If so many animal companions visit places where they weren't allowed before, and the fabric of the society shows no signs of collapse, maybe the problem is not "cheating" but overabundance of restrictions? Maybe people are afraid of other people's pets out of ignorance and lifting the veil of ignorance is a good thing? There are, of course, bad apples - as there are among people. In a restaurant I'd be more worried about a waiter not washing their hands after visiting bathroom (the fact that there are placards saying they ABSOLUTELY MUST DO IT everywhere is kind of unnerving - if they insist on it so much is it the case that one reminder at the start of the employment is not enough?) than about the quiet dog under the table on the other end of the room.
There are also things like poorly trained dog doing "what the dogs do" in the airplane, and the owner not thinking about dog's needs on a 5-hour flight. There are also sanitary and other concerns - e.g. in some places, it is clearly not appropriate to come with animals (most of these places, though, are not exactly open to public either). But I see no problem for a well-behaved dog (or other like animal, of course bengal tigers require an exception here) to accompany its owner to a restaurant or similar establishment - provided they don't smell offensively, shed, make loud noise or otherwise disturb people. Of course, the responsibility should be on the owner and if the companion pet misbehaves or makes trouble, they both should be out, but as a consequence of a problem, not as a pre-determined conclusion.
Our family has pets and I have witnessed how many establishments view pets negatively - e.g. renting with a pet is a constant problem since many landlords, both private and corporate, want nothing to do with it. I understand why it may be (bad apples) but in my case it was just ignorance and refusal to consider even the possibility that it would be OK.
So, I personally take an issue with the author conclusion that the only sensible thing for a person with a pet is to "get lost". I think most people she encountered actually did the sensible thing and accommodated their fellow human being and her companion, however weird it may seem. And I'm sure it didn't require any extraordinary effort, extraordinary cost or major inconvenience - just being ready to tolerate something that is a bit unusual.
I agree. I mean I am assuming your referring to my right to runa private business and not allow animals on my property if I don't want them there. Yes? That's the right to which you were referring? Ok good.
I do not dispute the right of private business to not allow any animal, human, plant, bacteria, archaea or space alien on their private properties. However, these rights are routinely infringed right now, so if you want to stand for them, please stand for them without exceptions. I.e. if the owner is the sole authority in determining who gets into their property, they can refuse anybody for any reason whatsoever, and no regulation or policy can stand in the way, that should be the case and all regulation concerning any such limitations should be removed. That's fine, consistent approach which has my full sympathy.
On the other hand, if you allow exceptions, such as different handling of "public places", even privately owned, if you accept regulation that limits the exclusive authority of the owner to exclude anybody they wish for any reason, then you have to be consistent and have some rules that would guide such regulation, and then what would be your reason to exclude people with (well-behaved) animals accompanying them, not infringing on anybody? "I don't like them, and that's enough" wouldn't cut it anymore - not unless you agree to go all the way. I would prefer the former approach, but it's not the world we live in now, so either we strive for that world, or we go with one we have now, but we can't do both at once.
Also, regardless of that, I think it is important for people to be a bit more accommodating to each other even if nobody forces you to. Let's assume you have full right to kick out every person with a dog out of your place of business. Why should you? Do they make any trouble? Every one of them, always? If not, why would you assume they are troublesome before any sign of trouble appears? Why not instead show some kindness and politeness and give people and dogs a chance to be good? If they don't, you can always kick them out later (ok, on the plane you can't but that's rather exceptional situation, in most situations resolution is very easy).
>if the owner is the sole authority in determining who gets into their property, they can refuse anybody for any reason whatsoever, and no regulation or policy can stand in the way
Err... this didn't work out too well in the past, which is why now I can't put up a sign in my store that says "No Mexicans." Or as a landlord I cant say "I only rent to whites." These regulations didn't arise out of nowhere...
I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about. Other than food establishments it is generally the owner's choice to allow animals ot not. Most people just don't allow animals. You can bring your dog to PetsMart.
It's not, nor should it be, all or nothing. The default state is that you can allow or not allow whoever or whatever you want. However there are a list of classes that protected. Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, and a handful more [1]. Pets are not, and again should not be, a protected class.
Why choice of religion can be protected but choice of companionship can not be? If one can define protected classes, why pet owners can't be protected? In fact, ESA is doing just that - and the only claim of the article is that it's too easy to get into the class. But why should it be hard?
Anything can be protected. It's just a law. Protecting a class restricts the rights of other people. We tend to prefer having more freedom and less restriction. Therefore a law that limits freedom should only be passed after carefully considering if it's worth it or not. Protecting people based on th color of their skin? Worth it. Protecting someone's right to go anywhere they want with their smelly pet? Not worth it.
They can be. They aren't because no US law has been passed to protect them. It hasn't because pets don't belong everywhere nobody wants businesses to not be able to tell someone to leave because their dog won't stop barking.
>But why should it be hard?
