Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

Originally posted by HomerinNC
I hope this idiot, Russell Ireland, the owner of Big I's, loses ALL his customers and has to shut down.
This guy is a piece of crap!!

Ah, but had he been thrown out for being gay, it would be just fine and dandy with 95% of ATS, saying the owner has the right to refuse service...blah, blah, blah, blah....disregarding the laws on the books.

Let's see what the hypocrites have to say now............chirp....chirp.

reply to post by HandyDandy


Well, if you would have read a few more responses, you would have understood the difference.

One is the right to refuse service in your establishment, as long as it isn't breaking a law.
The other is the fact that there are laws making it mandatory for your to allow SERVICE dogs in your establishment.

Get it?

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?

It is discrimination to refuse to take a couples picture based on sexual orientation. You can tell a couple i don't want to serve you and that would be legal but you can't tell them I don't want to serve you because you are gay that's illegal.

No restaurant has a right to refuse service animals. I see a managers job at a restaurant opening soon.

Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

Well, if you would have read a few more responses, you would have understood the difference.

One is the right to refuse service in your establishment, as long as it isn't breaking a law.
The other is the fact that there are laws making it mandatory for your to allow SERVICE dogs in your establishment.

Get it?

Had you read the other threads, it was against the law in the other cases as well but people didn't like the law and said the owner has the right to refuse.

Which is it?

reply to post by HandyDandy


I think the way you say the people to leave the establishment.

I think if the Wedding cake shops said "I don;t want to serve you because you are gay" = illegal, but they just said "i don't want to serve you" = legal.

This restaurant owner could have gotten away if he was not so specific.



Its like telling someone i will not hire you when they hand in the resume, would be bad, but you would rather take their resume and throw it in the trash... same result but legal.

reply to post by HandyDandy


It's a pretty fine line. If you're hiring someone (like a photographer), they can refuse service for just about any reason they want to unless you fall under one of the "protected classes", in which case they can't refuse service for those reasons. So if the photographer just said "I'm too busy", or "I'm not available that date" then they didn't do anything wrong. If they said "I won't do it because you're gay" then they're in the wrong under discrimination laws.

www.legalzoom.com...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If they said "I won't do it because you're gay" then they're in the wrong under discrimination laws.

www.legalzoom.com...

In the two instances that we (both myself and DarthPrime) are talking about, the owner's did in fact state the reason was because the customers where gay or having a gay wedding = illegal.

I see no difference here. But go read those threads and see how many people where championing the right of the owner to refuse service for any reason they saw fit. But, turn it around to a veteran with a service dog and now they want the owner to loose their bussiness.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

reply to post by AthiestJesus

As an owner of a restaurant I wouldn`t want any animals at all through my doors to be honest

Hey, its us animals coming through that door that keep your restaurant in business

Originally posted by AthiestJesus

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by AthiestJesus

 

SOO

this is NOT about a veteran whose nature of disability is PTSD? And the Dog was NOT assigned to him as part of his treatment?

because I could have sworn that that is EXACTLY what this is about. That the law still applies to him and the reason why is everything I just stated, as stated in the OP....

If I am wrong then slap my ass and call me naughty. I thought everything mentioned was on topic and your little opportune rant about the sickening nature of "military praise" was not. (out of place, inappropriate)

Maybe you should keep your sickness and your tripe to yourself. No one cares about that. THAT is for sure.

edit on 28-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

Yeah yeah yeah , let it all out .

What I posted was not a rant , and let me try to get this through your ego one more time - This story is not about a veteran , the story ---- is not about his service history ....... This story has nothing to do with his background ........ getting it yet ? There is no need to mention the fact that he`s a veteran over and over , that is a media trick used on people like your self who hear the word veteran and immediately start marching around the living room singing the national anthem.

My sickness ? Dude you`re acting like a complete idiot here , I`m sick for not worshipping glorified murderers who don`t know their arse from their elbow ?

Oh man this site is funny some times.

Just look at how worked up you`re getting over this , you`re playing right into their hands .

edit on 28-8-2013 by AthiestJesus because: (no reason given)

Delusions of grandeur.

What is it with your worship for the troops?

You come on here ranting about how you shouldn't worship troops and its not a thread about a veteran,

Nothing to do with his background, service history etc.

Well your correct its about the refusal of the owner and the laws broken to allow veterans and their assigned dogs into public places.

If you want to rant about not worshiping the troops there are many threads on ATS to tickle your fancy with

reply to post by AthiestJesus

Same could be said about having a dog in a restaurant though to be fair , a lot of people would see it as fairly rude to bring a dog into an area where they were eating food .... especially in this day and age .

