The social media mob did not disappoint this week as stories about a blind man being denied service and entry at a Grand Chute tavern because the owner thought guide dogs are not allowed inside under state and local laws hit the web. The Facebook posts by the “victim”, the owner of the bar, our own story on WHBY, and every other media outlet that picked it up featured accusations, demands for legal action, calls for a boycott, and the other usual vitriol flooding the comment sections of every post on the platform. As soon as I put it on-line, I knew it would do “good numbers”–as it features not just a disabled person being wronged, but an animal as well! I think the woke crowd likes to call that “intersectionality”–and it’s a “clickbait” fantasy pairing.
The most-common of responses is that the “owner should know the law”–like all requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act are common knowledge. If I didn’t have a steadfast policy of not engaging with on-line trolls, I’d ask those so-called experts in the ADA what is the maximum allowable slope of a wheelchair ramp? Or the minimum width of a handicapped bathroom stall? Or the required height of grab bars in a hotel shower? Or where Braille is required on signage? Or what intersections and crosswalks require that beeping noise? I’m guessing they wouldn’t be able to answer any of those off the top of their heads.
And consider that the ADA requirement to admit guide dogs is in direct opposition to the language of state statute and local ordinances. Those laws are very clear: If you serve commercially-prepared food in your place, animals CANNOT be in there. I think it would fun to conduct a “disability accommodation audit” of just about every restaurant and bar in the area and see how many others get tripped up. And I’m not just talking about allowing in guide dogs, but all of those other requirements I mentioned before. I’d be willing to bet that the “boycott the violators” club would suddenly find themselves very short on places to eat or drink.
In this case, I am willing to extend the owner of the bar a little bit of grace. Not because I think business owners shouldn’t be expected to know every single law, ordinance, and statute that applies to them, but rather because in this case we have seen so much abuse of the exception required by the ADA.
Previously, I did a My Two Cents about “accommodation appropriation”–where able-bodied people take advantage of ADA requirements to demand extra services, or to get around ordinances like the “no animals in restaurants” ban. And I called out the very actions that may have led to this high-profile incident. More and more people think they can bring along their pets everywhere they go–often under the guise of being a “service animal”. It’s highly likely that in recent years, patrons of the bar involved here tried to bring in a dog claiming it’s an “emotional support animal”. Those are NOT exempted under the ADA. The same goes for therapy dogs or comfort animals. Only trained service animals are granted the ADA exemption.
But here is the catch: the owners of those animals are not required to show any proof of training or certification. What’s more, business owners and employees are only allowed to ask if the animal has been trained, and what service it provides the owner. The way the law is written, they then have to accept any explanation provided by the person with the animal. What’s more, the animal is not required to wear any vest, patch, or tag identifying it as a trained service animal. And so, business owners and employees are left in this difficult spot where someone trying to sneak in a pet is given the same credence as someone with a legitimate handicap or disability.
Add to that the penalty for violation of the “no animals” statutes and ordinances does not fall upon the person who snuck in the pet–it falls upon the business owner, who can lose their licenses and have to pay fines as a result. It’s no wonder that owners are more likely to err on the side of exclusion than inclusion. I’d have been more impressed if the blind patron had called out the able-bodied people trying to use the ADA for their own benefit as just making it harder for those that really rely on the accommodations provided to them under the law.
But for the rest of our time here today, I’d like to talk about why bringing your animal everywhere with you has become “a thing” in the first place.
There is a reason why we have laws against pets being in restaurants. Just like there are reasons why dogs were banned for decades in public parks–or the myriad of other laws and ordinances governing pets in public places. It’s not like someone in the 1930’s decided “I don’t like dogs and cats, so we need to ban them from diners, stores, and parks!” As I’ve pointed out before, the vast majority of our existing laws are reactionary in nature–meaning something happened (sometime once, but more often a number of times) and that led for public demands to make that activity illegal.
But after decades without dog bite or attack incidents, and years without people with severe animal allergies or extreme fears of animals getting very sick in private businesses, entire generations earnestly believe that such bans are totally unnecessary. When I point out that there are reasons for these laws, pet owners insist “well, my precious Fido would never act like that”. That’s fine, but can you make the same guarantee about everyone’s Sparky, Duke, Callie, and Roscoe? Just last fall, I witnessed–up-close and personal–a “support animal” take a big dump in the aisle at Fleet Farm, and the owner just laugh it off, and then leave it for an employee to clean up.
Unfortunately, this trend it not going to change anytime soon. Given the last three generations of Americans’ inability to form the social bonds with each other that lead to things like relationships and marriage, pet ownership is taking the place of parenthood. And with the sense of entitlement inherent in these generations, if they see someone with a baby at an up-scale restaurant (a likely topic of another future My Two Cents), why shouldn’t they be allowed to have their “fur baby” there as well? Some places are doing their best to get around the current bans to meet that demand–allowing dogs in outdoor beer gardens or at sidewalk tables. But because of our winters, that limits just how long dog-owning patrons can take advantage of that.
The timing of the guide dog incident was very interesting, as just that week the Appleton Common Council started consideration of an ordinance that would allow dogs in taverns–so long as there is no commercial preparation of food on the premises. This is being done at the request of one, new bar in town that envisions being packed with dozens of well-behaved dogs on leashes all having a great time with their owners. But that one place that doesn’t serve food will just make it more difficult for the rest of the bars in town that do have food menus–because pet owners will demand the same accommodation everywhere, because they get to be oblivious to the laws and ordinances on the books.
And you can rest assured that after they and Zeus are turned away, they will take to social media to tell everyone else to never patronize that establishment because they are “not pet friendly”.
