Restaurant Turns Away Diners For Having Too Many Service Dogs

[J.T]

Police were summoned to a Boston-area restaurant over the weekend after a group of 13 diners, including six with service dogs, were turned away by the manager for fear that so many canines could cause chaos.
"Ignorance of the law: it's an explanation, but it's not an excuse," one of the turned-away diners, who is legally blind, told WBZ-TV.
The restaurant had previously allowed diners to bring in service dogs but the manager was concerned that the half-dozen service animals could cause problems at the restaurant's buffet and bother other diners with allergies. WBZ-TV says he suggested the diners let the dogs wait outside.
http://consumerist.com/2011/06/restaurant-turns-away-blind-diners-for-having-too-many-service-dogs.html

[Nukeman]

http://consumerist.com/2011/06/restaurant-turns-away-blind-diners-for-having-too-many-service-dogs.html

Umm..... And.... So what!! I probably would have done the same thing. Just because a animal is a service animal does not mean it is perfectly well behaved. Besides what is the service animal going to do for the blind person at the buffet, direct them to the particular foods or would maybe a PERSON have to do that, and if thats the case, the "service" animal is rendered useless at that time....

Most businesses will attempt to accomodate all people but what is\f some of the other patrons had dog alergies (severe? What makes one persons disability a higher priority than anothers?? A lot of "service" animals are more for comfort than actual service these days. what is service animal going to do at dinner anyway??

[MtnBiker]

hmmmm, well if the disabled patrons were speaking spanish Gabby would attempt to make some vague point about discrimination and ignore the restaurant proprietor's property rights.

[Gunny]

http://consumerist.com/2011/06/restaurant-turns-away-blind-diners-for-having-too-many-service-dogs.html

Ever seen that sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

Nice the media quoted one of the blind patrons who was refused service. What about the manager's responsibility to the restaurant and the rest of its patrons?

[fj1200]

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any blind person, or deaf or hearing handicapped person, or other physically handicapped person accompanied by a dog guide, shall be entitled to any and all accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of all public conveyances, public amusements and places of public accommodation...
http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/node/21

[Gunny]

http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/node/21

Note your own quote: "person". Not hard to deal with.

Six medium-large-sized dogs in a restaurant at one time is just ridiculous to even make an issue of. Typical media sensationalism of nothing.

[Gaffer]

A group of blind friends with guide dogs all want to have lunch together. Maybe they could have called ahead?

[Gunny]

A group of blind friends with guide dogs all want to have lunch together. Maybe they could have called ahead?

And made sure the restaurant had the facilities to accommodate them to begin with?

[fj1200]

Note your own quote: "person". Not hard to deal with.

A group of blind persons walk into a bar...


... and loses legal protections for their guide dogs. Ba doom chee

[Gunny]

A group of blind persons walk into a bar...


... and loses legal protections for their guide dogs. Ba doom chee

Point is, this is just media hype over nothing. Handicap laws are tailored to the individual, not a group of them.

Do they lose legal protection if there is only one handicap stall in the wash room for all 6?

I know for a fact restaurants are forced to adhere to handicap guidelines/laws when being constructed. If the law is adhered to, and the place STILL does not accommodate a group; which, the law is not designed to do, then the manager is within HIS rights to turn them away.

Another example of the tyranny of the minority, and the sensationalist media hyping their woeful plight.

What about the rights of the business/business owner? He has them too, you know. The ultimate decision of who he serves and does not serve is HIS.

[fj1200]

Point is, this is just media hype over nothing.

Not if your blind and have a service dog.


Handicap laws are tailored to the individual, not a group of them.

Do they lose legal protection if there is only one handicap stall in the wash room for all 6?

That's an insane line of reasoning. If they can accommodate the group then they can accommodate the dogs as well.

were turned away by the manager for fear that so many canines could cause chaos.
Size of the group wasn't claimed to be the problem, besides service dogs are highly trained.


I know for a fact restaurants are forced to adhere to handicap guidelines/laws when being constructed. If the law is adhered to, and the place STILL does not accommodate a group; which, the law is not designed to do, then the manager is within HIS rights to turn them away.

Dogs don't need wheelchair ramps. Apparently they have the room in the establishment.

He said the diners and their dogs would be welcome if they choose to come back.


Another example of the tyranny of the minority, and the sensationalist media hyping their woeful plight.

What about the rights of the business/business owner? He has them too, you know. The ultimate decision of who he serves and does not serve is HIS.

Then challenge the law not his decision to ignore it.

[jimnyc]

Not if your blind and have a service dog.



That's an insane line of reasoning. If they can accommodate the group then they can accommodate the dogs as well.

Size of the group wasn't claimed to be the problem, besides service dogs are highly trained.



Dogs don't need wheelchair ramps. Apparently they have the room in the establishment.




Then challenge the law not his decision to ignore it.

The restaurant can ignore service dog laws in instances that their business would be "fundamentally altered" by allowing the accommodation. They can bring this argument to court if sued and can show undue hardship to their business as a result of allowing so many animals in at one time, and having other customers suffer or leave as a result. You can read the ADA regarding service animals with this information. Additionally, if any of them were barking or growling at one another when the six dogs got together, that would be another valid reason to exclude them. Maybe they did. I'm not sure I read in there what the restaurant reported from their side of the story.

[LuvRPgrl]

Not if your blind and have a service dog.



That's an insane line of reasoning. If they can accommodate the group then they can accommodate the dogs as well.

Size of the group wasn't claimed to be the problem, besides service dogs are highly trained.



Dogs don't need wheelchair ramps. Apparently they have the room in the establishment.




Then challenge the law not his decision to ignore it.

I'm allegic to dogs. Would I have to get up and lleave if I was already half way thru my meal? Would I still have to pay for it?

[Gunny]

Not if your blind and have a service dog.



That's an insane line of reasoning. If they can accommodate the group then they can accommodate the dogs as well.

Size of the group wasn't claimed to be the problem, besides service dogs are highly trained.



Dogs don't need wheelchair ramps. Apparently they have the room in the establishment.




Then challenge the law not his decision to ignore it.

What? Way to not address my post. You're playing expand-a-post, turning a simple, valid statement into little blurbs you wish to attack out of context.

Obviously, restaurants are designed to accommodate people. Not people AND dogs. Even if the restaurant is ADA certified, it is STILL not going to be ADA certified to accommodate a GROUP.

The reasoning is sound, and based on common sense, AND the law as it stands.

I don't need to challenge the law. It's clear. What isn't clear, is you, nor why you want to try to wordsmith it to say something it doesn't.

[Gunny]

I'm allegic to dogs. Would I have to get up and lleave if I was already half way thru my meal? Would I still have to pay for it?

Only if the dog fired up a smoke.:smoke:

[J.T]

It seems of few of the posters here missed the part where they were happy to serve and accommodate these individuals if the dogs waited outside.

[Nukeman]

It seems of few of the posters here missed the part where they were happy to serve and accommodate these individuals if the dogs waited outside.

And you have yet to discuss YOUR thread at all. You post a news link with NO discussion and than chime in with NO thoughts one way or another... Hmmmmm Why is that...

