I don’t believe that I’ve ever started a pit thread – though I’ve occasionally contributed to others – and I am sure many will be surprised that this isn’t a pit thread from me isn’t cursing out some animal torturing jackass (though if you want me to, I’ll oblige).
While this is animal related, it is a mistreatment of a few fellow human beings with animal helpers that has gotten my ire up. Below are snippets from the news articles and links to same, which say in essence that because of a few business owners were ignorant of the ADA laws, these people and their animals were turned away.
You will notice that in all cases the businesses blamed the customer (practically to the point of calling them liars) for not being MORE obvious in identifying their dogs as service animals – I guess they want glowing neon signs or something – and/or ignored or dismissed them when they did identify them as such. I guess it never occurred to them that these persons with disabilities were trying to be “normal” and not draw unnecessary attention to their disability. Of course, it seems part of the growing trend in too many service industry businesses: “the customer is always wrong.”
BTW, you will note that the ADA does not require that an animal be certified or licensed (written proof) as a “service animal” to meet the definition and qualify for use as a service animal.
Now, I’m not saying they owe these people a quarter-mil for mental anguish or something, but a public apology and coupon for a free something would be a positive start. Here’s a link to the service animal section ADA website. If you feel as honked off as I do, perhaps you’ll drop the owners of these businesses a polite note (addresses are easily found thru a Yahoo! search, or email me) encouraging them to learn the ADA laws and show some remorse for mistreating these customers.
I couldn’t agree more with your rant. I have worked in various food service establishments, and when we see service animals the animals are usually better trained and behaved than human children. Businesses that don’t allow service animals should be called on the carpet.
Minor aside, with all the folks that do have service animals, why don’t we see them in church/religious services? Surely some people that are blind, deaf, or need other types of assistance are also religious. It just occurs to me I have never seen a “seeing eye dog” in church.
I remember once seeing a man in a wheel chair with an absolutely gorgeous red Irish Setter mix as a guide dog. He caught me starring-the dog was just so CUTE!!! I told him so, and he grinned.
Of course, at my work company policy excludes animals but we let 'em in anyway. Several of our regulars bring them in. Likethe lady who buys the low salt prezels on her walk with her greyhound. She’s out with that dog 2-3 a day, and loves it like a child. Its better behaved than most toddlers (it doesn’t touch anything on the shelves, not even a sniff at the gum and candy which is at its nose level.).
Ditto for the lady who has some wicked form of cancer and is in 2-3 times a week to get drugs. She brings her itty bitty tiny dog (no clue on breed) in with her. You can be the asshole that tells the dying-of-cancer-bald-lady to leave the dog that’s the size of my hand out side. I refuse, I’m getting my puppy kiss, thank you. (Its the cutest thing, and it loves people.)
Grump. Some people’s kids need to pull their heads outta their butts.
I’m with you on the motel situation (though it looks like a misunderstanding that could have been cleared up with a little more reasonableness on both sides).
The restaurant case – I gotta stick up for the owner a bit here. Most jurisdictions (including, apparently, his) have (stupid) laws on the books banning animals from premeses on the (incorrect) basis that they are somehow unsanitary. Restaurants can get fined big coin for allowing dogs on inside.
Now cometh the ADA. OK, dogs <i>are</i> allowed, even required to be allowed inside, even though they are still banned if they are not a disability companion.
So not only is the restauranteur required to know the ADA, he has to know that it supercedes local laws regarding pets on the premesis, he has to have faith that the inspector who happens on the scene will agree with that interpretation and that said inspector will correctly identify the dog as a guide (even though the proprieter failed to on first look), and he has to have a way to screen real guide dogs from people who just want to have their pets with them. If he fails at any of these, he faces a fine.
Sorry. Until the law corrects obviously contradicting statutes from the books, I can’t get mad at a guy who accidently picks the “wrong” one. The onus has to be on the guide owner here.
Sorry, Manhattan, but I can’t agree. If you’re a business owner, it behooves you to learn ALL the laws that effect your business operations. Besides which, the ADA is not some little obscure law you’d have to dig through dozens of law books to find and understand. I neither own a business, nor am disabled, and I know the law at least in a cursory manner.
Further, if you read the articles completely including his quotes, this owner went beyond – “gee I didn’t know.” He comes off as a regular jackass. When he learned the correct answer, he should have apologized no matter what. Instead he – in what reads hostile and disrespecting to me – said that he didn’t speak to her personally, he spoke to everyone in the general area about getting the dog out, so, he says that doesn’t own HER an apology.
By the way, did you look at the photograph of the woman with her service dog? I think it is pretty obvious that this is a service animal.
