Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog!

[Nosmo King]

I don't see the problem.

If the owner doesn't want dogs in his restaurant so what?

There are plenty of other restaurant owners who would love the business.

And once this is fleshed out, we find why separate but equal is a crock. But leave it to a
Conservative to use it as an excuse, any excuse.

Where did I say anything about separate but equal?

Private property is just that and the owner of said property should have the right to determine who does and who doesn't enter.

It's a simple concept that has nothing to do with race but a two dimensional sheep like you wouldn't be able to see that.

If a Black business owner politely told me to take my business elsewhere that is exactly what I would do and I wouldn't whine like a little bitch about it.

What do you think is more common: a soldier, a white man, a wealthy man being refused service due to the prejudice of a minority business owner (in which case that business is doomed due to ignorance and stupidity) or a soldier, a Black man, a poor man being refused service by a White business owner?

And how often must it take place before there is a real sense of freedom and equality? Should we kowtow to the ignorant or should the ignorant be punished for their prejudice?

 

[Vandalshandle]

The restuarant owner is in violation of the American with Disabilities Act. He will be lucky if he is not fined, or sued.

doesn't sound like he actually was, the owner did not produce proof of his need for the animal.

I have not read the details. Did they request proof, or did the disabled guy refuse to provide proof?

 

[Nosmo King]

Where did I say anything about separate but equal?

Private property is just that and the owner of said property should have the right to determine who does and who doesn't enter.

It's a simple concept that has nothing to do with race but a two dimensional sheep like you wouldn't be able to see that.

The restuarant owner is in violation of the American with Disabilities Act. He will be lucky if he is not fined, or sued.

And I can't disagree with a law?

How well does that attitude serve you once the red lights on the car behind you get turned on and you're face to face with a state trooper? "I disagree that the speed limit should be only 65!" yeah. right.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And once this is fleshed out, we find why separate but equal is a crock. But leave it to a
Conservative to use it as an excuse, any excuse.

Where did I say anything about separate but equal?

Private property is just that and the owner of said property should have the right to determine who does and who doesn't enter.

It's a simple concept that has nothing to do with race but a two dimensional sheep like you wouldn't be able to see that.

If a Black business owner politely told me to take my business elsewhere that is exactly what I would do and I wouldn't whine like a little bitch about it.

What do you think is more common: a soldier, a white man, a wealthy man being refused service due to the prejudice of a minority business owner (in which case that business is doomed due to ignorance and stupidity) or a soldier, a Black man, a poor man being refused service by a White business owner?

And how often must it take place before there is a real sense of freedom and equality? Should we kowtow to the ignorant or should the ignorant be punished for their prejudice?

I don't care how often it happens.

Private property is just that private.

The owner of that property should be the only person who decides who does and who doesn't enter.

What on earth is so hard to understand about such a simple concept?

And punishing someone for being prejudiced is tantamount to enacting thought crime legislation.

Let people bask in their own ignorance they will be the only ones who pay the price.

 

[ogibillm]

The restuarant owner is in violation of the American with Disabilities Act. He will be lucky if he is not fined, or sued.

doesn't sound like he actually was, the owner did not produce proof of his need for the animal.

I have not read the details. Did they request proof, or did the disabled guy refuse to provide proof?

does it matter? if he's asked to take his dog out and he claims it's a service animal the burden is on him to provide that proof.

 

[Vandalshandle]

doesn't sound like he actually was, the owner did not produce proof of his need for the animal.

I have not read the details. Did they request proof, or did the disabled guy refuse to provide proof?

does it matter? if he's asked to take his dog out and he claims it's a service animal the burden is on him to provide that proof.

You are probably right, but if the disabled guy refused a request for proof, it is obvious that he has no case.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The restuarant owner is in violation of the American with Disabilities Act. He will be lucky if he is not fined, or sued.

And I can't disagree with a law?

How well does that attitude serve you once the red lights on the car behind you get turned on and you're face to face with a state trooper? "I disagree that the speed limit should be only 65!" yeah. right.

Yes because if I disagree with a law I will intentionally break it every chance i get.

