i put this in politics because i don't see a blasphemy section

[gunsmith]

https://www.wtoc.com/2019/07/01/blind-mans-service-dog-not-allowed-lowcountry-church/

A blind guy with a seeing eye dog kicked out of Church!
LOL , lowcountry can't take the highroad I guess.
their facebook page getting swamped with outrage, instead of saying "sorry"
they're doubling down on stupid and erasing comments.
LOL.

I was naked and you clothed me.
I was hungry and you fed me.
I was in prison and you visited me.
I had a dog and you freaked out

[Hawkmoon]

Initially, I was outraged. Then I read the church's letter on the subject, and my reaction changed to, "I knew this day was coming, and it's long overdue."

The key point:

For 24 years, we were delighted to be able to safely serve our respected attendees
with service animals. However, the American Disabilities Act Title III requires
any facility allowing service animals to also allow virtually any animal, at all
times, with minimal restrictions on areas of access. This law also disallows
requiring documentation for a service animal or asking the animal owner to sit in
a designated area. While churches and private clubs are exempt from this law, it
is our greatest desire to not only accommodate but lovingly welcome and serve
anyone and everyone. However, allowing an unlimited number of potentially
uncertified animals, with minimal venue restrictions, as the existing law requires,
would be a safety risk to the approximately 2,500 people who attend events in
our facility each week, including those with severe allergies and emotional
reactions to animals.

I see it all the time. Women with lapdogs in their shopping carts at Walmart and the supermarket. People with all manner of dogs (and other animals) that they've dressed up in a cute little "Comfort Animal" vest in all sorts pf places where "pets" aren't allowed, but service animals are -- because the feral government says they have to be.  It's idiocy, and the morons at the federal government who wrote the rules are responsible. I don't think anyone has a problem with seeing eye dogs. It's common knowledge that they are well-trained, and selected for having a docile personality. But there are no requirements or criteria for these "comfort" animals. Some are trained for the task, many aren't. And there's no way to know, because the federal law makes it illegal to ask what the disability is that requires the use of an animal, or if the animal has had any training, of if a doctor has diagnosed the owner's condition and prescribed the use of a service dog.

In short, it has become a huge scam on the part of too many people who use the laws to take their little lap pooch with them everywhere, flouting the right of business owners to decline to admit pets.

I feel badly for the guy in this story, but it isn't the church's fault.

[gunsmith]

Initially, I was outraged. Then I read the church's letter on the subject, and my reaction changed to, "I knew this day was coming, and it's long overdue."


In short, it has become a huge scam on the part of too many people who use the laws to take their little lap pooch with them everywhere, flouting the right of business owners to decline to admit pets.

I feel badly for the guy in this story, but it isn't the church's fault.

i agree/disagree.
they can have a talk with patty the phoo phoo dog lady and the freak with the service parrot that chirps "hail chutulu" during the service.
I know exactly thetype you're talking about, an idiot lady AA acquaintance goes to aa with her "service" dog that is always nervous in crowds, unfriendly, etc.
However a Church should be able to accommodate the legally blind .
I seem to recall Jesus helping a blind dude out

[gunsmith]

Also, their letter is damage control.
they simply kicked the guy out no compassion or explanation 

[MillCreek]

The Church misstates the Federal law on service animals in terms of allowing any other animal.  They should read up on it. I don't know about any state law or regulation that may apply in their jurisdiction.

[Hawkmoon]

https://adata.org/publication/service-animals-booklet

A public accommodation or facility is not allowed to ask for documentation or proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Local laws that prohibit specific breeds of dogs do not apply to service animals.

Of course, a church is not a place of "public accommodation" under the ADA. Churches are exempt.

That said, I think the provision that says public accommodations or facilities can't ask for certification that the animal has been trained and certified is stupid. That's like telling a police officer he/she can't ask a driver who ran a stop sign that he/she can't ask for the operator's driver's license.

[Firethorn]

Personally, I agree.  Now, I don't think that they should be required to show what service the animal is trained to provide - Is the dog trained to guide a blind person around, to fetch objects for somebody in a wheelchair, to signal that somebody is about to have a seizure?  That isn't actually what I'm concerned about.

I'm more concerned with how the dog handles the public.  Actual service animals are selected and trained to be good in the public.  IE they aren't going to bite, aren't going to panic, run around, or *expletive deleted*it in the store unless exceptionally pressed(IE a human would have already done it).

So seeing that the animal has been certified to be in public should be good, we don't need to see beyond that to what medical task the animal is trained to do because that's getting into HIPAA stuff.

[Boomhauer]

I’m going to throw in that I used to live down there (my last park) and a large segment of the population in the area are self entitled jackasses who will blow anything that offends them way up...they are experts at making massive mountains out of molehills. Im not saying that’s necessarily the case here but always consider it a possibility, and once one of them gets the ear of the media good luck on finding out the rest of the story because it’s going to be drowned out in the sea of outrage.

[Scout26]

I will take my comfort giraffe with me everywhere, and you can't stop me.

[dogmush]

Point in the first:

Emotional Support Animals are not considered "Service Animals" under the ADA. A "service animal" under the ADA is:

defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability.  The task(s) performed by the dog must be directly related to the person's disability.

There is also a provision, with more limitations, for miniature horses.  That's it though.  No other animal is a service animal.

Point in the second:

Under the ADA, if it's not obvious, you absolutely may ask the person if the dog is a service animal, and which task it is trained to do.  While it's true that you can't ask for documentation, you can ask what the dog does.  I have found if a person with a "service animal" tells you you can't ask that, it's a good indicator that the animal in question isn't a service animal.