[DragonStryk72]

Police were summoned to a Boston-area restaurant over the weekend after a group of 13 diners, including six with service dogs, were turned away by the manager for fear that so many canines could cause chaos.
"Ignorance of the law: it's an explanation, but it's not an excuse," one of the turned-away diners, who is legally blind, told WBZ-TV.
The restaurant had previously allowed diners to bring in service dogs but the manager was concerned that the half-dozen service animals could cause problems at the restaurant's buffet and bother other diners with allergies. WBZ-TV says he suggested the diners let the dogs wait outside.

Okay, we'll handle this from beginning to end. Were the service dogs going to "cause chaos" the six of them would have already been doing it by the time they entered the restaurant. They wouldn't have waited.

Serivce dogs don't standardly go up to the buffet with their owners, and even if they did, are trained to stand next to them and hold still, so there's not really a problem as far as the buffet line goes. I say this having worked as a buffet line cook previously.

As for other diners, here's a thought: Check. As well, during the day, most restaurants have a section that hasn't been opened up for general use yet. Just seat the group over there. Gets them away from the other diners pretty handily.

[Gunny]

And you have yet to discuss YOUR thread at all. You post a news link with NO discussion and than chime in with NO thoughts one way or another... Hmmmmm Why is that...

Because it's common practice on the board he came here from. That's "why is that ..."

I do it as well.

[Gunny]

Okay, we'll handle this from beginning to end. Were the service dogs going to "cause chaos" the six of them would have already been doing it by the time they entered the restaurant. They wouldn't have waited.

Serivce dogs don't standardly go up to the buffet with their owners, and even if they did, are trained to stand next to them and hold still, so there's not really a problem as far as the buffet line goes. I say this having worked as a buffet line cook previously.

As for other diners, here's a thought: Check. As well, during the day, most restaurants have a section that hasn't been opened up for general use yet. Just seat the group over there. Gets them away from the other diners pretty handily.

You're missing the point. As has been mentioned, the restaurant would accommodate the patrons. Just not the dogs. Restaurants are not designed to accommodate dogs whether or not those of you arguing this line wish to accept it or not.

Dogs are dogs. The most well-trained animals can act out at ANY given moment with little to no provocation.

Opening a closed section of the restaurant costs the owner money.

And ... if *I* want a special section in a restaurant for my/my group's sole use, I have to phone ahead and make arrangements, as we all do.

Again, this is making an issue of nothing.

And again, it's STILL at the discretion of the restaurant manager/owner, BY LAW.

[fj1200]

The restaurant can ignore service dog laws in instances that their business would be "fundamentally altered" by allowing the accommodation. They can bring this argument to court if sued and can show undue hardship to their business as a result of allowing so many animals in at one time, and having other customers suffer or leave as a result. You can read the ADA regarding service animals with this information. Additionally, if any of them were barking or growling at one another when the six dogs got together, that would be another valid reason to exclude them. Maybe they did. I'm not sure I read in there what the restaurant reported from their side of the story.

Where'd you find that? I'm not sure this is an ADA issue as most (all?) states have laws regarding service dogs. And as Dragon pointed out the dogs would likely have created a disturbance outside before they ever got inside. The dogs are highly trained and sensitized against other dogs/people/situations so that they can do their job assisting their owners and not creating a distraction. I've seen plenty of dogs in restaurants/buses/etc. that lay quietly while not working.

BTW, the restaurant has offered to serve the group so it seems that they have the capability to do so.


I'm allegic to dogs. Would I have to get up and lleave if I was already half way thru my meal? Would I still have to pay for it?

Good question.


What? Way to not address my post. You're playing expand-a-post, turning a simple, valid statement into little blurbs you wish to attack out of context.

I maintain I addressed every part of your post quite nicely.


Obviously, restaurants are designed to accommodate people. Not people AND dogs. Even if the restaurant is ADA certified, it is STILL not going to be ADA certified to accommodate a GROUP.

The reasoning is sound, and based on common sense, AND the law as it stands.

Why? Because it says persons and doesn't address when two or more persons get together? :rolleyes:

BTW, what special accommodation is required for a service dog?


I don't need to challenge the law. It's clear. What isn't clear, is you, nor why you want to try to wordsmith it to say something it doesn't.

How so?

[KitchenKitten99]

You're missing the point. As has been mentioned, the restaurant would accommodate the patrons. Just not the dogs. Restaurants are not designed to accommodate dogs whether or not those of you arguing this line wish to accept it or not.

Dogs are dogs. The most well-trained animals can act out at ANY given moment with little to no provocation.

Opening a closed section of the restaurant costs the owner money.

And ... if *I* want a special section in a restaurant for my/my group's sole use, I have to phone ahead and make arrangements, as we all do.

Again, this is making an issue of nothing.

And again, it's STILL at the discretion of the restaurant manager/owner, BY LAW.
I agree except for one thing-the most expensive item a restaurant has is an empty table. Restaurants are generally set up for groups of 4. Anything more it is best to call ahead-even on a Monday night.
The problem I have with this is not the animals hurting others. My issue is the sanitation of the large number. Service dogs are just that-dogs. They pose an allergen issue just the same as any other dog. They shed just the same.

[fj1200]

And again, it's STILL at the discretion of the restaurant manager/owner, BY LAW.

Where's that?

[jimnyc]

Where'd you find that? I'm not sure this is an ADA issue as most (all?) states have laws regarding service dogs. And as Dragon pointed out the dogs would likely have created a disturbance outside before they ever got inside. The dogs are highly trained and sensitized against other dogs/people/situations so that they can do their job assisting their owners and not creating a distraction. I've seen plenty of dogs in restaurants/buses/etc. that lay quietly while not working.

BTW, the restaurant has offered to serve the group so it seems that they have the capability to do so.

As far as I know, they offered to serve them so long as SIX dogs remained outside. One, yes, two, yes - but when you get to a huge group of animals in a restaurant it completely changes the complexion of the law.

And like I said in my post, it was from the ADA:


10. Q: What if a service animal barks or growls at other people, or otherwise acts out of control?

A: You may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from your facility when that animal's behavior poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. For example, any service animal that displays vicious behavior towards other guests or customers may be excluded. You may not make assumptions, however, about how a particular animal is likely to behave based on your past experience with other animals. Each situation must be considered individually.

Although a public accommodation may exclude any service animal that is out of control, it should give the individual with a disability who uses the service animal the option of continuing to enjoy its goods and services without having the service animal on the premises.

11. Q: Can I exclude an animal that doesn't really seem dangerous but is disruptive to my business?

A: There may be a few circumstances when a public accommodation is not required to accommodate a service animal--that is, when doing so would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the business. Generally, this is not likely to occur in restaurants, hotels, retail stores, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities. But when it does, for example, when a dog barks during a movie, the animal can be excluded.


A good lawyer should and would easily be able to show that one or 2 dogs could be accommodated within the restaurant, but 6 of them would change the restaurant during that time span and could cost them $$$. They say "generally" in the code, but something tells me they are referring to a service dog in general, not a damn convention of them in a restaurant.

http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm

[jimnyc]

Where's that?

Odd, do you really expect an answer? I've asked similar of you, case law or law, in the A&F thread for multiple days now only to have my request ignored. :poke:

[fj1200]

Odd, do you really expect an answer? I've asked similar of you, case law or law, in the A&F thread for multiple days now only to have my request ignored. :poke:

Are you feeling a little hurt? I'll be sure and rush right over to that thread and accommodate your wishes. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Are you feeling a little hurt? I'll be sure and rush right over to that thread and accommodate your wishes. :rolleyes:

No, I feel like I kicked your ass in yet another debate as you can't backup your statements with fact. Like Gunny stated, you like to turn a debate into a sentence by sentence pick out of context debate, but you lost even that. Facts are funny that way, especially when people like you can't seem to find them.

