Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

sangha said:

Well, you certainly have got the ad hom thing going on so it's getting hard to tell the difference

You're also pretty good at ignoring the facts when they don't suit your beliefs

Click to expand...

He's a liberal not well-versed on the topic.

The best thing to tell the ignorant on this: too bad. It's the law. Take your crying elsewhere.

sangha said:

Well, you certainly have got the ad hom thing going on so it's getting hard to tell the difference

You're also pretty good at ignoring the facts when they don't suit your beliefs

Click to expand...

Well, at this point I have pretty much explained myself here, and this is now just getting repetative or there is an attempt by someone to change this into an argument over the legitimacy of TG people, which is not actually connected so one could be legitimate while the other isn't. So given everything has been said on my part please refer to previous statements of mine so i do not have to repeat myself and i will check back later to see if anything new has been added to this. In the end i really do not care that much that a well behaved dog is in someplace. The reason a well behaved dog is not allowed is mostly because most people would bring their poorly behaved mutts into someplace and this guy who is being unreasonable in his claims of disability got screwed by people who are unreasonable with their ill behaved pets. It seems to be karma to me, and perhaps people should stop being assholes and trying to scam the system and then we would not have to have arguments over the legitimacy of disabilities or even keeping behaved pets outside.

tererun said:

Well, at this point I have pretty much explained myself here,

Click to expand...

Yes, you've made it clear that people who have problems you don't have and don't care about are nothing but whiny douche bags who are endangering your health, but people who have problems you do care about have legitimate concerns.

and this is now just getting repetative or there is an attempt by someone to change this into an argument over the legitimacy of TG people, which is not actually connected so one could be legitimate while the other isn't.

Click to expand...

Men who are sad because they don't have vaginas do not have a legitimate problem. They are just sad little whiners.

So given everything has been said on my part please refer to previous statements of mine so i do not have to repeat myself and i will check back later to see if anything new has been added to this. In the end i really do not care that much that a well behaved dog is in someplace. The reason a well behaved dog is not allowed is mostly because most people would bring their poorly behaved mutts into someplace and this guy who is being unreasonable in his claims of disability got screwed by people who are unreasonable with their ill behaved pets. It seems to be karma to me, and perhaps people should stop being assholes and trying to scam the system and then we would not have to have arguments over the legitimacy of disabilities or even keeping behaved pets outside.

Click to expand...

I'd agree, but only if the people with fake vajajays keep them out of the womens restrooms and stop scamming the system with their demands for separate locker rooms.

tererun said:

The reason a well behaved dog is not allowed is mostly because most people would bring their poorly behaved mutts into someplace and this guy who is being unreasonable in his claims of disability got screwed by people who are unreasonable with their ill behaved pets.

Click to expand...

What you and a lot of people cannot seem to comprehend is that if it is in the law specifically, the man is neither gaming the system, nor is being unreasonable. Now, the only reason why I can think of as to why people think he is a scammer is because of "folksy" knowledge about disability, and that they somehow get to invade your privacy to determine something they aren't qualified or legally able to do. The business owner was well-enough informed about service dogs to know that they help those who are blind, and so on get around town. Why did he know that? Because the people at the top got to tell him that over the years. He doesn't know it because he is personally knowledgeable or qualified. He just does what he is told and what is expected of him, but usually haphazardly. He has neither the legal access nor the trained knowledge to make those determinations about a certain case himself, but sometimes, because he's seen it a few times, he thinks he's got it all figured out. The reason why we don't allow the average citizen to make those determinations is because most American citizens are idiots when it comes to the subject. They don't get that power.

Hatuey said:

This isn't really a Libertarian thing. It's a common sense thing. You find many an asshole in the world who doesn't think PTSD is a serious condition.

Click to expand...

people can be really cruel to the mentally challenged and handicapped in general. It's really sad

Hatuey said:

Here is what we realize from the post above:

1. You do not think PTSD is a "legitimate disability".

- The DSM-V, APA, APA (Psychiatric), and VA all seem to disagree with you.

