houndoggie: Silly Jesus: I have a disability, and you WILL do whatever it takes to accommodate me (including spending your own time and money)! Otherwise, I get all of your money!

Yay entitlement!

I agree, we should just throw them all in the river.

Dude, you're messed up in the head. I FISH in the river. I don't want to hook some crippled person.

Throw them off cliffs into ditches. I mean seriously, who taught you to be spartan with your compassion?

Silly Jesus: what_now: Silly Jesus: Yeah, I'm quaint and old fashioned like that, I know. I think that store owners should be allowed to decide what, if any, animals come onto/into their property rather than self righteous folks demanding that they and their animal be allowed entrance onto the property of someone else, regardless of the feelings of the property owner.

Should they also be able to tell them colored folk to git?

Lol. You couldn't help yourself, could you?

Frankly, although it wouldn't be my business practice to discriminate in such a way, I think that a business owner should be able to sell the fruits of his labor to whomever he pleases, rather than who the federal government tells him to.

I agree that's the way it should be. However we would need two things for that. 1) A responsible press to report these things so that consumers could move their money elsewhere. 2) Americans would have to remember stuff for more than a day.

Is it an actual seeing eye dog or a "service animal"?

netizencain: We're probably not getting the whole story. She probably has a pet Chihuahua in her purse. But because the ADA doesn't require any proof or licensing of service animals, you can make up any shiat you want and stores have to comply.

/we discussed this last week with a similar story about Good Will.

"Cricket" is a full-size golden lab, with a regulation harness. So your theory is out the window here.

Silly Jesus: RichieLaw: Silly Jesus: WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: I doubt that it would be much different for these fine folks.

So what you're saying is that it should be ok for the store to not let the woman in with her service dog? REALLY?

Yeah, I'm quaint and old fashioned like that, I know. I think that store owners should be allowed to decide what, if any, animals come onto/into their property rather than self righteous folks demanding that they and their animal be allowed entrance onto the property of someone else, regardless of the feelings of the property owner.

::clapping.jpeg::

Bravo sir. Flawless victory.

notsureifserious.jpg

you see, RichieLaw is applauding your subtle efforts at trolling the thread.

i only explain this because it appears you may be so invested in this "viewpoint" that you might actually believe it, which would be incredibly silly given that the ADA explicitly establishes a lawful right to enter public places, such as stores, with a service animal.

Came for picture of Triumph the insult comic dog.

Leaving disappointed.

Molavian: Is it an actual seeing eye dog or a "service animal"?

It's an actual seeing-eye dog.



In an actual harness, used by guide dogs. And with an actual blind woman attached to it.

Silly Jesus: I have a disability, and you WILL do whatever it takes to accommodate me (including spending your own time and money)! Otherwise, I get all of your money!

Yay entitlement!

Compulsive trolling doesn't count under the ADA

Well, Ms. High Priced Attorney. I went in to apply for a job, and the next thing I knew...

Gyrfalcon: netizencain: We're probably not getting the whole story. She probably has a pet Chihuahua in her purse. But because the ADA doesn't require any proof or licensing of service animals, you can make up any shiat you want and stores have to comply.

/we discussed this last week with a similar story about Good Will.

"Cricket" is a full-size golden lab, with a regulation harness. So your theory is out the window here.

Is Cricket also a junkie?

/ooh a brown paper bag i have found on the premises!

Gyrfalcon:

It's an actual seeing-eye dog.

with an actual blind woman attached to it.

Otherwise it would be just an "actual" dog.

That's because it was Ann TAYLOR.

The dog got it confused with Anne Frank.

Now why would a blind woman bring a dog to help her shop for clothes? Not only can they not differentiate very many colors, they're too polite to tell her that yes those pants do make her butt look big.

Gyrfalcon: Molavian: Is it an actual seeing eye dog or a "service animal"?

It's an actual seeing-eye dog.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x225]

In an actual harness, used by guide dogs. And with an actual blind woman attached to it.

Shes probably faking it.