Especially in this day and age,

are you living in the dark ages?


Dogs as family pets and human companions has never been as popular as in this day and age and that is 2013.

If they left out his background they would have a story , but all they have here is gossip about a veteran .

NO about the law being broken

Originally posted by AthiestJesus

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by AthiestJesus

 

If they left out his background they would have a story , but all they have here is gossip about a veteran.

So why is it that since he's a veteran it's just "gossip about a veteran" and not a story?

Because they make a point of highlighting the fact that he is a veteran .... It isn`t hard to understand .

So details of story need to be what? labeled top secret and not discussed.

What would be the point of news and media if no details were given?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by AthiestJesus

 

And? The law still applies to him. It is still a story and the restaurant was still wrong to do it. The basic facts of the story are exactly the same veteran or not.

Yeah but stop trying to force the readers to worship veterans

Zaphod,

I find that actually heart warming that a law is in place like this for animals that have served us.

I am now curious if something like this law is in place in Australia.

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

Well, if you would have read a few more responses, you would have understood the difference.

One is the right to refuse service in your establishment, as long as it isn't breaking a law.
The other is the fact that there are laws making it mandatory for your to allow SERVICE dogs in your establishment.

Get it?

Had you read the other threads, it was against the law in the other cases as well but people didn't like the law and said the owner has the right to refuse.

Which is it?

just read the thread, its all here. this isn't other threads

The owner has the right to refuse but not discriminate, get it.

If a store owner refused service because of a persons skin colour, religious belief or sexual preference then its discrimination,

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
just read the thread, its all here. this isn't other threads

The owner has the right to refuse but not discriminate, get it.

If a store owner refused service because of a persons skin colour, religious belief or sexual preference then its discrimination,

Maybe you read a different thread than I did?

The owner of a cake shop or a photography shop is discriminating when they state "I will not serve you because you are..............."

Get it?

What is the difference here?

reply to post by HandyDandy

But go read those threads and see how many people where championing the right of the owner to refuse service for any reason they saw fit.

Yes as long as it doesn't go against discrimination laws.

turn it around to a veteran with a service dog and now they want the owner to loose their bussiness.

Yes because its against the law.

Same as the photographer refusing for the reasons of the couple being gay.

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
Yes because its against the law.

Same as the photographer refusing for the reasons of the couple being gay.

Thank you.

The point I was making.

Now why was 95% of ATS applauding the discrimination of a gay couple but those same people want the owner of this restaurant to loose his bussiness?

I know the answer but I want to hear it from you.

reply to post by HomerinNC


www.ada.gov...

Sounds to me like someone needs to be fined.
Breaking the law.

Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go. For example, in a hospital it would be inappropriate to exclude a service animal from areas such as patient rooms, clinics, cafeterias, or examination rooms. However, it may be appropriate to exclude a service animal from operating rooms or burn units where the animal’s presence may compromise a sterile environment.

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?

Okay, you might have a point. Let's put this in perspective. Granted there should be NO discrimination but to deny a man a meal is very wrong.

reply to post by HandyDandy

Now why was 95% of ATS applauding the discrimination of a gay couple but those same people want the owner of this restaurant to loose his bussiness?

Are you seriously asking me this question or joking?

How many member's does ATS have? what would be 95% of that? were that many involved in that thread?

where did you get the 95% figure from, who are these same people your talking about?

discuss what is in this thread and discuss other threads where the discussion belongs.

I know the answer but I want to hear it from you.

My answer is: I can speak for myself and not some random 95% figure you pulled from where again?

reply to post by HandyDandy


not if its against the law. The states where businesses refused service do NOT have legalized gay marriage. The state does not license it so really why would the businesses "just know" they HAVE to provide service for an act the very state does not condone.

When you own a business you are told what laws you must obay. In this case the owner knew, but is a prick. Look at this slob....."ooh to much comfort" .

well, sir......why don't you go play a nice little game of hide and go #%$@ yourself....jerk.

Some people have penis envy of soldiers and get angry when ANYONE considers them in any way...especially with courtesy as human beings.

Look how well programmed people are here to take issue with a component of the story just because a word....."veteran" is used. They practically barf on command. And they call us programmed .....priceless really.
as if a distain for military people and patriotism can't be programmed in exactly the same manner they say we are by the opposite side of the political spectrum.

So this HUMAN being is deprived a civil liberty....something the opposition supposedly defends tooth and nail, yet because he is of a certain profession he should expect to be treated as a second class citizen by the extremists who can't look past his personal history and see a person, fellow citizen, fellow human.

Pity they don't practice what they preach.

hypocrites.