[fj1200]

Seriously, do you read your own links?


As far as I know, they offered to serve them so long as SIX dogs remained outside. One, yes, two, yes - but when you get to a huge group of animals in a restaurant it completely changes the complexion of the law.

And like I said in my post, it was from the ADA:


10. Q: What if a service animal barks or growls at other people, or otherwise acts out of control?

A: You may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from your facility when that animal's behavior poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. For example, any service animal that displays vicious behavior towards other guests or customers may be excluded. You may not make assumptions, however, about how a particular animal is likely to behave based on your past experience with other animals. Each situation must be considered individually.

Although a public accommodation may exclude any service animal that is out of control, it should give the individual with a disability who uses the service animal the option of continuing to enjoy its goods and services without having the service animal on the premises.

11. Q: Can I exclude an animal that doesn't really seem dangerous but is disruptive to my business?

A: There may be a few circumstances when a public accommodation is not required to accommodate a service animal--that is, when doing so would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the business. Generally, this is not likely to occur in restaurants, hotels, retail stores, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities. But when it does, for example, when a dog barks during a movie, the animal can be excluded.

A good lawyer should and would easily be able to show that one or 2 dogs could be accommodated within the restaurant, but 6 of them would change the restaurant during that time span and could cost them $$$. They say "generally" in the code, but something tells me they are referring to a service dog in general, not a damn convention of them in a restaurant.

http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm

IF the dogs met the level of behavior required above to justify exclusion then yes, a lawyer would. There is NOTHING to suggest that they did.

[fj1200]

No, I feel like I kicked... Like Gunny stated, you like to turn a debate into a sentence by sentence pick out of context debate, but you lost even that.

Well as soon as I get back to that thread :rolleyes: I'll see if you came up with something that would back up your "feelings." And as far as Gunny and what I "lost"... We'll see won't we?

[jimnyc]

Seriously, do you read your own links?



IF the dogs met the level of behavior required above to justify exclusion then yes, a lawyer would. There is NOTHING to suggest that they did.

SIX dogs in one place is enough to fundamentally alter the complexion of a RESTAURANT. You can state otherwise, but it's up to a court to decide should the decide to sue. And yes, I read my own links, it's just that unlike you I don't automatically assume my interpretation is correct. Again, that is up to the courts to decide. I happen to think they have a valid case based on the ADA's own code.

[jimnyc]

Well as soon as I get back to that thread :rolleyes: I'll see if you came up with something that would back up your "feelings." And as far as Gunny and what I "lost"... We'll see won't we?

Whatever. When someone doesn't answer a question that has been asked of them 4-6 times, then they leave said thread - it generally leads me to believe they cannot answer that question. That alone would mean you lose, as a gentleman would at least be honest enough to admit they can't find law or contrary law.

[fj1200]

SIX dogs in one place is enough to fundamentally alter the complexion of a RESTAURANT. You can state otherwise, but it's up to a court to decide should the decide to sue. And yes, I read my own links, it's just that unlike you I don't automatically assume my interpretation is correct. Again, that is up to the courts to decide. I happen to think they have a valid case based on the ADA's own code.

You don't??? :rolleyes: I can state otherwise, you can state otherwise...

Of course it's up to the courts to decide if it's taken that far but the evidence presented so far does not justify exclusion... IMO... as well as the restaurant it would seem.


An assistant manager tells the TV station that mistakes were made in handling the situation and that flared tempers made things worse. He said the diners and their dogs would be welcome if they choose to come back.

[fj1200]

Whatever. When someone doesn't answer a question that has been asked of them 4-6 times, then they leave said thread - it generally leads me to believe they cannot answer that question. That alone would mean you lose, as a gentleman would at least be honest enough to admit they can't find law or contrary law.

You're absolutely right, a swim meet does NOT take precedence to an internet discussion forum.

[jimnyc]

You don't??? :rolleyes: I can state otherwise, you can state otherwise...

Of course it's up to the courts to decide if it's taken that far but the evidence presented so far does not justify exclusion... IMO... as well as the restaurant it would seem.

Of course he now says otherwise with the media attention, but him allowing them in does not equate to him needing to according to the law.

And you state AGAIN that the evidence thus far does not justify exclusion, which is simply your opinion, against mine which I feel 6 dogs is justification. But the point I made from initially posting what I did is that they can make an argument in court based on the code - and AGAIN, it is not automatic. Everyone can interpret code/law differently, but that VERY rarely means it is automatic or an open/shut case like some would believe in various avenues of the law.

[jimnyc]

You're absolutely right, a swim meet does NOT take precedence to an internet discussion forum.

Wow, a swim meet that took multiple days, and you had multiple times to post AFTER I made my request. Very odd. I'm of the opinion that if you had the time to post multiple times, you had the time to at least address my request. Sounds like you're making an excuse to me.

[fj1200]

Wow, a swim meet that took multiple days, and you had multiple times to post AFTER I made my request. Very odd. I'm of the opinion that if you had the time to post multiple times, you had the time to at least address my request. Sounds like you're making an excuse to me.

A swim meet, bible school, multiple kids... and yet here I am less than 24 hours after my last post in that thread and I haven't made it back over there yet. Your opinion though...

[jimnyc]

A swim meet, bible school, multiple kids... and yet here I am less than 24 hours after my last post in that thread and I haven't made it back over there yet. Your opinion though...

Why not spend the time you are here actually addressing the question/s that have been sitting in the A&F thread for a few days? I pointed it out here and it could have easily been moved over there (us discussing it)... Your choice.

[fj1200]

Of course he now says otherwise with the media attention, but him allowing them in does not equate to him needing to according to the law.

And you state AGAIN that the evidence thus far does not justify exclusion, which is simply your opinion, against mine which I feel 6 dogs is justification. But the point I made from initially posting what I did is that they can make an argument in court based on the code - and AGAIN, it is not automatic. Everyone can interpret code/law differently, but that VERY rarely means it is automatic or an open/shut case like some would believe in various avenues of the law.

That would be proof that they can accommodate. And yes, my opinion as it would be the opinion of the jury/judge.

We better not get called together on this one or it would be hung for sure. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Why not spend the time you are here actually addressing the question/s that have been sitting in the A&F thread for a few days? I pointed it out here and it could have easily been moved over there (us discussing it)... Your choice.

Oh geez, you post your way and I'll post mine.

[jimnyc]

Oh geez, you post your way and I'll post mine.

Gotcha. I'll just refrain from debating/discussing things with you going forward. I'll save my time posting for those actually interested in responding when I post/request. Thanks for the debate we had for awhile in both these threads, peace out!

[Nukeman]

Because it's common practice on the board he came here from. That's "why is that ..."

I do it as well.

Not to detract from the currernt discussion, and no insult intended, but "common practice" on another board is just that ANOTHER board.

I can get my news feeds for myself now if you want to post a news story and actually DISCUSS said news story thats a different issue all together.

I mean seriously why feel the need to post something everyone already has access to and NOT discuss it??? What the point????

now back to discussion!!!