It’s about fighting not excusing ignorance, right? Isn’t there a saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it?
I looked at the picture - and I’m afraid I don’t know how exactly to determine that it is a guide dog. What is it about the dog and its harness that clearly and unambiguously identifies it as such? I consider myself a relatively aware person, and all I see is a dog with a nice harness.
And then, I saw this in the article:
“Companion” to me means “pet”. What if she refused to say it was a “guide dog”? Would you still blame the business?
And while business owners should be somewhat more knowledgeable about the laws than was indicated in the article (as unconstitutionally vague as the ADA is…but let’s not go there yet), should every single employee be forced to know this? Try asking the high school kids at McDonalds what they know about ADA, and they’ll likely reply that “they don’t do drugs”.
Her case isn’t helped at all by the people who take their dogs into the supermarket, and lie baldfaced to the staff and tell them their Chihuahua is a “guide dog”, so it can ride in the cart with them. There’s a lady at my supermarket that does that - what, exactly, is the animal guiding whilst riding in her shopping cart? But they’re helpless to stop her little rat dog from sticking its nose into the produce as her cart pulls up (which I saw), because she claimed it was a “guide dog”, and the store had no recourse whatsoever to stop her. Is that fair? Is that the way we want society to work now?
Also from the article:
Why is this, exactly? Why is it not a requirement that there is any unambiguous indication that the animal is needed, especially when there is the potential for conflicts with other State, County, City, and other local laws? When it would be so simple to have a yellow flag on the harness that says “GUIDE DOG”, would anyone go out of their way not to smooth their path through society? This makes no sense to me whatsoever, and sounds like someone is just looking for a confrontation.
Note I’m not talking about any new Federal license, or regulation, or whatever. I’m talking about common societal courtesy of indicating to people that your animal is needed.
And there is precedent for identifying yourself as disabled - see automotive handicapped stickers, for example. No one has ever successfully claimed it was somehow “discriminatory” to “force” them to hang a handicapped tag in their mirror in return for parking in the handicapped spots.
I would also think that it might keep people from playing with and distracting the guide animals, as I have been told that that is a frequent problem in some cases.
I’m not trying to flame you, and I agree with most of your rant. I really do. But in my reading of the articles, it does not seem that in all cases there was an unambiguous indication that it was a guide/helper animal. Yeah, the businesses are acting like assholes, but what do you expect? We now have these people talking about or hinting at “Lawsuit! Lawsuit!”, and the businesses now have to “circle the wagons”, because if they try to admit they were wrong and make things right at this point, due to how our profoundly sick society works they not only will still be sued, as people envision their huge payoffs that they somehow deserve for a few minutes inconvenience, but the admission of wrongdoing by the business will pretty much settle the case against them.
I see a lot of smoke here, but little fire. I think this was blown out of proportion by both sides - by the businesses first, and now the patrons.
I live in the San Fernando valley near where some guide dogs are trained. Local families raise puppies for them and do some of the early training. It is fairly common to see people with these puppies in local stores and malls. All of these dogs wear a yellow “jacket” that says Guide dog in training.
It would not seem to be unreasonable for fully trained dogs to due something similar. It would tend to eliminate the that is just a pet arguement
I’d rather the occasional jerk got their undeserving pet into a store than have genuinely blind people shut out, certainly. I think you’re underestimating the desire of people with disabilities to not have little things marking them out as such. Sure, a jacket on the dog or some such would make identification much easier, but at the cost of instantly singling people out. Even with the best of intentions, it could make people genuinely uncomfortable for the sake of smoothing the occasional shop situation. I also don’t think the car sticker is quite a valid analogy, because that’s attached to the car and is only really noticeable when the car is parked, and therefore unoccupied.
Basically, I think people who falsely claim their pets are service animals are in the minority, and that genuine guide dog owners should not be inconvenienced (however trivially) by such asses. Perhaps some sort of branding scheme is in order, whereby liars are stamped on the forehead so store owners will know in future?
I think you misunderstand - it’s not an either or situation. I want the jerks to not abuse the extra privledges granted to those truly deserving of them, AND I want the people who need a helper animal to NOT be harassed or restricted from both exercising their legal rights, and from having a polite society which accomodates them.
But there is something that those with helper animals can do to help society help them - identify their animal as such.
Well…in Kansas and Missouri, it’s on their license plate as well as hanging from the mirror, so it is a valid analogy in my State(s).
I would also submit, respectfully, that having a helper animal inside the restaurant or hotel, when people know that that is the only animal allowed, already makes them “stand out”. All I propose is that those with helper animals help to identify them at first to the owners and proprietors of the establishments.
