Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

Originally posted by tadaman
one is legal limbo and the other is explicitly illegal

If refusing service based on religious beliefs is legal limbo, then why are some congressmen trying to introduce bills that make it legal?

Republican Sen. Sharon Brown of Kennewick has introduced a new bill allowing businesses to refuse service to customers due to their religious beliefs, drawing sharp criticism from some Senate Democrats.

capitolrecord.tvw.org...

Not so "cut-n-dry" now is it?

“The whole notion that a business should have the right to discriminate against it’s customers is abhorrent,” Murray said.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

No, because the Supreme Court already ruled you can't discriminate against disabled people.

And the supreme court has ruled that you cannot discriminate based on sexual preference also.

People still championed to be able to do that one though.

By law it sounds like the restaurant was wrong.

That said I personally don't want to go out to eat at a restaurant and be seated near a dog. You have no idea how clean this guy keeps his dog he could be bringing fleas into an eating establishment. Dogs also shed a lot of hair which ends up everywhere.

I love dogs and I can imagine that this one is a very special friend indeed but dogs don't belong in restaurants period.

Hey, this is about a disabled guy who wanted to some food and was turned away because he has a service dog. It is not about ANYTHING else so enough with the derailment. Gay rights has nothing to do with this thread. There is nothing to compare.

The owner of this restaurant is a tool. He more than likely has something against vets and not dogs. That makes it even worse. Like minded of those on here who are putting down the service this man gave. No matter why he was hurt and needs this dog to cope. Where is the compassion for people that used to be so common in the world. If I lived in a 3rd world hovel I would ask to come to the US and blow some stuff up too so the selfish of this country might wake up and see that there are others in the world besides themselves.

reply to post by MystikMushroom

And lastly, he has a dog for PTSD? If he's so bad that he needs a dog, what is he doing out in public -- at a restaurant even? I know people with bad PTSD (to the point they pretty much stay at home). They don't have service dogs

That has got to be one of the most ignorant things I have seen on this site in a while. Maybe if the people you know had dogs they would be more comfortable leaving their homes? I think you are one of the many who have a very skewed view of what PTSD is and just how it effects those who suffer through it. So by your logic all people who are affected by PTSD should just stay at home and never go out in public? I got news for you, that is a very narrow way of thinking and would never work. Part of the healing and recovery process for those with PTSD is to try to face some of the things that they are bothered by and having a dog that is trained for that specific reason along makes that possible.

I'm not just talking about veterans either. There are plenty of people out there that use service dogs for PTSD that have never served in the military. PTSD is a hard thing to deal with and when people like you make statements such as the one I just quoted it only makes it worse for those who are really having a hard time. We face enough challenges in our lives and you are just adding to those challenges with those remarks.

reply to post by HandyDandy


That's why it's a grey area.

reply to post by HandyDandy


KEY WORD.....TRYING

Its NOT law and there exists a legal limbo

Originally posted by tadaman
Its NOT law and there exists a legal limbo

It IS law and there exists NO legal limbo.

There is already a law on the books. That is why some congressmen are introducing bills to make it legal.

What part of "already on the books" makes this legal limbo?

reply to post by matafuchs


No one is able to draw parallels?

I just find it funny that many are A-OK with skirting one law but bastardize a bussiness for another parallel law.

Originally posted by rival
The restaurant owner broke the law. The laws states service animals must be allowed...

It matter not that he was a veteran, an ex-president, or an ex-con...the law applies to all
with disabilities

yep this is what it comes down to, hopefully this guy gets sued and shut down.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Because religion doesn't take precedence over laws, you have your Freedom of religion but at no point does that give you right to discriminate someone that is protected under law, regardless if you believe in the law or not

reply to post by brandiwine14

That said I personally don't want to go out to eat at a restaurant and be seated near a dog. You have no idea how clean this guy keeps his dog he could be bringing fleas into an eating establishment. Dogs also shed a lot of hair which ends up everywhere.