The folks saying the restaurant is in the wrong forgets a very simple fact. YOUR RIGHTS ONLY EXTEND AS FAR AS MINE BEGIN. Now none of those people that decided to bring their dogs in know if any other patron is alergic or has a phobia of dogs, both of which I would say constitutes a slight/minor disability, so whos disability takes precedence the one who is more disabled or the others.

Here's a question.. do any of you use the handicap stall in the restroom? Should it be reserved just for handicapped people? Should a handicapped person be able to step to the front of the line to the restroom and use the larger stall before others? these are all questions that have the same meaning. Just because your disabled or handicapped doesnt make you "special", or mean you have to have "special" treatment, ONLY the SAME treatment. That means if you are infringing on others you have to be willing to take the consequences!!!!

[fj1200]

Gotcha. I'll just refrain from debating/discussing things with you going forward. I'll save my time posting for those actually interested in responding when I post/request. Thanks for the debate we had for awhile in both these threads, peace out!

Are you kidding? How long have we been going back and forth in this thread and I'm NOT DEBATING/RESPONDING???

I'll get back there and respond when I'm ready. When have I dropped a discussion here on DP?

I even respond to tsk much to Kathianne's chagrin. :laugh:

[Gunny]

Not to detract from the currernt discussion, and no insult intended, but "common practice" on another board is just that ANOTHER board.

I can get my news feeds for myself now if you want to post a news story and actually DISCUSS said news story thats a different issue all together.

I mean seriously why feel the need to post something everyone already has access to and NOT discuss it??? What the point????

now back to discussion!!!

The folks saying the restaurant is in the wrong forgets a very simple fact. YOUR RIGHTS ONLY EXTEND AS FAR AS MINE BEGIN. Now none of those people that decided to bring their dogs in know if any other patron is alergic or has a phobia of dogs, both of which I would say constitutes a slight/minor disability, so whos disability takes precedence the one who is more disabled or the others.

Here's a question.. do any of you use the handicap stall in the restroom? Should it be reserved just for handicapped people? Should a handicapped person be able to step to the front of the line to the restroom and use the larger stall before others? these are all questions that have the same meaning. Just because your disabled or handicapped doesnt make you "special", or mean you have to have "special" treatment, ONLY the SAME treatment. That means if you are infringing on others you have to be willing to take the consequences!!!!

Let me put it this way .... I don't see that someone has to have some heart-felt, vested interest in every story/article they post that they think may be of interest to others; especially, if it's (inter)national news.

Perhaps the OP IS his opinion?

Furthermore, rookie, I learned to do it when THIS board WAS that "other board", as it was common practice among the members.

It DOES detract from the topic and/or any conversation. The topic was posted, and has been addressed by quite a few members. J.T's one point you chose to jump on is a valid one. Rather than address the point he made, you addressed a posting style you don't like.

Let's just stick to addressing issues, please.

[Gunny]

Where's that?

Read Jim's post referencing ADA. I'm tired of repeating the same facts in one thread, only to be ignored and/or have my words misconstrued by people who read whatever they choose into something when it just doesn't exist.

[J.T]

Because it's common practice on the board he came here from. That's "why is that ..."

I do it as well.
There's also the fact that my ability to get on here for any great length of time or with any regularity is now rather limited due to outside circumstances.


Nukeman might also consider the possibility that some people simply like to stimulate discussion and might wish to wait to hear others' views before chiming in.

[Abbey Marie]

Yes, the group should have called ahead, and yes, there may be people who are allergic or phobic. But the latter is true even if only one person with a service dog comes in.

This is an an Asian buffet. I have been to two such buffets where there was a roach AT OUR TABLE. I refuse to go anymore. The dogs could only improve the place.

People do not go to these buffets for a fine dining experience. They go to pig-out cheaply.

Life is tough enough for these folks. Getting around is tough. Socializing in public is tough. They are probably on limited incomes, and cheap buffets work for their wallets.

Finally, any Asian buffet I've seen is fairly large and could easily accommodate 6 dogs. I would have made every possible effort to seat them so they can have a meal with their friends. Let's use some common sense here. Is it possible our Asian friends have a problem with dogs in general? We all know they are "on the menu" in some Asian countries.

[J.T]

Then patrons were making unreasonable demands and the manger was more than willing to make reasonable accommodations. The restauranteur was within his rights and trying to best accommodate all patrons.

If the law disagrees, then the law is wrong.

[J.T]

This is an an Asian buffet. I have been to two such buffets where there was a roach AT OUR TABLE. I refuse to go anymore.


Relevance?


The dogs could only improve the place.

non sequitur


People do not go to these buffets for a fine dining experience. They go to pig-out cheaply.


Relevance?



Life is tough enough for these folks. Getting around is tough. Socializing in public is tough. They are probably on limited incomes, and cheap buffets work for their wallets.

And? The manager was willing to accommodate them if they were willing to take reasonable measures to accommodate other patrons, namely leaving most of the animals outside.

Plenty of blind folk work without the animals on a regular basis. He's not refusing service or making any unreasonable requests.


Finally, any Asian buffet I've seen is fairly large and could easily accommodate 6 dogs.
Have to been to the location in question, or are you just ass-u-ming that all such restaurants are the same? Personally, I've seen large and small establishments of this sort.


I would have made every possible effort to seat them so they can have a meal with their friends.

And this manager did not?


Let's use some common sense here.

Agreed. If the presence of the dogs is problematic, then let one or more of the animals wait outside and let the manager accommodate the patrons as best as feasible.


Is it possible our Asian friends have a problem with dogs in general?

You're getting awfully close to sounding like an ignorant jackass here...


We all know they are "on the menu" in some Asian countries.

And I see you decided to go all the way...

[Nukeman]

Let me put it this way .... I don't see that someone has to have some heart-felt, vested interest in every story/article they post that they think may be of interest to others; especially, if it's (inter)national news..

I would HOPE they would haev SOME interest in what they were posting otherwise its trolling!!


Perhaps the OP IS his opinion?
Wouldn't know since there was NO further discussion on the topic


Furthermore, rookie, I learned to do it when THIS board WAS that "other board", as it was common practice among the members.Really you see me as a "rookie" Dude I have been part of this community with Jim since this board WAS THE OTHER BOARD..
I will add that is what makes the other board almost impossible to read you have dozens of people posting links and no conversation!!!


It DOES detract from the topic and/or any conversation. The topic was posted, and has been addressed by quite a few members.
Your right MY thoughts included. I have voiced my opinion openly and without just posting a link to a new story!!

J.T's one point you chose to jump on is a valid one. Rather than address the point he made, you addressed a posting style you don't like.
REALLY,, Dude he hadn't made a "point" yet!!!! Thats MY point!!! IF you haven't noticed I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THE OP MORE THAN THE OP PRESENTER or did you miss that??

Let's just stick to addressing issues, pleaseIn case you missed it after I opinted out the lack of discussion on the OP part I went ahead and stayed on topic, by discussing the OP.. Or did you miss that to?

[DragonStryk72]

You're missing the point. As has been mentioned, the restaurant would accommodate the patrons. Just not the dogs. Restaurants are not designed to accommodate dogs whether or not those of you arguing this line wish to accept it or not.

Dogs are dogs. The most well-trained animals can act out at ANY given moment with little to no provocation.

Opening a closed section of the restaurant costs the owner money.