2. You think "crazy" is a mental illness.

- It is not. Don't believe me? Try and find it in the DSM-V.

3. You argue he is a "false crazy".

- As per all the evidence presented, he is not crazy. He's not a fraud either.

------

So in essence, you've concocted a gigantic bull**** argument that has no basis in medical journals, opinions of psychiatric or psychologic associations or veterans affairs offices. Not only that, you've completely ignored the very REAL condition that is PTSD in order to make yourself look like you know just what it is you're talking about.

My suggestion: Please pick up a book on medical and psychological conditions. Learn what they are and how to explain them. Then, learn how they are treated.

Those steps alone should help ensure you don't look ignorant.

Click to expand...

As a point of information and not necessarily in disagreement with you, there is some controversy about the validity of PTSD. For example, some studies have shown that PTSD lacks certain physical anomalies typically caused by stress on the human body, exemplified in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD).

Stress controversies: post-traumatic stres... [J Neuroendocrinol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

Then there is always the "Patton" attitude many people display when they hear about PTSD, i.e. merely cowardice or shirking. This is followed by the "Tom Cruise" ideology about psychology, i.e. many mental disorders are supported by psychologists and therefore exist in the DSM simply to keep them in business practice. (In some cases there is good reason to believe this).

Now I am aware that "shell-shock" was always a valid diagnosis pre-PTSD. I also know that people deal with traumatic events differently, individual by individual. I believe that some people are more susceptible to mental trauma than others. I guess the problem has always been weeding out the shirkers from the real victims. The basic symptoms for diagnosis of PTSD are:

1. Reliving the incident.

2. Avoiding situations that remind you of the event.

3. Negative changes in beliefs and feelings.

4. Feeling Key up (hyperarousal)

Symptoms of PTSD - NATIONAL CENTER for PTSD

All of these symptoms can be "mimicked," and depend on the statements of the victim to psychiatric counselors. "I've been having nighmares."; I have flashbacks."; I can't sleep."; I can't go there, it reminds me of..."

So, it's easy for people to think it is a cop-out for purposes of disability benefits. I'm no medical expert however, and I'm willing to leave it to professionals in the field to make such decisions. If it were my restaurant I'd let the service dog in.

Fiddytree said:

What you and a lot of people cannot seem to comprehend is that if it is in the law specifically, the man is neither gaming the system, nor is being unreasonable. Now, the only reason why I can think of as to why people think he is a scammer is because of "folksy" knowledge about disability, and that they somehow get to invade your privacy to determine something they aren't qualified or legally able to do.

Click to expand...

Here is the thing, I am completely fine with making things accessible for people with handicaps and even with making some sacrifices for those people who have a legitimate disability. I even recognize the reality that there are people on outpatient mental disability status who may need some special considerations. Yes, when you have those systems, for whatever reasons some unscrupulous people will try to scam them. I want to help out a disabled person. I am the person who asks people who are crippled or even temporarily injured if they need help carrying or getting something in stores. I am even cool with things like elderly and pregnant women parking spaces. But there is a certain point where I have to draw the line and say BS. You speak of laws, but yet ignore the reality there is a health code law that bans animals for a reason. Just because it is a service dog does not mean the health issues magically disappear. It just means we accept a higher risk and sacrifice a bit of safety on behalf of the handicapped. Dogs are not restricted from eating establishments because they do not like dogs. Now I am pretty cool with that because a service dog is well behaved and serves a purpose to help the injured or handicapped person. They do things for them that they need to get by. The people who need service animals need them for physical tasks. I am really fine with that. When you get into the emotional thing and that is why you have a service dog, you are pushing the BS line.

