# Dear Weirdo: please curb your so-called "service dog"

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-weirdo-please-curb-your-so-called-service-dog/780903>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [February 27, 2017, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-weirdo-please-curb-your-so-called-service-dog/780903 "2017-02-27T00:51:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2017, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-weirdo-please-curb-your-so-called-service-dog/780903/141 "2017-03-14T15:41:10Z")

</div>

> [@curlcoat](#):
>
> I had trouble parsing this - maybe it’s the wine … Anyway, if you are saying that maybe the government should allow somewhat more invasive questions to determine if someone really needs a service dog, or if it is actually an emotional support dog, well I personally wouldn’t have much of a problem with that. Being disabled is simply a fact of life for some folks so I can’t see why most would have a problem with questions like “is this a service dog or support dog” or “are you in need of a service dog due to a disability” or even " what the heck is your disability anyway" 😃

Yeah maybe the wine. But no I wasn’t particularly saying the govt should allow more invasive questions. I was just saying it’s BS to set out some narrow lawyerly distinction between what you can ask and what you can’t, which is the current policy. Another poster linked to it somewhere above. Basically your first example question would be allowed, second one I believe not, third one definitely not though in common sense terms they are similar questions. But average people aren’t lawyers. In real life basically you’re allowed to politely ask about something or you’re not. The current policy IMO will generally be interpreted by every day business owners as ‘you better not ask’. And there are always ‘folks’ who do take offense at any and everything and call a lawyer and sue if they can. That’s the reality of American society now. I’m not proposing some big solution to it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2017, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-weirdo-please-curb-your-so-called-service-dog/780903/142 "2017-03-16T04:23:15Z")

</div>

> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> I was at the Post Office a few weeks ago and one of the guys behind the counter turned a man with a small dog away, telling him he couldn’t bring the animal inside unless it was a Seeing Eye dog (which it clearly was not and the guy was clearly not blind).

Other people have alluded to this, but I’ll outright say it: if this was in the US, that employee was way in the wrong.

There is no law on the books anywhere in the country that puts seeing eye dogs in a different category than other service animals.

Any dog that’s trained to provide a service to assist someone in compensating with a disability is on the same level & allowed inside that building–regardless of whether or not that service is eye sight related.

Rather than congratulating him, you should’ve reported him. Whether that particular dog was actually a service dog or not is wholly irrelevant–that particular employee has demonstrated a blatant disregard of the ADA. This time it was a dick without a service dog, but next time it may be someone with seizures or PTSD.

If this wasn’t in the US, then your country’s disability regulations are incredibly screwed up if you only view the blind as needing & being worthy of a service dog.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-weirdo-please-curb-your-so-called-service-dog/780903.md?page=7)