And ... if *I* want a special section in a restaurant for my/my group's sole use, I have to phone ahead and make arrangements, as we all do.

Again, this is making an issue of nothing.

And again, it's STILL at the discretion of the restaurant manager/owner, BY LAW.

Then, as you're saying, they aren't accommodating the patrons. The blind use those dogs to navigate, and they are specially trained, just like police dogs, and other rescue animals. so unless you're saying that the entire service animal industry is a hoax, then yeah, they're pretty well trained. I have never once seen a single service animal anywhere I have been cause trouble. So either I am just the luckiest bastard on the planet, or we pretty much have that down to a science.

Animal behavior is not random, never has been. Even your cat is acting on either instinctual, or trained behavior at all times, they simply operate differently than dogs do. Dogs are trained because they are easier to train, because they are pack-minded animals. They will follow whoever is "in charge" of them.

Now for my question: How are six dogs, unattended outside, less likely to cause chaos? They'll still be where the patrons can see/hear them, they just won't have owners present give commands. Yeah, much better than the dogs each lying separately on the floor.

[DragonStryk72]

And ... if *I* want a special section in a restaurant for my/my group's sole use, I have to phone ahead and make arrangements, as we all do.


Yeah, okay, clearly you have never worked in a restaurant before. We get groups that don't call ahead all the time, upwards of 20 people with no notice.

[Nukeman]

Then, as you're saying, they aren't accommodating the patrons. The blind use those dogs to navigate, and they are specially trained, just like police dogs, and other rescue animals. so unless you're saying that the entire service animal industry is a hoax, then yeah, they're pretty well trained. I have never once seen a single service animal anywhere I have been cause trouble. So either I am just the luckiest bastard on the planet, or we pretty much have that down to a science.

Animal behavior is not random, never has been. Even your cat is acting on either instinctual, or trained behavior at all times, they simply operate differently than dogs do. Dogs are trained because they are easier to train, because they are pack-minded animals. They will follow whoever is "in charge" of them.

Now for my question: How are six dogs, unattended outside, less likely to cause chaos? They'll still be where the patrons can see/hear them, they just won't have owners present give commands. Yeah, much better than the dogs each lying separately on the floor.
What exactly is a service dog going to do in a buffet style restraunt for a blind person?? They will have to be led to the buffet by a sighted person and than "TOLD" what food is there and have help loading up their plates, so at this point the "service animal" has been rendered moot!!!!!

[Abbey Marie]

Relevance?

non sequitur

Relevance?

And? The manager was willing to accommodate them if they were willing to take reasonable measures to accommodate other patrons, namely leaving most of the animals outside.

Plenty of blind folk work without the animals on a regular basis. He's not refusing service or making any unreasonable requests.
Have to been to the location in question, or are you just ass-u-ming that all such restaurants are the same? Personally, I've seen large and small establishments of this sort.


And this manager did not?


Agreed. If the presence of the dogs is problematic, then let one or more of the animals wait outside and let the manager accommodate the patrons as best as feasible.


You're getting awfully close to sounding like an ignorant jackass here...



And I see you decided to go all the way...

And I see you have trouble discerning relevance and non-sequiturs. Sorry for you, but these inabilities are very hard to fix at this point, and trying to explain the obvious to someone like that is too much work. Either your brain works logically, or it does not.

[DragonStryk72]

What exactly is a service dog going to do in a buffet style restraunt for a blind person?? They will have to be led to the buffet by a sighted person and than "TOLD" what food is there and have help loading up their plates, so at this point the "service animal" has been rendered moot!!!!!

Why would they have to leave the dog behind? And what of when they need to go to the bathroom? Or get something from the car? And again, how is the service animal "creating chaos"?

[LuvRPgrl]

Why would they have to leave the dog behind? And what of when they need to go to the bathroom? Or get something from the car? And again, how is the service animal "creating chaos"?

Bathroom, an employee can help with that.

car? the blind person can get their service animal when they go outside.

chaos? Its potential chaos as far as I know, and it seems legitimate to me, I mean, I doubt the manager/owner just suddenly decided, hey, I'm gonna be hateful to blind people, and even though I don't have a legitimate concern, I'm going to kick them out anyways, even though it is turning away profit, and will give us some bad PR.

[fj1200]

What exactly is a service dog going to do in a buffet style restraunt for a blind person?? They will have to be led to the buffet by a sighted person and than "TOLD" what food is there and have help loading up their plates, so at this point the "service animal" has been rendered moot!!!!!

Not the point, the law allows the dog(s).


Bathroom, an employee can help with that.

car? the blind person can get their service animal when they go outside.

chaos? Its potential chaos as far as I know, and it seems legitimate to me, I mean, I doubt the manager/owner just suddenly decided, hey, I'm gonna be hateful to blind people, and even though I don't have a legitimate concern, I'm going to kick them out anyways, even though it is turning away profit, and will give us some bad PR.

Do you really expect a blind person who depends on their dog to just leave it outside? They were either ignorant to the law or didn't want the hassle.

[fj1200]

Read Jim's post referencing ADA. I'm tired of repeating the same facts in one thread, only to be ignored and/or have my words misconstrued by people who read whatever they choose into something when it just doesn't exist.

You should actually read it then because it doesn't help your argument as I indicated.

[KitchenKitten99]

No service dog I have encountered has ever posed a physical/aggressive threat in any way. They are pretty bomb-proof.

However as someone who has been trained in and has also worked in the industry for several years, off and on, and I plan to open my own restaurant sometime soon... these are exactly the things I will need to anticipate.

One or two service dogs, I would probably not have much of an issue with.

However, with six dogs, I would start getting concerned about the level of fur shedding that is inevitable with ANY dog breed (except chinese crested hairless, but those are not a service-dog type breed).

The concern comes into play with the fur becoming airborne and finding its way into the food, thus posing health code issues and if someone were to find it and complain, that could pose all sorts of costly problems, including lawsuits, etc.

Then there is the fur embedding itself into the carpet (if there is any). Vacuuming doesn't get everything.

Not saying that service dogs should not be allowed, but only looking at it from a sanitation perspective. Being carefree about something like this is being careless. One issue with sanitation can be the downfall of the restaurant.

[LuvRPgrl]

Not the point, the law allows the dog(s).



Do you really expect a blind person who depends on their dog to just leave it outside? They were either ignorant to the law or didn't want the hassle.

I was merely addressing his objections,

[jimnyc]

You should actually read it then because it doesn't help your argument as I indicated.

Why do you keep stating your "interpretation" as fact? I'm quite confident that many would feel that the restaurant WAS fundamentally altered or would be if they allowed 6 dogs in at once. Yet you continue on, like you have in several threads, as if your opinion is fact.

[logroller]

This was a buffet? How do blind people serve themselves at a buffet? And more specifically, how do the dogs help them at this task?

I know several people with service dogs, and they use them to be more independant, which I think we all can agree is a fair and jsutified. But any application of a law must obey reason; giving special rights to the diasbaled is meant to help them be as independent as possible. I'm not quite sure how dogs in a restaurant buffet situation help them to be more independent, so how is that reasonable?

[Abbey Marie]

This was a buffet? How do blind people serve themselves at a buffet? And more specifically, how do the dogs help them at this task?

