be allowed to have them, but the permit should be on the dogs back on the vest to streamline the process. Owner goes up says I'm sorry sir but no pets are allowed. This is actually my service dog, I'm blind in one eye from Desert Storm (points to permit on dog). Sorry sir, thanks for your service...right this way and we will have you seated. Are we really to the point we are haggling our veterans over service dogs?
I'm having trouble forming an opinion on this matter but I will add other questions to the debate. What about other patrons who may have a serious dog allergy or FDA regulations? If rats and roaches can't be in the restaurants, why should dogs be allowed? Then again, I've seen people who looked and smelled worse off than a dog. I guess there's always carry out, if they cannot dine in they can get carry out.
What about those with peanut or shellfish allergies? Should we ban those ingredients as well? Idk I can see where too much or too little regulation is a bad thing, but bottom line I will always side with the rights of Vets or Handicapped citizens having their rights protected.
In the few circumstances where this would happen you can find a way to accommodate everyone. Maybe you have to move one of the groups away from each other. You deal with it on a case by case basis with people working together. It’s not that hard. There has to be some gray area with these topics. It doesn’t have to be black or white with everything.
Just because you do not agree with something, doesn't mean that a private owner should not be able to do it
I realize, but there has to be lines drawn in the sand somewhere or else we'd have a system of anarchy. I think protecting the rights of those handicapped among us was a correct call... As were the civil rights movements. I agree that going too extreme in either direction is a sticky situation (giving businesses completely free reign vs restricting them to the point they don't even have a say)
nah, the public sector will have it's protected classes and needs them My only concern is with the private sector.
...and honestly, I feel like a lot of these guys are the same type of people that strap their AR-15 to the chest and walk around in public just to see what kind of reaction they can get.
.......let me get this straight, your saying that the vets suffering with ptsd are the ones who are toting ar-15's just trying to get attention?? \ I want to clarify before I proceed