I am cool if you want to live with an animal, and it brings you happiness and joy and makes your life better. I am all for pets as long as people take care of them properly. I can even see where a pet could make one feel at ease or more relaxed. Even in that area if this guy wanted us to pay for his dog food to keep his dog because it helps his PTSD I could easily go along with that. But let us keep it real. It is not necessary to have that with you while you eat breakfast. next thing you know everyone will have PTSD from the trauma of having to leave their beloved animal at home. Then why even bother with the codes that do not allow dogs in certain places? I am cool with him having it, I am cool with helping him out with getting it and keeping it, but I am pretty sure he can operate just the same for eating breakfast without it. A blind person or crippled person has a service animal because they simply cannot operate the same without those animals.

Fiddytree said:

The business owner was well-enough informed about service dogs to know that they help those who are blind, and so on get around town. Why did he know that? Because the people at the top got to tell him that over the years. He doesn't know it because he is personally knowledgeable or qualified. He just does what he is told and what is expected of him, but usually haphazardly. He has neither the legal access nor the trained knowledge to make those determinations about a certain case himself, but sometimes, because he's seen it a few times, he thinks he's got it all figured out. The reason why we don't allow the average citizen to make those determinations is because most American citizens are idiots when it comes to the subject. They don't get that power.

Click to expand...

Day after day I see people who park their cars in handicapped spots and get out and are perfectly fine. They do not have any canes, are not limping, and they walk perfectly fine to the door and shop. That is BS because those spots are there for the people who cannot walk or have trouble doing so. people scam that all the time, and yes we should start to make an issue about it. I do not want the access to go away, but i do want it to be available to a person who needs it. This restaurant owner would have to potentially accommodate the dog. A little extra cleaning. Make sure none of the servers trip over it or step on it. For a needy person yes he should do that. If the guy is blind or crippled of course you do that. This guy just might feel bad without his doggy with him. Sorry, but suck it up in that case. I work hard and my legs are soar I don't get to park in the handicapped space. I feel bad leaving my pet at home and might have an anxiety attack because of it, but no one tells me that I can have my pet in the restaurant. Rightly I should suck it up and deal. I am perfectly fine with helping out a disabled person or sacrificing for them, but this guy can suck it up. Yeah, I am going to draw a line there on my personal opinions about how far handicapped laws should go, and if any challenge comes to restrict PTSD people from being allowed to bring service dogs into every place with them I would vote for it. However, i would also vote to help give funds for a person with mental troubles to keep a a pet if they could not afford one if it helped their condition.

tererun said:

Here is the thing, I am completely fine with making things accessible for people with handicaps and even with making some sacrifices for those people who have a legitimate disability. I even recognize the reality that there are people on outpatient mental disability status who may need some special considerations. Yes, when you have those systems, for whatever reasons some unscrupulous people will try to scam them. I want to help out a disabled person. I am the person who asks people who are crippled or even temporarily injured if they need help carrying or getting something in stores. I am even cool with things like elderly and pregnant women parking spaces. But there is a certain point where I have to draw the line and say BS. You speak of laws, but yet ignore the reality there is a health code law that bans animals for a reason. Just because it is a service dog does not mean the health issues magically disappear. It just means we accept a higher risk and sacrifice a bit of safety on behalf of the handicapped. Dogs are not restricted from eating establishments because they do not like dogs. Now I am pretty cool with that because a service dog is well behaved and serves a purpose to help the injured or handicapped person. They do things for them that they need to get by. The people who need service animals need them for physical tasks. I am really fine with that. When you get into the emotional thing and that is why you have a service dog, you are pushing the BS line.

Click to expand...

This just continues to show me your knowledge of disability seems to run out once the person has neurological or mental health issues. Service animals are considered service animals if they help the person accomplish a task. It's not just emotional comfort. It is a task-oriented dog that helps this man recover from an anxiety attack or wake from his disturbed sleep.