That isn't the story at all... Ann Taylor called the lady and welcomed her back and apologized for the employee's misunderstanding of the no pets policy (according to TFA)... someone did something stupid, someone higher apologized and tried to make things right. I'll admit that there are times where it is difficult to tell what's going on, especially for people who use animals because of some emotional disablity... seizure dogs are also not necessarily as easy to spot as seeing-eye dogs (because they don't get a harness)...

As for the trolls in the thread, I have MS, my big brother actually has RP... the ADA doesn't say you will do anything to make me happy, it just says that you must take reasonable measures for accomodation... in the store I work at, I frequently move racks for elderly wheelchair bound people, get things off of shoulder high racks for people with walkers, and do a bunch of other things, not because the ADA requires me to do these reasonable things, but because I'm not a total dickbag like some of you.

netizencain: We're probably not getting the whole story. She probably has a pet Chihuahua in her purse. But because the ADA doesn't require any proof or licensing of service animals, you can make up any shiat you want and stores have to comply.

/we discussed this last week with a similar story about Good Will.

That was last week.....;-)

I can see why some stores are iffy about "Service Animals" because some people like to abuse the law but this was clearly a seeing eye dog
/Can't wait to get a service rock python for my jitters

Silly Jesus: welfare queen

Oh look, a troll from 1976.

TravisBickle62: firefly212: That isn't the story at all... Ann Taylor called the lady and welcomed her back and apologized for the employee's misunderstanding of the no pets policy (according to TFA)... someone did something stupid, someone higher apologized and tried to make things right. I'll admit that there are times where it is difficult to tell what's going on, especially for people who use animals because of some emotional disablity... seizure dogs are also not necessarily as easy to spot as seeing-eye dogs (because they don't get a harness)...

As for the trolls in the thread, I have MS, my big brother actually has RP... the ADA doesn't say you will do anything to make me happy, it just says that you must take reasonable measures for accomodation... in the store I work at, I frequently move racks for elderly wheelchair bound people, get things off of shoulder high racks for people with walkers, and do a bunch of other things, not because the ADA requires me to do these reasonable things, but because I'm not a total dickbag like some of you.

Your brother has Rape?

you said "rape" twice. please stop raping that poor man.

When service dogs come into our store they get a dog treat and a bunch of petting.

Bathia_Mapes: Seeing as how guide dogs were allowed in business before the ADA mandate, it boggles the mind that anyone can still be so ignorant.

Personally I would have stood my ground and refused to leave the store because leaving the store, IMHO, gives the store employees the impression that they were right about not allowing service animals.

Hey now! No need to get violent.

/ Florida resident

Silly Jesus: Frankly, although it wouldn't be my business practice to discriminate in such a way, I think that a business owner should be able to sell the fruits of his labor to whomever he pleases, rather than who the federal government tells him to.

What a wonderful world it would be? Amiright?

KrispyKritter: you said "rape" twice. please stop raping that poor man.

Won't someone please help that poor man?

netizencain: But because the ADA doesn't require any proof or licensing of service animals, you can make up any shiat you want and stores have to comply.

Not necessarily. Many people have sued for the right to have or travel with animals they claim perform a service under ADA and have lost the lawsuit. Service animals are defined as animals that perform specific defined tasks for a disabled individual, not just give them the warm fuzzies. However, there are state laws that define service animals more broadly. Additionally, other statutes (.e.g Fair Housing Act) have a separate category for assistance animals which defines such animals more broadly.

If you suspect that someone is just bringing a dog in for the hell of it and you don't want that dog around, you are permitted to ask 'what tasks specifically does this service animal perform for you', and 'making me happy' or 'none of your god damn business' are not an acceptable answers. However, you can't ask 'what's your problem that you need this dog to follow you around'.

Came in to see the trolls hip deep

/leaving satisfied

halB: Silly Jesus: what_now: Silly Jesus: Yeah, I'm quaint and old fashioned like that, I know. I think that store owners should be allowed to decide what, if any, animals come onto/into their property rather than self righteous folks demanding that they and their animal be allowed entrance onto the property of someone else, regardless of the feelings of the property owner.

Should they also be able to tell them colored folk to git?

Lol. You couldn't help yourself, could you?