My god man it really isn't hard to think beyond two dimensions give it a try it really doesn't hurt.

 

[ogibillm]

I have not read the details. Did they request proof, or did the disabled guy refuse to provide proof?

does it matter? if he's asked to take his dog out and he claims it's a service animal the burden is on him to provide that proof.

You are probably right, but if the disabled guy refused a request for proof, it is obvious that he has no case.

actually i'm wrong. he does not have to have proof.

however, i'm right for a different reason - emotional support animals aren't considered 'working' service animals, and as such do not have to be allowed in the restaurant.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

doesn't sound like he actually was, the owner did not produce proof of his need for the animal.

I have not read the details. Did they request proof, or did the disabled guy refuse to provide proof?

does it matter? if he's asked to take his dog out and he claims it's a service animal the burden is on him to provide that proof.

Read the story, he provided the proof. I love when dumb asses comment on stories without ever even reading them.

 

[ogibillm]

I have not read the details. Did they request proof, or did the disabled guy refuse to provide proof?

does it matter? if he's asked to take his dog out and he claims it's a service animal the burden is on him to provide that proof.

Read the story, he provided the proof. I love when dumb asses comment on stories without ever even reading them.

he provided proof that the animal was an emotional support animal, not that he had need for it.

i don't have need for a guide dog, so even if i had one there would be no reason to accommodate it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have not read the details. Did they request proof, or did the disabled guy refuse to provide proof?

does it matter? if he's asked to take his dog out and he claims it's a service animal the burden is on him to provide that proof.

Read the story, he provided the proof. I love when dumb asses comment on stories without ever even reading them.

That hurts, Sgt, because my posts and discussions are mostly aimed to please you.....

 

[Vandalshandle]

does it matter? if he's asked to take his dog out and he claims it's a service animal the burden is on him to provide that proof.

You are probably right, but if the disabled guy refused a request for proof, it is obvious that he has no case.

actually i'm wrong. he does not have to have proof.

however, i'm right for a different reason - emotional support animals aren't considered 'working' service animals, and as such do not have to be allowed in the restaurant.

Are you sure of this? Do you have a link? The reason that I ask is that my sister is a flight attendent for Southwest Airlines, and they consider every service animal as having the same status as a seeing eye dog. Her favorite story was when a monkey got loose in the cabin in midflight.

 

[Missourian]

I don't see the problem.

If the owner doesn't want dogs in his restaurant so what?

There are plenty of other restaurant owners who would love the business.

ada says different...

Believe it or not, I was suffering insomnia last night and watching People's Court at three AM this morning and the case was on this topic specifically.

The ADA does NOT protect service dogs that are only for emotional support.

5. Service Animals. The rule defines "service animal" as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. The rule states that other animals, whether wild or domestic, do not qualify as service animals. Dogs that are not trained to perform tasks that mitigate the effects of a disability, including dogs that are used purely for emotional support, are not service animals. The final rule also clarifies that individuals with mental disabilities who use service animals that are trained to perform a specific task are protected by the ADA. The rule permits the use of trained miniature horses as alternatives to dogs, subject to certain limitations. To allow flexibility in situations where using a horse would not be appropriate, the final rule does not include miniature horses in the definition of "service animal."

Fact Sheet -- Highlights of the Final Rule to Amend the Department of Justice's Regulation Implementing Title II of the ADA
​

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't see the problem.

If the owner doesn't want dogs in his restaurant so what?

There are plenty of other restaurant owners who would love the business.

ada says different...

Believe it or not, I was suffering insomnia last night and watching People's Court at three AM this morning and the case was on this topic specifically.

The ADA does NOT protect service dogs that are only for emotional support.

5. Service Animals. The rule defines "service animal" as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. The rule states that other animals, whether wild or domestic, do not qualify as service animals. Dogs that are not trained to perform tasks that mitigate the effects of a disability, including dogs that are used purely for emotional support, are not service animals. The final rule also clarifies that individuals with mental disabilities who use service animals that are trained to perform a specific task are protected by the ADA. The rule permits the use of trained miniature horses as alternatives to dogs, subject to certain limitations. To allow flexibility in situations where using a horse would not be appropriate, the final rule does not include miniature horses in the definition of "service animal."