I know several people with service dogs, and they use them to be more independant, which I think we all can agree is a fair and jsutified. But any application of a law must obey reason; giving special rights to the diasbaled is meant to help them be as independent as possible. I'm not quite sure how dogs in a restaurant buffet situation help them to be more independent, so how is that reasonable?

Actually, they would be needed even more in a buffet, where the diner needs to keep getting up to get food. These dogs are primarily guides for walking, are they not? I think people are focusing too much on the food selection part of things, which is just one part of it.

[Gunny]

Yes, the group should have called ahead, and yes, there may be people who are allergic or phobic. But the latter is true even if only one person with a service dog comes in.

This is an an Asian buffet. I have been to two such buffets where there was a roach AT OUR TABLE. I refuse to go anymore. The dogs could only improve the place.

People do not go to these buffets for a fine dining experience. They go to pig-out cheaply.

Life is tough enough for these folks. Getting around is tough. Socializing in public is tough. They are probably on limited incomes, and cheap buffets work for their wallets.

Finally, any Asian buffet I've seen is fairly large and could easily accommodate 6 dogs. I would have made every possible effort to seat them so they can have a meal with their friends. Let's use some common sense here. Is it possible our Asian friends have a problem with dogs in general? We all know they are "on the menu" in some Asian countries.

Let's take a different tact. Cigarette smoke doesn't bother me. Pet dander does. What gives whining non-smokers more rights than whiners with allergies?

I am using common sense. You don't show up unannounced at a restaurant with 6 dogs, service dogs or no, and expect to be seated. Nothing in any way of thinking nor life experiences would have me thinking there would be any satisfactory conclusion in such a scenario.

Oh, and those Asian countries that have puppies on the menu use PUPPIES. Not middle-aged, string and tough service dogs.:laugh2:

[logroller]

Actually, they would be needed even more in a buffet, where the diner needs to keep getting up to get food. These dogs are primarily guides for walking, are they not? I think people are focusing too much on the food selection part of things, which is just one part of it.

Walking?, not exactly. They assist them in avoiding obstacles. I don't mean to sound like a smartass; but if they're so blind as to be unable to walk to the buffet table, how exactly to they serve themselves at the buffet?
This is a unique situation, as there were many dogs- which pose a more of a health risk then the benefit they provide. I'm all for helping others to help themselves, especially the handicapped, butI think you'll find they require additional service from the restaurant staff regardless of their guide dog. Hence the dogs are less necessary and a cane would likely suffice.

[fj1200]

... but if they're so blind as to be unable to walk to the buffet table, how exactly to they serve themselves at the buffet?
... butI think you'll find they require additional service from the restaurant staff regardless of their guide dog. Hence the dogs are less necessary and a cane would likely suffice.

A cane or dog are probably useless to the task of getting food because they wouldn't know where to go or what to get when they got there. I would imagine the service dogs would just sit at the chair and wait but I'm just guessing there and offering my opinion because I do not recall seeing any service dogs at a buffet restaurant so please do not accept my surmising of a likelihood as anything other than a guess as to what would happen in such a circumstance.

[fj1200]

Why do you keep stating your "interpretation" as fact? I'm quite confident that many would feel that the restaurant WAS fundamentally altered or would be if they allowed 6 dogs in at once. Yet you continue on, like you have in several threads, as if your opinion is fact.

I'm quite confident that "many would feel" as well but in my opinion, that has been based on the facts as presented and the law as pointed out so far, that my opinion is accurate. Even though "many would feel" it isn't necessarily be the correct interpretation. Shall I add a confidence rating to my opinions?

[Gunny]

I'm quite confident that "many would feel" as well but in my opinion, that has been based on the facts as presented and the law as pointed out so far, that my opinion is accurate. Even though "many would feel" it isn't necessarily be the correct interpretation. Shall I add a confidence rating to my opinions?

The law negates your opinion; which, for a literalist, is not a literal interpretation of the law.

[jimnyc]

The law negates your opinion; which, for a literalist, is not a literal interpretation of the law.

The bottom line is that anyone can sue for anything they wish. These patrons can certainly sue for what they feel is discrimination. It would then be up to a judge/jury to decide. BUT, some people here seem to think THEIR interpretation IS the law. I think FJ should get a position with the 9th circuit in California where he can make law with his decisions. :coffee:

[Gaffer]

The bottom line is that anyone can sue for anything they wish. These patrons can certainly sue for what they feel is discrimination. It would then be up to a judge/jury to decide. BUT, some people here seem to think THEIR interpretation IS the law. I think FJ should get a position with the 9th circuit in California where he can make law with his decisions. :coffee:

Actually I think he would do better than the current crop.

[jimnyc]

Actually I think he would do better than the current crop.

This is true, but then again, my 10yr old son and all his friends would be an improvement!

[fj1200]

The law negates your opinion; which, for a literalist, is not a literal interpretation of the law.

Your opinion is different than mine? Alert the presses.


The bottom line is that anyone can sue for anything they wish. These patrons can certainly sue for what they feel is discrimination. It would then be up to a judge/jury to decide. BUT, some people here seem to think THEIR interpretation IS the law. I think FJ should get a position with the 9th circuit in California where he can make law with his decisions. :coffee:

That would fit in well with my benevolent dictatorship plans.


Actually I think he would do better than the current crop.

:salute:

[Gunny]

Your opinion is different than mine? Alert the presses.



That would fit in well with my benevolent dictatorship plans.



:salute:

Doesn't matter whether or not my opinion differs from yours. What matters is, the facts back MINE up. Your opinion is based on reading into the law what isn't actually there.

Kind of sums it up.

[fj1200]

... the facts back MINE up.

Not as shown so far.

[logroller]

Your opinion is different than mine? Alert the presses.



That would fit in well with my benevolent dictatorship plans.



:salute:

I offer a quote used by Ben Franklin

I don't know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with no body but myself that's always in the right.

[KartRacerBoy]

Have any of you guys ever encountered service dogs? My sister in law has raised them for over 10 years. They are usually specially bred to be very pliable and obedient dogs. And they are trained to remain calm and unperturbed in almost all circumstances. Not all agencies that try to meet these standards succeed, I'm sure, but I've probably encountered over 100 trained dogs and all were amazing in their obedience. I've also encountered dogs that have washed out of the program (my sister in law has said she washes out about 25% before they even get to the real technical training).

Surely the group should have called ahead to help the restaurant to accomodate them, but the manager was clearly violating the law despite the groups shortsightedness.

[ConHog]

Wow, that's my reaction to this thread. So these 6 people aren't just blind, they are also stupid? WHo the fuck doesn't call ahead when they have a large group which has special needs to be serviced at a restaurant, or any other place of business?


I worked with K9 dogs for many years. They are trained beyond anything a service animal ever thought about being trained to and I can assure you that if you grouped 6 of them together and placed them in a restaurant environment there would be some behavior issues. Ultimately they are still animals , no matter how much training you give them.

Not even mentioning the entire idea that a business ought be able to serve or not serve whomever they want.

[KartRacerBoy]

Conhog, you keep forgetting about that whole govt and law thing? Again?

[ConHog]

Conhog, you keep forgetting about that whole govt and law thing? Again?

What a surprise that you are on the wrong side of this one to.

Seriously, put your goddamned politics aside and answer a question. Do you not agree that the six blind mice should have attempted to make arrangement beforehand rather than just showing up at a restaurant with 6 service animals and expecting service? Or do you contend that the restaurant owner owes them SPECIAL treatment because of their handicap?