Because these people are abusing a law designed to protect disabled people because they can't excersize enough common sense and common curiosity to know what is appropriate and what is not. People who lack such common sense are surely more likely to have misbehaving animals. If everyone made rational choices with their well behaved animals then dogs wouldn't even be banned in the first place.
You want your emotional support animal to be able to go everywhere with you? Fine. I have no problem with that as long as you get the animal (and you) trained as much as ever other disability dog.
Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? Because pets are not people, for one, and protected class refers to a class of people.
Secondly, making something a protected class involves taking some freedom away from another group of people. It is a balancing act.
Most people don't think you have the "right" to bring your misbehaving dog everywhere you go. Everywhere, no matter if it is appropriate or not. If most people did, it is possible pet owners would be made a protected class in US law.
Family status is a protected class for housing. I can't say "I only rent to families without children" but I can ban children from my restaurant. It isn't all or nothing. Probably because kids can misbehave and the type of person who has a misbehaving child probably also is the one taking their child to places inappropriate for children.
I'm well aware of the term as it's used in the United States. I was asking why you think the list of legally protected classes should not include pets.
> Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? Because pets are not people, for one, and protected class refers to a class of people.
Well, what we're talking about is pet ownership by humans as the protected class. I don't think anyone was thinking of forcing employers to not discriminate again non-human animals.
> Most people don't think you have the "right" to bring your misbehaving dog everywhere you go.
Perhaps, but I suspect most people who bring their misbehaving dogs everywhere do think they have the right. If your argument is that anything which the majority of the population believe should be a protected, should indeed be a legally protected class, that's a reasonable proposition, but I think you'd find the list of legally protected classes would be a lot different than it is today.
The word "rights" evokes messy normative claims. I prefer a more positive approach, and it's clear that a large portion of people would vastly prefer, all else being equal, to minimize their interaction in public places with strangers' animals.
How large and how legitimate is their claim? Maybe it's just a product of irrational fear and ignorance, and knowing more about animal behavior and training they would be able to overcome their irrational revulsion and be content with animal presence? I don't see any rational reason to mind somebody having a dog or a turtle in my presence. Of course, there are can be religious etc. objections - but I don't think anybody would insist on going into a mosque or a synagogue or a kosher restaurant with a pig. At least if they try there would be completely reasonable to refuse them. But absent such matters, and other problems like obvious disturbing behavior (noise, smell, etc.) - why not? Why would you even call it "interaction" - after all, if you go on a bus with 50 strangers, you don't really "interact" with them. Why being in the same room with a dog be "interacting"?
>Maybe it's just a product of irrational fear and ignorance
Hardly.
One - liability. Your insurance may prevent you from allowing dogs. Or may up your premiums.
Two - risk. Is there a risk letting a pet in? Yea. The risk it will bite, be loud, shit/piss on the floor, or annoy other customers or carry disease. Many businesses feel this is an unnecessary risk with not much benefit.
Very few people are irrationally fearful of animals. Businesses are just risk adverse. Theres can be a lot of cost and not much benefit.
>But absent such matters, and other problems like obvious disturbing behavior
People don't bother training their dogs or using common sense and curiosity. If they did this wouldn't be an issue, dogs could just come and go in appropriate places. Since people won't do that we have the majority of businesses who don't care to have them on the premises.
Ever heard of the expression "this is why we can't have nice things?"
But you are 100% free to go open up your own non food establishment and invite all the animals you want in.
We're back to normative with the word "legitimate." I can provide reasons why I or someone else might have certain preferences, but I'm not up to the task of proclaiming which reasons are "legitimate."
OK, fine, but if we talk about pure preference, I don't see why preference not to be in the same room as a dog is better than preference to have a dog around. I.e. if somebody say "but your dog can bite me", we can talk about it and I can alleviate their concerns and maybe we'll arrive to agreement that would be ok with us both. But if somebody just says "I hate dogs and won't tolerate the sight of them!" then there's no way to go anywhere with that, and then I would question why their hate has to have more weight than my preference for canine companionship. Because the article and some other people sound like the preference is a given, but I question - why is that?
> I don't see why preference not to be in the same room as a dog is better than preference to have a dog around.
I also don't see why it's "better" in some objective or universal sense. A "preference" is already a feeling that one thing is better than another, so it's weird to talk about one preference being better than another, at least without some overarching goal like maximizing equality or maximizing utility.
Our family has pets and I have witnessed how many establishments view pets negatively - e.g. renting with a pet is a constant problem since many landlords, both private and corporate, want nothing to do with it. I understand why it may be (bad apples) but in my case it was just ignorance and refusal to consider even the possibility that it would be OK.
So, I personally take an issue with the author conclusion that the only sensible thing for a person with a pet is to "get lost". I think most people she encountered actually did the sensible thing and accommodated their fellow human being and her companion, however weird it may seem. And I'm sure it didn't require any extraordinary effort, extraordinary cost or major inconvenience - just being ready to tolerate something that is a bit unusual.