Fact Sheet -- Highlights of the Final Rule to Amend the Department of Justice's Regulation Implementing Title II of the ADA
​

Interestring. I did not know that. I am physically handicapped, and I see emotional support animals in the grocery store all the time, and just assume that it was the law.

 

[Tresha91203]

I am allergic to dogs and I am a landlord. I am required to accept certain service dogs but not others. I do not have to accept emotional support dogs in my state.

I wish the vet no ill will and don't even doubt that the dog provides him a lot of comfort. I would walk out of the restaurant and request a refund if the owner allowed a dog in there. I can smell them a mile away and soon after cannot smell anything else for days. Dogs and anyone else's food do not belong in the same setting, not restaurants, not grocery stores. I get pissed when people carry their dogs into the post office. Its just rude rude rude.

 

[Montrovant]

ada says different...

Believe it or not, I was suffering insomnia last night and watching People's Court at three AM this morning and the case was on this topic specifically.

The ADA does NOT protect service dogs that are only for emotional support.

5. Service Animals. The rule defines "service animal" as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. The rule states that other animals, whether wild or domestic, do not qualify as service animals. Dogs that are not trained to perform tasks that mitigate the effects of a disability, including dogs that are used purely for emotional support, are not service animals. The final rule also clarifies that individuals with mental disabilities who use service animals that are trained to perform a specific task are protected by the ADA. The rule permits the use of trained miniature horses as alternatives to dogs, subject to certain limitations. To allow flexibility in situations where using a horse would not be appropriate, the final rule does not include miniature horses in the definition of "service animal."

Fact Sheet -- Highlights of the Final Rule to Amend the Department of Justice's Regulation Implementing Title II of the ADA
​

Interestring. I did not know that. I am physically handicapped, and I see emotional support animals in the grocery store all the time, and just assume that it was the law.

I think that may be just store policy and a matter of avoiding potential bad press or litigation. I remember working in a convenient store and being told that anyone with an animal, no matter the person or type of animal, I had to let them keep it inside if they said it was a service animal.

Many places just have very broad corporate policies.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Is "Get out!" what he would say to someone who has a dog because they can not see?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[mamooth]

By the way, if someone tries the "You're not allowed to ask that!" line, that's a 99% indication you're dealing with a scammer, being there is no such law. People who have genuine service dogs will be happy to explain their purpose. (You'd think the scammers could just learn to say "It's a seizure detection dog", being that would pretty much work in all cases.)

As far as the mini horses go, they're used because they live twice as long as dogs. Better payback on the years of training, and someone has to put down a good friend less often.

 

[Noomi]

I have helped veterans get these dogs. This is just sickening.

When James Glaser stepped into Big I’s Restaurant in Oxford, Massachusetts with his service dog Jack, he was quickly told to leave in no uncertain terms. Glaser, a 41-year-old Air Force veteran, was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in November of 2011 when he retired and says that he does not leave his house without Jack by his side. The veteran explained what happened to WHDH 7 News, “I hear, ‘Get that fake service dog out of my restaurant!.’” Big I’s owner, Russell Ireland didn’t consider the canine a true service dog and said, “This is a post-traumatic stress dog. It's to give him emotional support. How much emotional support do you need when you are eating breakfast?”

Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

Gorgeous dog! If its a registered service dog, its illegal to refuse service. This war vet should take that cranky old man all the way to court.

 

[bianco]

How does a restaurant tell a "stress dog" from someone who just wants to bring their pet to breakfast?

The person with the dog should be issued with a special ID...photo of him/her with the dog at the military HQ, the photo also including the issuers in uniform, etc.
The dog to wear a special military 'uniform'/lead, as police dogs do.

Wait a minute, the dog does have a special tag, and its owner special papers.
Make a law, if there's not one already, that it's illegal to refuse service to the dog and its owner.

Restaurant owner seemed to be acting a bit strangely in the video.