I love when people give their personal opinion and it shows ignorance on their part.

Why? because I do it too often, so being a hypocrite, I might be able help to see from another perspective or not.


When you go to a restaurant how do you know how clean the person sitting on the table next to yours is?

That person sitting next to could be bringing lice into the eating establishment or the cold virus or the flu.

People with hair also shed it, so whats your point, does human hair react differently than dogs fur and stays in a corner away from people when its shed and a dogs just goes everywhere?

Please contact them and let them know what you think.

Big I's
578 Main St, Oxford, MA
508-987-2224

Pitiful enough it gets 1.2 stars out of 5 with 94 reviews on the site i got the contact info from.

I'm going to mail them a box of dog poop. It's legal, I've done it before and checked with the authorities in advance.

reply to post by InhaleExhale


Yes, i've thought about that, which is why I don't rub my head on the seat. Fleas jump a lot farther than lice and also carry far worse diseases. And yes people do shed their hair but not at the rate which dogs do. What if it gets excited and pees on the floor next to you I dont know humans who do that do you? What if someone is allergic? What then? Who sues who? You do realize that many people are allergic right? and many expect to be able to go out to eat without having to choke down dog hair?

If I wanted to sit down with dogs and eat i'd stay at home and eat on the floor with my dogs. I don't want dogs in a restaurant where I am eating and would gladly tell the owner of the dog so. Besides this was not a seeing eye dog this was a dog for someone with anxiety. He should just stay home then if he is so frightened by the world.

Im tired of this ptsd crap anyways. Who the hell hasn't had some trauma in their lives at this point?

reply to post by Darth_Prime


Which is why the Supreme Court is and will be involved. You can't force someone to go against their religion, but at the same time you can't discriminate against someone either.

reply to post by brandiwine14



Yes, because that trauma you had is certainly the same a sitting on the ground holding your blown off fit in your hands. Or trying to hold your buddies intestines on place until the medics can get there to try to save him. It's exactly the same.

But you know just for you we'll just Babb people with service animals from coming out in public. Then you won't have to eat near a dog, or shop near one.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yes, but my point was why is one okay with so many people and not the other?

because he was a Veteran it is disgraceful and disrespectful, but for the Homosexuals couples they are just pushing an agenda, seeking attention and the store has the right to refuse service

why is one okay to accept and not the other, that is showcasing not only a hypocrisy in people but that these issues remain regardless if people say they don't

reply to post by Darth_Prime


Because one involves Religion, and the other involves patriotism.

reply to post by Zaphod58


You have no idea what I experienced years ago so please don't compare the brutal torture I went through (and far too many others go through) to a soldier in the military who should by all means be fit mentally to deal with death and destruction. It's like people forget what they are in for when they join the military, jeez odds are you will see death and it will not be pretty.

People everywhere suffer from trauma and most will get through it because they recognize that life is short sometimes it sucks and sometimes you just need a bit more time to get through the hard parts. But lately it seems as if people don't even try to get through they just up and get benefits and whine and think they are the only ones in the world who've suffered. Try living in parts of Africa and watching babies get their heads chopped off or seeing all your children die from aids...then maybe just maybe I might agree. But as I stated earlier this is a career choice he made intentionally knowing death is most certain to be around him at some point, he should have been conditioned for it.


It's because of weak people like him that our government thinks we need to be babied and monitered and in the end I think that's why I have such a hard time caring for him and other weakminded people like him.

But no matter my opinions which i'm sure upset many of your bleeding hearts, the law is on his side he gets to have his little doggy eat wherever he chooses as i'm sure this unfortunate restaurant owner has found out.

reply to post by brandiwine14


I forgot that when you join the military you stop being human and lose the right to feel things when you lose friends.

Yeah you're right, we're all just bleeding hearts who make the world harder for the real people like you, the tough ones. We need to weed out losers like this guy and anytime else who needs a service animal, then the world will be a better place.