Frankly, although it wouldn't be my business practice to discriminate in such a way, I think that a business owner should be able to sell the fruits of his labor to whomever he pleases, rather than who the federal government tells him to.

I agree that's the way it should be. However we would need two things for that. 1) A responsible press to report these things so that consumers could move their money elsewhere. 2) Americans would have to remember stuff for more than a day.

(whosawesomeyoureawesome.jpg)

What about customers who are allergic to dogs? I love dogs, and blind people are ok too, but there has to be a not-so-happy medium.

Silly Jesus: How does a special exemption for a select group become equality?

It's not an exemption, it's a recognition that certain people need certain provisions in order to enjoy equal access to commercial enterprises and other things.

Dear Consumerist,
While shopping at Ann Taylor with my terribly asthmatic, highly dog allergic precious snowflake some selfish blind woman came in with a dog......

Quite the quandry.

Molavian: Is it an actual seeing eye dog or a "service animal"?

She refers to it as a guide dog, which is another term for seeing eye dog.

firefly212: ...seizure dogs are also not necessarily as easy to spot as seeing-eye dogs (because they don't get a harness)...

As for the trolls in the thread, I have MS, my big brother actually has RP... the ADA doesn't say you will do anything to make me happy, it just says that you must take reasonable measures for accomodation... in the store I work at, I frequently move racks for elderly wheelchair bound people, get things off of shoulder high racks for people with walkers, and do a bunch of other things, not because the ADA requires me to do these reasonable things, but because I'm not a total dickbag like some of you.

Nope, not a harness, but reputable facilities do issue vests, identification, and require training with their owners before seizure dogs are released to a person as a service animal for them.

Even seizure dogs should be clearly recognizable when in public on duty as working dogs, despite the fact that they do not use the same type of harness as a sight/hearing dog.

Also, you're awesome. Irritates me no end when I see some poor little old lady with a walker standing there staring at the top shelf and some 6'5" dude walk past without even acknowledging her. Hell, I'm short and I climb the shelves to get the little old lady what she needs. Respect your elders, people!

Silly Jesus: WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: I doubt that it would be much different for these fine folks.

So what you're saying is that it should be ok for the store to not let the woman in with her service dog? REALLY?

Yeah, I'm quaint and old fashioned like that, I know. I think that store owners should be allowed to decide what, if any, animals come onto/into their property rather than self righteous folks demanding that they and their animal be allowed entrance onto the property of someone else, regardless of the feelings of the property owner.



You're the gift that keeps on giving in this thread.

This is going to make me unpopular, but I feel terrible for the employee and I hope she isn't punished.

If she honestly doesn't know about the specifics of ADA (and let's be honest, how many people have actually read it?), her situation is this:

Some customer with a pet comes in and demands entry, with said pet, in violation of store policy. Customer cites legislation that may or may not be legit stating that the pet is allowed in the store. Employee explains that she was unaware of this and goes to find a manager. Customer leaves. Employee is later read the riot act by customer's husband because Ann Taylor couldn't be bothered to educate their sales staff on the legal responsibilities of the store.

I worked several retail jobs in my teen years. Not a single one educated me on ADA. At the movie theater, the manager brought up nut allergies as an afterthought one day after a customer asked if we used peanut oil.

Silly Jesus: what_now: Silly Jesus: Yeah, I'm quaint and old fashioned like that, I know. I think that store owners should be allowed to decide what, if any, animals come onto/into their property rather than self righteous folks demanding that they and their animal be allowed entrance onto the property of someone else, regardless of the feelings of the property owner.

Should they also be able to tell them colored folk to git?

Lol. You couldn't help yourself, could you?

Frankly, although it wouldn't be my business practice to discriminate in such a way, I think that a business owner should be able to sell the fruits of his labor to whomever he pleases, rather than who the federal government tells him to.

Being that she had apparently shopped there before, it was a dumb employee that caused the problem.

phrawgh: What about customers who are allergic to dogs?

Put them on an ice floe to die like the Eskimos did with their useless tribe members?

houndoggie: I agree, we should just throw them all in the river.

she's blind, not paralyzed! she needs to be handcuffed before being thrown in the river, silly.

