No...I said I believe that a lot of these guys that bring their service dogs into restaurants then get all pissed off about it when the owners don't want the dog inside are the same type of person that would strap their AR-15 to the chest in public places. To me it seems like they go out looking for the attention. Not all, obviously. But a lot of these cases feel that way. Just my opinion of course.
ahhhhh ok I gotcha now. glad I clarified. There's always going to be some who let a bit of privilege go to there heads, I agree.
I know, I was just adding other questions to the topic, not necessarily asking as to form or state my opinion. I agree, definitely not always clear and cut what the answer should be. I guess I would have to side with the owner because as Hooker said, private entities should be able to dictate who they provide a service to, even though in this situation I would hope they wouldn't kick out somone with a service dog. I think the best answer here is to at least have a valid service dog ID so it isn't abused by people who just want their dog by their side without having a medical reason.
Agreed. It's hard not to generalize when looking at any particular subgroup of people. The loud minority of a group often represent the vast majority even though they may be nothing alike.
An owner of a business no matter what their offerings may be, should have the right to refuse service at anytime, to anyone, for any reason they see fit.
I agree with much of what's being said. For the most part, I believe in a business owners right to run the business how they see fit but yet I would hope they wouldn't refuse to seat a blind customer with a service dog - I don't think that's right. Unfortunately, even when laws are black and white, we still have trouble implementing/enforcing/interpreting them so it would be tough to create laws that would force acceptance in certain situations and not in others... The issue has gotten more complex over time too... Guessing years ago when laws for service dogs were put into place, service dogs were mainly thought of as being for the blind - now they are using them for a whole bunch of other reasons - many which aren't readily visible to others... These types of questions are tough because it's really - one person's right over another person's right - whose right is 'greater'?
Maybe you have already answered this question but just curious, are there any situations where you think they should be forced to allow them OR are you saying that they should have the right to refuse them for any reason they want to?
service dogs? I really don't like the idea of forcing anyone to do anything, maybe true "seeing eye" dogs. I probably wouldn't have a real problem with that. but you can get a service dog for freaking dyslexia
I think the system does get abused at times. I was in Denny's a while back and a gal came in with 2 chiuahaha's. Claimed they were service dogs, and that was that. While I seriously doubt the validity of that particular claim (I could be wrong), I know there are plenty of instances where the disability is not visible. I live right next door to Wounded Warrior Battalion West aboard Camp Pendleton. Of course you see Marines here with more obvious injuries such as missing limbs, severe burns, etc. but for a lot of them, the trauma is far less obvious. These dogs are God sends for them. I don't know if y'all have ever seen anyone have a PTSD episode, but it is a scary thing for everyone. Obviously for the one suffering it most of all. The average person isn't going to know what to do in that situation....but that dog will. I think people are far more empathetic to people who have physical injuries than to those that are emotional/mental injuries, because they can see the physical injuries and understand how that injury negatively impacts their life. Things like PTSD are far more esoteric. With that being said, I feel like it would be more helpful to both business owners and the owners of service dogs if there was a permit on the vests of service dogs like a few have mentioned. It would be simple and help with validating the need for the dog. I don't think it would have to say why the dog is needed as that's nobodies business but the dog owner and the licensing body. As far as the owners rights, I feel like denying someone service because they have a service dog is a very sticky situation. The dog is there because the owner has some sort of disability, wether that be blindness, physical injuries, or emotional injuries. Are those disabilities less relevant than other disabilities? I generally find myself siding with the service dog owners, to be honest. I am a veteran, my husband is still active duty. If for some reason (God forbid) my husband ends up needing a service dog for physical or emotional injuries, I will probably get pretty froggy if someone tells him he can't eat somewhere because he requires a service dog. I agree with SouthDakotaHunter though in that it is sticky - "whose right is 'greater'?"
I'm all for strict regulation of service dogs, but really, why would you not allow them in your business? Being a GM at a restaurant for years, we had service dogs come in quite regularly. There was no issue. None. Ever. At the resort we allow dogs with a fee. I would wave the fee for a service dog. Maybe I'm soft on the subject because I have a handicapped sister. She doesn't have need for a service dog, but if she did, I'd wholeheartedly boycott and establishment that wouldn't let her in.
Any business should have the right to refuse service to anyone they please for any reason. I wish this issue didn't exist as I am a veteran and I don't want to look like I go against my own, but I firmly believe the business should have that right. Also, what if another patron of a restaurant has a dog allergy, should he be sent away to appease the owner of the service dog?
In my opinion you should have that right, of course everyone would have the right to boycott your business as well.