Day after day I see people who park their cars in handicapped spots and get out and are perfectly fine. They do not have any canes, are not limping, and they walk perfectly fine to the door and shop. That is BS because those spots are there for the people who cannot walk or have trouble doing so. people scam that all the time, and yes we should start to make an issue about it. I do not want the access to go away, but i do want it to be available to a person who needs it. This restaurant owner would have to potentially accommodate the dog. A little extra cleaning. Make sure none of the servers trip over it or step on it. For a needy person yes he should do that. If the guy is blind or crippled of course you do that. This guy just might feel bad without his doggy with him. Sorry, but suck it up in that case. I work hard and my legs are soar I don't get to park in the handicapped space. I feel bad leaving my pet at home and might have an anxiety attack because of it, but no one tells me that I can have my pet in the restaurant. Rightly I should suck it up and deal. I am perfectly fine with helping out a disabled person or sacrificing for them, but this guy can suck it up. Yeah, I am going to draw a line there on my personal opinions about how far handicapped laws should go, and if any challenge comes to restrict PTSD people from being allowed to bring service dogs into every place with them I would vote for it. However, i would also vote to help give funds for a person with mental troubles to keep a a pet if they could not afford one if it helped their condition.

Click to expand...

Do you happen to know these people? Do you have access to their medical records? Or are you just assuming, because people have told you for 20 years that handicapped parking spaces are somehow only for folks with immediately visible disabilities?

Fiddytree said:

This just continues to show me your knowledge of disability seems to run out once the person has neurological or mental health issues. Service animals are considered service animals if they help the person accomplish a task. It's not just emotional comfort. It is a task-oriented dog that helps this man recover from an anxiety attack or wake from his disturbed sleep.

Click to expand...

First, let us ask what is not emotional about the two examples you just gave. Those are emotional or mental things. Now since you want to let us go down the road. Exactly what emotional support does a dog provide that an inanimate object to focus on does not? Is it talking in soothing tones? is it massaging the person? is it trying to bring them back to reality by reminding them of the present? Why does it need to be a dog? If we are going down that road can't we just save some money and use something like a plushie? he could focus on his plushie and feel all good about it and no dog.

Fiddytree said:

Do you happen to know these people? Do you have access to their medical records? Or are you just assuming, because people have told you for 20 years that handicapped parking spaces are only for folks with immediately visible disabilities?

Click to expand...

look, if you are parking in a handicapped spot and do not have some immediate problem then you should be parking somewhere else. those spots are for people who have a hard time. If you are feeling OK and chipper on occasion then you should walk. If you are not handicapped just walk like the rest of us.

specklebang said:

Any Libertarian here confirm or deny this? Please? Real or unreal? True or false? Inquiring minds...

Click to expand...

Sure!

Im fine with the owner of the business denying the man patronage. That comes not just as a libertarian but also a vet and a disabled vet one at that and one that has spent several trips to Fisher House to see the programs up close and personal. I spent 2 weeks at Ft Belvoir earlier this year with several combat wounded directors and their service dogs. Still...

Private business. If he wants to be an asshole, its his business. I also agree that every thinking and reasoned individual including, yes, libertarians ought to respect his choices and completely avoid his restaurant like the plague. Natural consequence as a result of his choice. But his choice.

The tragic addendum to the already despicable story is that some idiot on this site decided to use it to attack libertarians.

tererun said:

First, let us ask what is not emotional about the two examples you just gave. Those are emotional or mental things. Now since you want to let us go down the road. Exactly what emotional support does a dog provide that an inanimate object to focus on does not? Is it talking in soothing tones? is it massaging the person? is it trying to bring them back to reality by reminding them of the present? Why does it need to be a dog? If we are going down that road can't we just save some money and use something like a plushie? he could focus on his plushie and feel all good about it and no dog.



look, if you are parking in a handicapped spot and do not have some immediate problem then you should be parking somewhere else. those spots are for people who have a hard time. If you are feeling OK and chipper on occasion then you should walk. If you are not handicapped just walk like the rest of us.