Fano: Silly Jesus: what_now: Silly Jesus: Yeah, I'm quaint and old fashioned like that, I know. I think that store owners should be allowed to decide what, if any, animals come onto/into their property rather than self righteous folks demanding that they and their animal be allowed entrance onto the property of someone else, regardless of the feelings of the property owner.

Should they also be able to tell them colored folk to git?

Lol. You couldn't help yourself, could you?

Frankly, although it wouldn't be my business practice to discriminate in such a way, I think that a business owner should be able to sell the fruits of his labor to whomever he pleases, rather than who the federal government tells him to.

Being that she had apparently shopped there before, it was a dumb employee that caused the problem.

Actually it was a new store she had not been to yet. Sounds like management wasn't trained properly, which caused their employees not to be trained properly.

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: How does a special exemption for a select group become equality?

It's not an exemption, it's a recognition that certain people need certain provisions in order to enjoy equal access to commercial enterprises and other things.

Like a fat chick needing a handicap sticker for her car and a Rascal(tm) to cart her fat @ssss round the store???

I will repeat what I've said in the last story about service dogs being kicked out.

There are a lot of people running around with false documents claiming their pets are legal service dogs. When some asshole's unneutered pitbull "service dog" shiats in a store, growls at everyone and the owner is a complete dick, the store people start getting suspicious of all service dogs.

Not saying this is what happened in this store or that they had any excuse at all, but there is a problem.

MadAzza: I'm on her side, but how is a dog going to assist her with shopping for clothes?

Also, FTA: the woman is trying to "stay upbeat about her ordeal."

Ordeal?

That is what I'm curious about, if she is blind enough to need a guide dog, why the hell is she clothes shopping alone with a dog?

Being thrown out of a store can't be nearly as embarrassing as wearing crazy mismatched clothing picked out by a Labrador.

What about the ponies?

Service dogs are OK
Psychiatric Service Dogs? Nope.

/No Chiwawawawas.

rka: phrawgh: What about customers who are allergic to dogs?

Put them on an ice floe to die like the Eskimos did with their useless tribe members?

What if the peanuts were allergic to humans though?

Silly Jesus: I have a disability, and you WILL do whatever it takes to accommodate me (including spending your own time and money)! Otherwise, I get all of your money!

Yay entitlement!

Orrrr, you could just let the dog in and not be a recalitrant douchebag.

Just sayin'...

Silly Jesus: I have a disability, and you WILL do whatever it takes to accommodate me (including spending your own time and money)! Otherwise, I get all of your money!

Yay entitlement!

There are cases where I agree, the ADA is horrible. It's a good idea trashed by one word: "reasonable". However, this is not such a case. What does it cost the company to accommodate a guide dog? Nothing! Nobody's going to be using anything other than a very well trained guide dog (after all, the blind person is trusting their life to the dog.)

firefly212: As for the trolls in the thread, I have MS, my big brother actually has RP... the ADA doesn't say you will do anything to make me happy, it just says that you must take reasonable measures for accomodation... in the store I work at, I frequently move racks for elderly wheelchair bound people, get things off of shoulder high racks for people with walkers, and do a bunch of other things, not because the ADA requires me to do these reasonable things, but because I'm not a total dickbag like some of you.

The problem is that some people have a very different interpretation of "reasonable" and will sue about it. Consider a real case from many years back: A strip mall. The developer wanted to build it with two stories. Unfortunately, this was in a small town (no elevator repairman lived there) and a cold climate (winter storms could close the roads.) This made elevators unacceptable. (If someone became trapped it could take many hours to free them.) This was a strip mall--the access would be exposed to the elements. This made wheelchair ramps unacceptable--they could ice in the winter.

Thus there was no reasonable way to provide wheelchair access to a second story.

netizencain: We're probably not getting the whole story. She probably has a pet Chihuahua in her purse. But because the ADA doesn't require any proof or licensing of service animals, you can make up any shiat you want and stores have to comply.

/we discussed this last week with a similar story about Good Will.