These two questions from the ADA FAQ clarify it more:

Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA?
A. No.  These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person.  Because they have not been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.  However, some State or local governments have laws that allow people to take emotional support animals into public places.  You may check with your State and local government agencies to find out about these laws.

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.

There are some states that legislate "Emotional Support Animals"  but under federal law you definitely can throw them and their entitled owners out.  Businesses just tend to be to scared of Karen on Yelp to do it.  This church doesn't understand the law they quoted, and stepped on their peepee.  They should probably apologize.

[zxcvbob]

Initially, I was outraged. Then I read the church's letter on the subject, and my reaction changed to, "I knew this day was coming, and it's long overdue."

The key point:

I see it all the time. Women with lapdogs in their shopping carts at Walmart and the supermarket. People with all manner of dogs (and other animals) that they've dressed up in a cute little "Comfort Animal" vest in all sorts pf places where "pets" aren't allowed, but service animals are -- because the feral government says they have to be.  It's idiocy, and the morons at the federal government who wrote the rules are responsible. I don't think anyone has a problem with seeing eye dogs. It's common knowledge that they are well-trained, and selected for having a docile personality. But there are no requirements or criteria for these "comfort" animals. Some are trained for the task, many aren't. And there's no way to know, because the federal law makes it illegal to ask what the disability is that requires the use of an animal, or if the animal has had any training, of if a doctor has diagnosed the owner's condition and prescribed the use of a service dog.

In short, it has become a huge scam on the part of too many people who use the laws to take their little lap pooch with them everywhere, flouting the right of business owners to decline to admit pets.

I feel badly for the guy in this story, but it isn't the church's fault.

I haven't read the article yet, but from what I've heard it is the church's fault.  A seeing eye dog is the very definition of a service animal (there are a few others) that should be allowed almost anywhere and denied only with good reason.  "Emotional support" animals and other alleged therapy animals are a whole different thing.  Those are what the church should disallow.

The church was probably ignorant of the distinction (they've probably heard about in now) and they are tired of entitled jackasses bringing misbehaved pets into the sanctuary.  They owe this guy a public apology.

[RoadKingLarry]

I wonder what kind of a market there would be for honey badger service animals. Not only for emotional support but also for ripping the throat out of antifa libtards.

[makattak]

I haven't read the article yet, but from what I've heard it is the church's fault.  A seeing eye dog is the very definition of a service animal (there are a few others) that should be allowed almost anywhere and denied only with good reason.  "Emotional support" animals and other alleged therapy animals are a whole different thing.  Those are what the church should disallow.

The church was probably ignorant of the distinction (they've probably heard about in now) and they are tired of entitled jackasses bringing misbehaved pets into the sanctuary.  They owe this guy a public apology.

So, I just want to confirm what the reasoning is in this:

We're taking the word of the angry sister (second-hand) on what happened rather than the word of the pastor of the church (also second-hand) as to what happened?

Yes, likely the church was confused by the INSANE laws we have in this country, and understandably so. Unless you'd like to pay for a lawyer for them to understand it better, I'm not sure how they should just take the word of random stranger on the internet.

Secondly, because I will take the word of a pastor over the word of random facebook angry sister, it sounds like they tried to accommodate the gentleman by providing a human volunteer to assist him in the service.

Further, I'm quite sure they are afraid that allowing a service animal at all means they can't put restrictions on where it can go. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not versed in the ADA, so I'm not so sure they ARE mistaken in their concerns.

[griz]

I wonder what kind of a market there would be for honey badger service animals. Not only for emotional support but also for ripping the throat out of antifa libtards.

I'll take one.  It'll put me in my happy place.  I'm off to get a honey badger reflective vest and a (very stout) leash.

[zxcvbob]

So, I just want to confirm what the reasoning is in this:

We're taking the word of the angry sister (second-hand) on what happened rather than the word of the pastor of the church (also second-hand) as to what happened?

Yes, likely the church was confused by the INSANE laws we have in this country, and understandably so. Unless you'd like to pay for a lawyer for them to understand it better, I'm not sure how they should just take the word of random stranger on the internet.

Secondly, because I will take the word of a pastor over the word of random facebook angry sister, it sounds like they tried to accommodate the gentleman by providing a human volunteer to assist him in the service.

Further, I'm quite sure they are afraid that allowing a service animal at all means they can't put restrictions on where it can go. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not versed in the ADA, so I'm not so sure they ARE mistaken in their concerns.

The OP says a blind man was not allowed to bring his Seeing Eye dog into the church.  The church's apology posted later seems to corroborate that.  That's what I'm going on.  I don't know who's word it is yet, I haven't gotten to the article yet.  I'll read it after the meeting I'm almost late to,

[brimic]

I need a comfort hyena.

https://www.google.com/search?q=south+africa+gangs+hyena&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=0Q0_10TnM4KYvM%253A%252CWyrzk2bCekS1PM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTc448jjJIdE5YxSPs6CweKXsy3yg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdvKLwyJbjAhXiQ98KHQTIAhwQ9QEwDHoECAgQBA#imgrc=0Q0_10TnM4KYvM:

[RocketMan]

Many of these people with "emotional service" animals should themselves be certified before they are allowed out in public.

[TommyGunn]

Wish I had this as a service animal .....  ......

[BobR]

Wish I had this as a service animal .....  ......

It would probably work unless it had to reach out to grab someone. 


bob

[Hawkmoon]

I wonder what kind of a market there would be for honey badger service animals. Not only for emotional support but also for ripping the throat out of antifa libtards.

Redundant. Ripping the throats out of antifa libtards qualifies as emotional support.

[Jamisjockey]

Not politics.