Click to expand...

Tereun, if you can't handle the difference between emotional comfort and task-oriented training, then that's your problem.

If you can't understand the difference between immediately visible disability and a disability that legitimately is covered under such accommodations, that is also your problem. Those disabilities that are not immediately visible to the rest of the public and are covered under that parking accommodation have just as much merit as the others. Just because you and the rest of the masses can't see it doesn't make it any less real. Just because you are casually aware of small portions of the ADA helping the physically disabled, doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. All it means is, like the rest of this country, you understand an incredibly small portion of disability and disability accommodations.

This is why we don't let the majority of Americans make these determinations: they can't, they aren't capable of doing it, and they shouldn't.

Fisher said:

Sorry. I still side with the owner of the business. There is no way to know if the dog is going to take a big old dump in the restaurant. In addition a lot of folks have allergies to animals.

Click to expand...

My dog isn't a service dog, and he wouldn't do that. Most dogs wouldn't.

Hatuey said:

So in conclusion: Fuck Russell Ireland and his ignorant bitch ass.

Click to expand...

I live not five miles from this place. The entire local community is up in arms over this moron's actions and there is a serious campaign both over social media and word of mouth to boycott the diner.

tererun said:

There is a pretty rampant problem of people using mental disabilities to get things. However, let us get into what is actually being said in this case. This guy cannot eat breakfast without his dog to sit there and wag it's tail. This is pretty much what the dog is there for considering it carries no medication and does not assist with physical tasks. It is just there to be a dog and to be around this guy. This guy is so bonkers, technical term, that he cannot have his breakfast without it? I am going to have to say, if you cannot get along for a few moments without your precious dog just like every other pet owner you belong in a mental hospital. You actually need constant medical attention. A person without sight cannot go a few minutes while being perfectly capable of seeing. A person without a limb cannot get use out of the limb they do not have for a few minutes. I am pretty sure this guy could eat his breakfast and go back to his dog and be perfectly fine, and if he cannot accomplish that simple task he needs more help than a dog.

Click to expand...

If you have a problem with the service dog system, that's fine. However, until you get the system changed, this gentlemen had a perfectly legal right to have the dog accompany him into the restaurant. The owner is a moron and a dope for causing the problem. Especially after he was shown the paperwork and even had the Oxford PD confirm that the paperwork was valid.

VanceMack said:

Sure!

Im fine with the owner of the business denying the man patronage. That comes not just as a libertarian but also a vet and a disabled vet one at that and one that has spent several trips to Fisher House to see the programs up close and personal. I spent 2 weeks at Ft Belvoir earlier this year with several combat wounded directors and their service dogs. Still...

Private business. If he wants to be an asshole, its his business. I also agree that every thinking and reasoned individual including, yes, libertarians ought to respect his choices and completely avoid his restaurant like the plague. Natural consequence as a result of his choice. But his choice.

The tragic addendum to the already despicable story is that some idiot on this site decided to use it to attack libertarians.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your open and honest response.

My question was more general. As a Libertarian, would you find it acceptable if a business placed a sign that read:
NO COLOREDS OR JEWS ALLOWED
In their window. That's what the accusation was. Since the Vet was neither "colored" or Jewish, this was a case by case decision. But would it be legitimate as an overall policy?

I'm heading out to the MN Cat Video Festival in about an hour so you may have a 5 day lag before I can read your response.

specklebang said:

Thank you for your open and honest response.

My question was more general. As a Libertarian, would you find it acceptable if a business placed a sign that read:
NO COLOREDS OR JEWS ALLOWED
In their window. That's what the accusation was. Since the Vet was neither "colored" or Jewish, this was a case by case decision. But would it be legitimate as an overall policy?

I'm heading out to the MN Cat Video Festival in about an hour so you may have a 5 day lag before I can read your response.

Click to expand...