Except there's a big difference: This is obviously a properly trained dog. I have a problem with the proliferation of service animals that haven't been trained to behave but guide dogs don't fall into that category.

Molavian: Is it an actual seeing eye dog or a "service animal"?

It's obviously a guide dog for the blind. "Seeing Eye" is a specific provider of such dogs, not a generic reference to guide dogs for the blind. (Think Xerox vs photocopy.)

Man this is a great thread. Silly Jesus came in here all "AOWOOOOGAH" and everything went all wambly-bambly and frankly I'm still chuckling a little bit.

Nice.

People who used to work work in production now work in retail.

On the production lines their stupidity led to accidents where they killed themselves, now that they are in retail their stupidity is killing the rest of us.

CSB At college while eating dinner a blind student and his dog meandered over and sat down at my table. He kicked (not nudged) the dog under the table, probably to make sure it was out of the way and not a tripping hazard. I felt sorry for him and the dog, so I reached under the table to pet it and was scolded, "don't pet the dog." I thought I misheard him, so I said, "pardon me?" He curtly repeated, "don't pet the dog."

Within seconds, I was gone and never sat at that table again. For the rest of the year, the guy ate alone. So whenever I see a "service dog" of any kind, I walk across the street. [Insert racist meme here]. And, yes, the blind guy was (angry, rude, lonely) black.

houndoggie: yahoo!

service animal thread!!!!

Probably a boring one though. Seeing eye dogs are not exactly subtle, nor is 95% blindness, so there's not the usual ambiguity between the dog owner being a trolling douchebag and the store employees being in the wrong-- the employees pretty unambiguously farked it up on this one.

Thus, not much to discuss.

phrawgh: What about customers who are allergic to dogs? I love dogs, and blind people are ok too, but there has to be a not-so-happy medium.

Other people having allergies is specifically cited in the ADA as insufficient cause to deny a service dog access to public areas. Which is fine, since a service dog should not be interacting with anyone else in the store in a way that could activate said allergies. If the dog is approaching other customers, nosing about the shelves, leaving hair anywhere but the floor, etc, that's sufficient grounds to eject the animal from the premises under the ADA (and also it's a shiat service dog and you need to get him retrained or a new one).

Basically, it's not a problem if the dog is properly trained, and lack of proper training is already sufficient legal reason to eject a specific animal so that's already covered.

//Also worth noting that the person in the article is apparently a regular customer, so this was a training fail for a specific employee, not the entire store hating blind people. It's not the classiest of establishments, sort of a step up from Target.

Fano: Silly Jesus: WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: I doubt that it would be much different for these fine folks.

So what you're saying is that it should be ok for the store to not let the woman in with her service dog? REALLY?

Yeah, I'm quaint and old fashioned like that, I know. I think that store owners should be allowed to decide what, if any, animals come onto/into their property rather than self righteous folks demanding that they and their animal be allowed entrance onto the property of someone else, regardless of the feelings of the property owner.

[gal.patheticcockroach.com image 300x441]

You're the gift that keeps on giving in this thread.

Like gonorrhea.

Silly Jesus: Equal? Huh? Other people can't bring their animals in, only the "disabled." How does a special exemption for a select group become equality?

Anyone is able to bring certified service animals into stores, but obviously the assumption is those animals are for persons with disabilities. Further, exemptions and protections exist to increase access for groups who lack access, thereby seeking to equalize access to products and services. In situations where access is restricted excessively, such as inability to travel around safely, the government has a compelling interest to offer exemptions and protections. This is known as "equity" rather than "equality" because the same rules regardless of situation is not necessarily fair, and what is desired by equality or equity is fairness; "fair" and "fairness" in this tends to refer to opportunity rather than results, to note.

Notice, the market is not well informed nor able nor a unified entity for the purposes of correcting wrongs by financial means. Not having a person who is blind in my family, and supposing I preferred Ann Taylor or Ann Taylor lacked competition accessible to me, I am not likely to change my spending habits despite recognizing what is wrong. This is an extremely implicit tyranny of the majority which serves to further insulate the majority from the minority at the expense of the minority by catering to the majority.