Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Acceptable_Tourist_4 t1_j27e71v wrote

Reply to comment by DeffNotTom in How do we feel about dogs in coffee shops? by korkvid

The ADA has specific questions that are appropriate to be asked if a business is trying to determine if an animal is a service animal. These questions are designed to protect the privacy and dignity of the disabled, and anyone with a service animal is well aware of these questions, and how to answer them.

Those questions are: Is your dog a service animal trained to assist with a disability? (And) What work or task is the animal trained to perform?”

As mentioned disabled people are well rehearsed in these questions, and others will look like a deer caught in the headlight as they try to stammer out answers. Even if someone confidently said “it’s trained to comfort me if/when I panic”, the answer is No because even emotional support animals are not recognized under the ADA guidelines.

14

DeffNotTom t1_j27evu3 wrote

"it's trained to comfort me when I panic" can be 100% valid under the ADA. If the dog/animal is trained to recognize panic attacks, anxiety, whatever, and trained for a specific response that mitigates that, they qualify.

−11

Acceptable_Tourist_4 t1_j27f8ty wrote

It’s not an opinion, it’s not a gray area, emotional support animals are not recognized by the ADA as service animals and don’t need to be accommodated as such. Don’t be a contrarian just to make a point. It is what it is.

24

DeffNotTom t1_j27fhnw wrote

You're right. It's not a gray area. Psychiatric service animal's are separate from emotional support animals. If they can identify a mental health disability, and are trained to perform a task, they are protected under the ADA. That includes anxiety/panic attacks. This isn't an opinion. That is the law. I'm sure it's on the ADA website somewhere.

9

Acceptable_Tourist_4 t1_j27fyk1 wrote

https://adata.org/guide/service-animals-and-emotional-support-animals

4

DeffNotTom t1_j27gf9r wrote

Question 4

Q4. If someone's dog calms them when having an anxiety attack, does this qualify it as a service animal?

A. It depends. The ADA makes a distinction between psychiatric service animals and emotional support animals. If the dog has been trained to sense that an anxiety attack is about to happen and take a specific action to help avoid the attack or lessen its impact, that would qualify as a service animal. However, if the dog’s mere presence provides comfort, that would not be considered a service animal under the ADA.

https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-faqs/

I'm not being contrarian for the fuck of it. The law is unenforceable because ADA protections are pretty bomb proof. The penalty risk of violating someone's disability rights generally outweighs the risk of some annoyed customers.

I know a veteran who carries a Yorkie in a purse. It's trained in epileptic and low blood sugar alert. Turns out Yorkies as a breed are REALLY good at it. A business owner could lose their whole livelihood by making an assumption about his dog.

10

SpindriftRascal t1_j28jzxg wrote

“A business owner could lose their whole livelihood….”

Only if the person with the dog overreacts, like those people who randomly go around suing over ADA compliance even when they have no intention of ever using the business. Being disabled doesn’t mean you have to be an asshole.

1

DeffNotTom t1_j28rcsj wrote

Don't discriminate against disabled people and you won't get sued 🤷🏻‍♂️

1

SpindriftRascal t1_j28sb28 wrote

It’s not that simple. There are people who make careers out of looking for ADA violations and suing. If they really cared about the issue itself, they’d discuss it first and try to get it remedied. Anyone who doesn’t try that is an asshole.

2

DeffNotTom t1_j28u7xv wrote

Ah yes. It should be up to disabled people to offer free ADA consulting to businesses discriminating against them. I see your point.

1

SpindriftRascal t1_j28v57o wrote

No, you don’t. I’m talking about people who don’t even try to use the business. They just go around as self-appointed ADA inspectors. They haven’t been victimized. They’re just assholes, rent-seeking.

1

DeffNotTom t1_j28woul wrote

Right. You don't think those people should be doing it because you believe they haven't been victimized. You want disabled people who have been victimized to do the heavy lifting.. What is it about your argument that you think I'm misinterpreting?

1

SpindriftRascal t1_j29ex42 wrote

I think people shouldn’t victimize each other. I think this means if someone victimizes a disabled person, it’s reasonable to make them pay for it. I think it is unreasonable to make random unassociated businesses pay for it, because that turns them into the victim.

1