Re: Harness - I personally have never seen that type of harness on anything other than a service animal (the rods coming off the back of the harness seem the dead giveaway to me). I have, however, seen some guide dogs with signs on their harnesses which indicate they are working dogs and ask people to refrain from distracting (i.e. petting) them. And yes, I understand that the dog alone draws attention to their disability and wouldn’t mind a sign on the dog, but the handicapped person should not then have to walk in and declare aloud as a disclaimer: “I’m blind – this is my seeing eye dog.” For now, the ADA doesn’t require either.
Now, let me say that I’m not out to change the world or the laws about animals in or out of businesses with this meager diatribe. I found these incidents (and most specifically the restaurant) offense for the total lack of respect and willingness to politely inquire or investigate before making judgements. Or having found out that he was a service dog, simply apologizing. Making it especially disstressing is the fact that it said this was one of the first times she’d taken her newly trained seeing-eye dog out since she became blind.
Anthracite asked what do I expect. I expect common courtesy and respect – whether it is a pet or service dog. I am not prepared to completely give up on the idea that those in a service industry should respectfully treat and service people willing to pay for said services. (No matter how much society proves me wrong!) Even if this was a pet, a simple, polite response such as: “Excuse me, health code regulations prohibit animals in the restaurant – please step outside with your dog” is not TOO much to ask, IMHO. Nor is a “Sorry m’am, I didn’t realize he was a guide dog.”
I also am not talking about 16-yr-old Skippy Jr. making $5.25/hour at McDees knowing the ADA laws – this was the business owner. You will note that I said it behooves business owners to know the laws. An employee should defer to the manager or owner in such cases and, yes, I think it reasonable to assume someone in either position – owner or manager – know the laws.
As far as lawsuits – neither of the articles mentioned them, though I’ll reread them to be sure. What I believe they referenced was the filing complaints with boards which investigate and, if necessary, reprimand the business for not conforming to the law. I can’t say I know for sure, but I would imagine them to be much like filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau or the state attorney general. Plus, you will note that regarding the hotel, the woman said she would not being filing a complaint–she just wants to raise awareness.
Anthracite also quoted the article thusly:
If you’ll back up a paragraph in the article, you will note Just (the customer) said:
“I told them I had a friend with me who was disabled and had an assistance dog. I offered to show the woman the dog’s papers.”
Now, true, it could be that both sides of this misunderstanding are coloring this more black and white to prove their own points, but if it is true that she offered to show her the dog’s papers, it hardly sounds like she was talking merely of the dog as a companion (pet). Especially when she mentioned that the motel would be violating ADA by not allowing the dog.
Sidenote, please note that there are other types of service animals/dogs besides guide dogs for the blind. There are dogs which assist with balance/walking, alerting the hard of hearing, etc. And don’t forget grandpa Simpson’s helper monkey!
Finally, if you want to talk about abuse of a program/law/resource to help the handicapped, I’ve seen way too many news stories about people abusing the handicapped car tag privilege to steal spaces from the truly handicapped. I also had a friend who at age 25 happened to be like 6’2 and 250 lbs of muscle who had a degenerative hip disorder that caused him paint and discomfort while walking. He had a legitimate hangtag and was frequently kept out of handicapped spaces by non-tagged cars parked illegall and/or would sometimes get stares or murmured remarks when he did use these spaces–he walked with a limp and cane, but it didn’t wear a sign on his chest that read: “I’m handicapped.”
After reading this thread, I decided to pay a bit of attention to the signage on some of the stores in this town (Davis, CA). All of the signs for supermarkets and restaurants that I noticed had “No Animals, Except for Guide Dogs” or similar wording. Now I admit I only checked two neighbourhoods but it’s a small town so my unscientific survey stands as is.
No, a simple yellow plastic note or something would be a clear giveaway. And there wouldn’t be any verification required. All the employer has to say to their employees is “look out for animals tagged as helper animals”. It’s simple.
This is true - anyone in the service industry should in fact show a higher level of courtesy than normal.
I should have said “legal action”, not “lawsuit”. But my point stands - once people start talking about legal action, businesses are forced to now do the dishonorable thing and not admit fault, no matter what.
The article does not say anything other than he-says she-says. The writer of the article was not a party to the altercation, so they cannot report one side as being factual and the other side as not.
The solution to this is painfully simple, although people refuse to do it.
There is no excuse at all for parking in a handicapped spot without being handicapped. None. So, the most simple way to stop people from doing it is to have as a penalty a $500 fine for a towing charge, and confiscation of the car - permanently. On a second offence, the offender’s license is suspended for 3 years, and the car is confiscated. On a third offence, they go to jail. Simple, elegant, and you can be goddamn certain that you wouldn’t see non-handicapped persons parking in the handicapped spots anymore.
