It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No this is a thread about a disabled person.. The thread plays on the fact that he is a veteran like he deserves something extra because of that... Simple as.....
Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by HomerinNC
What the what? Over a dog really? Because he didn't believe it was actually a service dog? Yea the whole thing is, kind of more then stupid. The guy said he would allow legitimate service dogs/animals in but he believed that was not the case in this particular case and so got worked up over that. This thing belongs in the funny papers more then anything else. I mean don't know if that is discrimination or just a bad case of mistaken identity or who the hell knows. In any case it escalated way farther then it should of.
Originally posted by WilsonWilson
I dont think the armed forces on any western antion has made human rights possible.
It's the civilians who work tirelessly to promote equlaity and fairness that do this.
the people in the military dont do that.
Originally posted by Darth_Prime
reply to post by Zaphod58
i was referencing it to make a point, refusing to take the pictures because they are a Same sex couple is discrimination under law, and multiple people said a store has the right to refuse service,
a man gets told to leave a restaurant because his animal, so that would mean this restaurant has the right to refuse service?
I clearly said that I don't see how it's neccessary to have a service dog unless someone can explained to me how it's not possible for someone with PTSD to eat breakfast without one.
It's amazing how that part of the statement was magically removed when you quoted it. Why can't it be tied up outside? Is the real problem that you don't have an answer
I can almost guarantee you that I have a lot more traumatic stress in my life than this war veteran and I don't require a canine companion to eat breakfast in a privately-owned restaurant that refuses admittance of animals.
Originally posted by LogicalRazor
Again, I also don't see why he would have died or suffered a break down if he just tied his mutt outside while he ate.
This guy is a drama queen and an embarrassment to everyone who has worn the uniform.
Before I enlisted, as a teenager I was a gang member and I saw some real traumatic sh---. I was stabbed in the face and I still have a 4 inch scar on my left side to remind me of those lovely days...every time I look in the mirror. Couple that with the action I saw in Iraq and I bet this nancy has not seen half the things I went through.
Believe me, he does not NEED a dog to do anything. Stupid soft/sensitive therapists and fellow enablers out there make him think he does.
Originally posted by RedCairo
I think shifting this to a debate about whether a veteran is an emotional pansy does a great disservice to veterans as well as to the OP and the thread itself.
It is not relevant whether or not he could have left the dog outside. What is relevant is that he has legal documentation, the restaurant is a legal business, and they are required to provide for/allow those with legal status as disabled to have guide animals.