[KartRacerBoy]

What a surprise that you are on the wrong side of this one to.

Seriously, put your goddamned politics aside and answer a question. Do you not agree that the six blind mice should have attempted to make arrangement beforehand rather than just showing up at a restaurant with 6 service animals and expecting service? Or do you contend that the restaurant owner owes them SPECIAL treatment because of their handicap?

Christ. Read the post immediately above yours. How can anyone have any kind of discussion with you if you can't even read what they said the post immediate preceding yours? Are you so busy pissing in your shorts becz I posted something that you can't even forus and read for a few seconds?

As to dog behavior, I bet K9 dogs training is of an entirely different nature to service dogs. Being imperturbable in a crowd is the raison d'etre of service dogs. Nothing shall distract them from whatever they've been commanded to do.

And the law REQUIRES the restaurant give special treatment to service dogs in most (perhaps all) states. I know. It's communist, liberal, COTUS hating crap, but there it is. The law. But bleeding heroes like you get special stupidity dispensation since you can't read, so don't worry.

[ConHog]

Christ. Read the post immediately above yours. How can anyone have any kind of discussion with you if you can't even read what they said the post immediate preceding yours? Are you so busy pissing in your shorts becz I posted something that you can't even forus and read for a few seconds?

As to dog behavior, I bet K9 dogs training is of an entirely different nature to service dogs. Being imperturbable in a crowd is the raison d'etre of service dogs. Nothing shall distract them from whatever they've been commanded to do.

And the law REQUIRES the restaurant give special treatment to service dogs in most (perhaps all) states. I know. It's communist, liberal, COTUS hating crap, but there it is. The law. But bleeding heroes like you get special stupidity dispensation since you can't read, so don't worry.



LOL You really think a dog trained to help handicapped people is better trained than a K9 dog? A highly trained K9 dog would kill or be killed doing it's job , bet FIFI won't .

And no, the law does NOT require a restaurant let handicapped people do whatever they want.

[KartRacerBoy]

LOL You really think a dog trained to help handicapped people is better trained than a K9 dog? A highly trained K9 dog would kill or be killed doing it's job , bet FIFI won't .

And no, the law does NOT require a restaurant let handicapped people do whatever they want.

Like arguing with a block of really dry wood....

[ConHog]

Like arguing with a block of really dry wood....



I think with your childish insults and limited mental facilities you might be more comfortable at usmb.

Say hi to Syrenn for me.

[J.T]

A: There may be a few circumstances when a public accommodation is not required to accommodate a service animal--that is, when doing so would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the business....when it does, for example, when a dog barks during a movie, the animal can be excluded.
http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm

How many dogs can we have in the aisles before we effect a fundamental nature of the business and my ability to service other customers?


If you have further questions about service animals or other requirements of the ADA, you may call the U.S. Department of Justice's toll-free ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (voice) or 800-514-0383 (TDD).




The office is currently closed.



And the law REQUIRES the restaurant give special treatment to service dogs in most (perhaps all) states.

I'm required to:

Make reasonable modifications in policies and procedures (e.g., allow person to be accompanied by service animal or guide dog, even if a hotel has a ‘no pets’ policy);
http://www.ada.gov/reachingout/lodblind(lesson2).html




You think showing up to a restaurant with a half-dozen animals without calling ahead so we can make accommodations is reasonable? What about a dozen? Two dozen?

[KartRacerBoy]

Once again JT is incapable or reading another's post. Try going back and rereading. I really don't want to restate my position for every member of this forum. It gets tedious.

Do that rather than re-type your questions in ever larger type faces when you want to claim I'm ignoring you.

BTW, I do at times ignore you. But then I'll try to tell you when your questions are irrelevant. But if I've already addressed them with you or someone else, I'm really not in to the whole restatement thing.

[ConHog]

Once again JT is incapable or reading another's post. Try going back and rereading. I really don't want to restate my position for every member of this forum. It gets tedious.

Do that rather than re-type your questions in ever larger type faces when you want to claim I'm ignoring you.

BTW, I do at times ignore you. But then I'll try to tell you when your questions are irrelevant. But if I've already addressed them with you or someone else, I'm really not in to the whole restatement thing.



I asked you the EXACT same question JT did. Do you think it's reasonable that they just showed up and expected a restaraunt to work out serving them and their six dogs. Your response to me was that I should read the post right above mine. That post from you read

Conhog, you keep forgetting about that whole govt and law thing? Again?



How does that answer the question?

Just answer the fucking question. Do you think it's reasonable to expect a group like this to have called ahead of time? Yes or no. That's all I want to hear from you at this point.

[KartRacerBoy]

I asked you the EXACT same question JT did. Do you think it's reasonable that they just showed up and expected a restaraunt to work out serving them and their six dogs. Your response to me was that I should read the post right above mine. That post from you read

Conhog, you keep forgetting about that whole govt and law thing? Again?



How does that answer the question?

Just answer the fucking question. Do you think it's reasonable to expect a group like this to have called ahead of time? Yes or no. That's all I want to hear from you at this point.

This is just too easy.

Your first post in this thread was 76. Didn't the National Guard teach you the number just before that?

[ConHog]

This is just too easy.

Your first post in this thread was 76. Didn't the National Guard teach you the number just before that?

Still avoiding the simple question? Why?

[J.T]

Still avoiding the simple question? Why?

Because he's just here to cause headaches and has absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion?

[ConHog]

Because he's just here to cause headaches and has absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion?



I think he's also looking for a husband.

[fj1200]

Do you not agree that the six blind mice should have attempted to make arrangement beforehand rather than just showing up at a restaurant with 6 service animals and expecting service? Or do you contend that the restaurant owner owes them SPECIAL treatment because of their handicap?


You think showing up to a restaurant with a half-dozen animals without calling ahead so we can make accommodations is reasonable? What about a dozen? Two dozen?

So if this group had exercised common courtesy then you would support their claim to their legal right to be served? Besides, who calls ahead to a Chinese buffet?

All of your other issues have been discussed in the previous 5 pages.

[fj1200]

I think he's also looking for a husband.

When in doubt the ol' "poo pusher" debating ploy. :thumb:



:slap:

[KartRacerBoy]

When in doubt the ol' "poo pusher" debating ploy. :thumb:



:slap:

Having spent 8 yrs in kindergarden studying the Constitution, CongHog is a debating genius!

[Gunny]

When in doubt the ol' "poo pusher" debating ploy. :thumb:



:slap:


Having spent 8 yrs in kindergarden studying the Constitution, CongHog is a debating genius!

When in doubt, the ol' deflect with a personal insult ploy doesn't really work, but there are those that think so.

[KartRacerBoy]

When in doubt, the ol' deflect with a personal insult ploy doesn't really work, but there are those that think so.

That's actually hilarious coming from you. And "poo pusher" isn't meant as a personal attack?

And I was just quoting ConHog from the intro thread. He stated he spent 8 yrs studying the constitution. I was, however, speculating where he studied it, but it seemed a likely speculation.

[J.T]

So if this group had exercised common courtesy then you would support their claim to their legal right to be served?

If they had called ahead, I'd expect the proprietor, if feasible, to make such accommodations as are reasonable, such as setting aside some tables in an area of the restaurant where they could have their dogs with them without blocking the aisles or being too close to the food (lest anyone complain about shedding dogs near the food). Without knowing the size and layout of the place, it's impossible to say exactly what he could have done.