And all confiscated cars would be donated via a lottery system to low-income families in the State.
Handy, his dog, had a collar tag identifying him as a guide dog from Guide Dogs for the Blind in San Rafael Ca.
John, my ex, had a card in his wallet that had the ADA law printed on it.
No way in hell was anyone going to mistake John for a pranskster. Not with that smashed in face and closed eyes… likewise for any of our other blind friends who had guide dogs…
As to the church question asked by Baker : John would leave Handy home because the seats in the church were uncomfortably close for a LARGE dog like Handy. Also there were plenty of people earning their way to heaven by helping out the “poor blind guy” ( John’s words)
John and I had little trouble taking Handy in to restaurant and when he did a quick call to the police department usually cleared things up
Two places you can NOT take a guide dog… the cats at the zoo and the ICU of the hospital…
Handy, his dog, had a collar tag identifying him as a guide dog from Guide Dogs for the Blind in San Rafael Ca.
John, my ex, had a card in his wallet that had the ADA law printed on it.
No way in hell was anyone going to mistake John for a pranskster. Not with that smashed in face and closed eyes… likewise for any of our other blind friends who had guide dogs…
A yellow tag or sign? Like one more way to point at these people and make them feel humiliated and small and unwanted in society?
“I am sorry Mr. Jones you forgot your yellow tag this morning you can’t come in here. Good day”
Maybe the solution is to put tags on the sighted people… the blind people won’t notice that!
You ever watch a blind person move? Ever watch their hands? Therre are several movement that are very distinctive of blind people. Try faking being blind sometime… see how hard it is to remember to to focus on things in front of you. I think a faker would be picked out pretty easily.
As to the church question asked by Baker : John would leave Handy home because the seats in the church were uncomfortably close for a LARGE dog like Handy. Also there were plenty of people earning their way to heaven by helping out the “poor blind guy” ( John’s words)
John and I had little trouble taking Handy in to restaurant and when he did a quick call to the police department usually cleared things up
Two places you can NOT take a guide dog… the cats at the zoo and the ICU of the hospital…
I apologize for the double post there… my computer had stress
Mid life crisis I suspect
And I thought of something more to say not realizing that my first attempt had posted.
Also the post should say remember NOT to focus on things when you fake being blind…
BRRRRRRRRRRRZZZZZZZZZ! Yes, there IS one reason for an able-bodied to park in a handicapped spot. Just one. And that’s if the able-bodied is transporting someone handicapped. That’s why cripples are such fun to take shopping - you get better parking.
But seriously (not that parking at the mall isn’t serious), the little dangly thing you hang from the rear view mirror isn’t restricted to a particular vehicle, it travels with the handicapped person (or, as my husband likes to refer to them, including himself, “the gimp”). So, if you drive my husband to the doctor’s office or grocery store or whatever you can park (with him) in the handicap spot, slap the dangle up there, and be OK. I’ve know at least one blind person - who obviously isn’t driving anywhere - who also had just such a placard to use when folks ferried him around.
There are instances where the able-bodied person parks, slaps up the dangle, and gets out with no “gimp” in sight - last time I got called on it I explained I was there to pick up the handicapped, which satisfied the cop just fine. The fact I was in a hospital parking lot probably helped - it’s one of the areas you’d see this happening. It’s a legitimate use, but don’t get caught abusing it.
Funny story - drove to my train station one morning, like I always do, and parked in West Bumfuck, like always. A fellow commuter noticed the handicapped dangle stuck in the sunvisor and asked why I didn’t use it. Explained it was the husband’s and I wasn’t handicapped so I couldn’t legally use it without him in the car. Other person expressed much shock that I wouldn’t automatically cheat, take advantage of it, etc. Well, fact is, using it outside of the rules subjects me to the same able-bodied-in-gimp-spot penalties, plus extras for fraud and stuff, AND they confiscate the dangle which means the gimpy husband now has to park in West Bumfuck. This is not something you do to someone you love.
Also, the one-legged guy with the crutches who rides my train watches for crap like that, reports it, and does a surprisingly good job of running down the two-legged and whacking them. You don’t want to be hit by someone who uses crutches 24/7. “Biceps like my thighs” is not an exaggeration.
No, no, no! Too complicated! First offense, break both the bastard’s legs. You want to park in the gimp spot? Fine, we’ll make you a gimp. Happy now?
I was talking about was people who did not have the right to use handicapped parking in any way using it. Obviously if someone is legally transporting a handicapped person, and that is allowed under the law (I’m not sure it is in Kansas), then they would have to be exempt.