Besides, who calls ahead to a Chinese buffet?

People who want to bring a half-dozen canines in with them.

It would also be wise to ask when peak hours are, so they could arrive during a slower time in case they required assistance from any of the staff.

[ConHog]

So if this group had exercised common courtesy then you would support their claim to their legal right to be served? Besides, who calls ahead to a Chinese buffet?

All of your other issues have been discussed in the previous 5 pages.



You have NO legal right to eat at someone's restaurant. What you DO have is a right not to be discriminated against (and IMHO even that is wrong) So no I don't believe that calling ahead would have or should have automatically got them served, BUT it would have made them seem like reasonable people who realized that they need special accommodations and perhaps they should have called ahead of time. Instead they seem to be unreasonable jackasses who just believe that the law gives them the right to do as they please regardless of how it affects other people.

By not calling ahead they didn't even give the restaurant an opportunity to come up with a REASONABLE solution.

As for who calls ahead to a Chinese buffet. Anyone who is smart enough to realize that they have special needs that need to be accomodated if the owner wants their business.

[ConHog]

If they had called ahead, I'd expect the proprietor, if feasible, to make such accommodations as are reasonable, such as setting aside some tables in an area of the restaurant where they could have their dogs with them without blocking the aisles or being too close to the food (lest anyone complain about shedding dogs near the food). Without knowing the size and layout of the place, it's impossible to say exactly what he could have done.

People who want to bring a half-dozen canines in with them.

It would also be wise to ask when peak hours are, so they could arrive during a slower time in case they required assistance from any of the staff.



Exactly, by NOT calling ahead these boneheads deprived the owner from even having the opportunity to accommodate them. ADA was NEVER meant to be used to help handicapped people trample over the rights of others, but we sure should have known it would happen. Once again I feel this law in unconstitutional as it applies to private businesses. Government facilities? You bet. My private business. No. Do I also have to have a handicap ramp to my house incase a guy in a wheel chair wants to become a Jehova's Witness or a door to door salesman? Do I have to let a blind man bring his dog into my home? Where does it end?

[ConHog]

Just checking in to see if KartTroll had answered my question yet. I see he hasn't .

[fj1200]

If they had called ahead, I'd expect the proprietor, if feasible, to make such accommodations as are reasonable, such as setting aside some tables in an area of the restaurant where they could have their dogs with them without blocking the aisles or being too close to the food (lest anyone complain about shedding dogs near the food). Without knowing the size and layout of the place, it's impossible to say exactly what he could have done.

Has anyone brushed up on all the issues brought up in this thread? The restaurant offered to accommodate them to settle this row.


People who want to bring a half-dozen canines in with them.

It would also be wise to ask when peak hours are, so they could arrive during a slower time in case they required assistance from any of the staff.

See the quote the led up to this... Sarcasm, not "sarcasm." ;) Unfortunately the law does not require common courtesy upon the blind anymore than it requires it on the rest of society.

[J.T]

Has anyone brushed up on all the issues brought up in this thread? The restaurant offered to accommodate them to settle this row.



See the quote the led up to this... Sarcasm, not "sarcasm." ;) Unfortunately the law does not require common courtesy upon the blind anymore than it requires it on the rest of society.
Make reasonable modifications in policies and procedures (e.g., allow person to be accompanied by service animal or guide dog, even if a hotel has a ‘no pets’ policy);
http://www.ada.gov/reachingout/lodblind(lesson2).html (http://www.ada.gov/reachingout/lodblind%28lesson2%29.html)

[KartRacerBoy]

Just checking in to see if KartTroll had answered my question yet. I see he hasn't .

Stll have't found your way to post 75? OMG, you must have a hard time finding your way to the bathroom. :lol:

[ConHog]

Stll have't found your way to post 75? OMG, you must have a hard time finding your way to the bathroom. :lol:


Yes, I did overlook this from you


Surely the group should have called ahead to help the restaurant to accomodate them, but the manager was clearly violating the law despite the groups shortsightedness.

So you admit that what the group wanted was outside the bounds of what a restaurant could or should be expected to provide at a moment's notice.

[KartRacerBoy]

Yes, I did overlook this from you


Surely the group should have called ahead to help the restaurant to accomodate them, but the manager was clearly violating the law despite the groups shortsightedness.

So you admit that what the group wanted was outside the bounds of what a restaurant could or should be expected to provide at a moment's notice.

Good for you. I've only been pointing out the exact post while you and JT got all huffy for a day or so.
I
Do I think the group should've called ahead to give time to the restaurant to get ready for thei party? Yes. If they didn't, should the restaurant made them wait while they accomodated the group? Yes. I don't think servicd dogs that are well trained would present any kind of problem generally, but I wasn't there. I've also seen pretty shoddily trained dogs (rarely) but they are out there. If these folks all had dogs from an organization that was pretty amateurish in their training, perhaps the manager had a reason to refuse service.

However, we don't know that.If they were all guide dogs for the blind, I bet those dogs were very well trained. Refusing the group just based on their number from any service (rather than delayed service to accomodate) is wrong and possibly illegal given service dog laws.

So how's that for ya? It depends based on the circumstances but I have stong doubts.

[ConHog]

Good for you. I've only been pointing out the exact post while you and JT got all huffy for a day or so.
I
Do I think the group should've called ahead to give time to the restaurant to get ready for thei party? Yes. If they didn't, should the restaurant made them wait while they accomodated the group? Yes. I don't think servicd dogs that are well trained would present any kind of problem generally, but I wasn't there. I've also seen pretty shoddily trained dogs (rarely) but they are out there. If these folks all had dogs from an organization that was pretty amateurish in their training, perhaps the manager had a reason to refuse service.

However, we don't know that.If they were all guide dogs for the blind, I bet those dogs were very well trained. Refusing the group just based on their number from any service (rather than delayed service to accomodate) is wrong and possibly illegal given service dog laws.

So how's that for ya? It depends based on the circumstances but I have stong doubts.


Actually in matters of law, it doesn't matter in terms of circumstances. Either you can do something or you can't. The term reasonable makes things a little grayer in this instance, but you would be VERY hard pressed to find ANYONE who believed that allowing one group to bring six dogs into a restaurant is a reasonable accommodation. I suppose one COULD say well what is the difference if a group coming or if six individuals came in, BUT I think we could reasonably think that there isn't much chance of one restaurant having six individuals show up with service dogs at one time.

[fj1200]

Make reasonable modifications in policies and procedures (e.g., allow person to be accompanied by service animal or guide dog, even if a hotel has a ‘no pets’ policy);
http://www.ada.gov/reachingout/lodblind(lesson2).html



Asked and answered.


Actually in matters of law, it doesn't matter in terms of circumstances. Either you can do something or you can't. The term reasonable makes things a little grayer in this instance, but you would be VERY hard pressed to find ANYONE who believed that allowing one group to bring six dogs into a restaurant is a reasonable accommodation. I suppose one COULD say well what is the difference if a group coming or if six individuals came in, BUT I think we could reasonably think that there isn't much chance of one restaurant having six individuals show up with service dogs at one time.

The restaurant has agreed to accommodate the group if they return. The ADA provides circumstances in which service dogs can be excluded, no information provided has shown that the group, or dogs, met those circumstances.