As a Libertarian I would absolutely allow people to have such signs and business conditions. I would also allow black business owners to only hire or serve black people and to give preferential treatment in living accommodations, college scholarships, etc. Government...thats a different beast altogether but private citizens? Sure.

I think the best response to a private business decision would be an economic boycott by citizens. BTW...thats the same thing that is often advocated by pro gay rights groups and minority groups as well. Dont like someones ideas, policies, politics, or practices? Fine...dont go there.

VanceMack said:

As a Libertarian I would absolutely allow people to have such signs and business conditions. I would also allow black business owners to only hire or serve black people and to give preferential treatment in living accommodations, college scholarships, etc. Government...thats a different beast altogether but private citizens? Sure.

I think the best response to a private business decision would be an economic boycott by citizens. BTW...thats the same thing that is often advocated by pro gay rights groups and minority groups as well. Dont like someones ideas, policies, politics, or practices? Fine...dont go there.

Click to expand...

Again, thanks for the honest reply. Would I assume that SSM would be fine with you in principle since it's "their decision"? I realize that's off track but I'm genuinely trying to understand. I voted Libertarian in their last election because the 2 main choices were unacceptable to me, albeit for different reasons. I'm interested in Libertarianism because of the attitude toward drugs and wars, which I agree with. But I come here to learn things - not to trade insults. And I do learn things here, some valuable things, after I do my wheat/chaff thingy. No political party has my undying loyalty, each topic must be examined.

Respect,
S

See ya next week.

Fiddytree said:

Here we go again. The patron committed what incredible sin? Asking the business owner to adhere to a federal law.

Click to expand...

And the business owner committed what incredible sin? Asking the patron to eat breakfast elsewhere.

It's hard to get so worked up over something so trivial.

Dapper Andy said:

And the business owner committed what incredible sin? Asking the patron to eat breakfast elsewhere.

It's hard to get so worked up over something so trivial.

Click to expand...

If it were not for the fact that you were wrong, you would have a point.

Too bad they didnt have them back in the day.
I used to work with a Viet Nam Vet (tunnel rat) that suffered from PTSD and rage.
He was the manager of the parts store I worked at right out of highschool.
Never knew when a can of oil or a box of spark plugs would come flying through the air.

specklebang said:

Again, thanks for the honest reply. Would I assume that SSM would be fine with you in principle since it's "their decision"? I realize that's off track but I'm genuinely trying to understand. I voted Libertarian in their last election because the 2 main choices were unacceptable to me, albeit for different reasons. I'm interested in Libertarianism because of the attitude toward drugs and wars, which I agree with. But I come here to learn things - not to trade insults. And I do learn things here, some valuable things, after I do my wheat/chaff thingy. No political party has my undying loyalty, each topic must be examined.

Respect,
S

See ya next week.

Click to expand...

The Libertarian party platform supports gay marriage. i am fine with gay marriage provided that it is passed on a state level by its citizens. I guess you could say my position is similar to Obama's.

The Libertarian 'party' is no different than the party machine of the dems and GOP. Their biggest problem is that most of what they promote is the ridiculous (example-legalizing drugs for example-rather than holding a position that states/citizens should decide and that the fed should be involved in one thing...illegal trafficking). If instead they focused on strong individual rights and responsible NECESSARY government, their membership levels would grow. However they have the same party problems as the other two in that so many party members believe there is no room for independent thought on matters.

CRUE CAB said:

Too bad they didnt have them back in the day.
I used to work with a Viet Nam Vet (tunnel rat) that suffered from PTSD and rage.
He was the manager of the parts store I worked at right out of highschool.
Never knew when a can of oil or a box of spark plugs would come flying through the air.

Click to expand...

I knew a guy in a similar condition back in the 80's. Dood NEVER SLEPT. I would come home from bodyguard details at 3-4 in the AM and would find him in his backyard gardening. Sleeping meant dreaming and dreaming...no beuno...

Dapper Andy said:

And the business owner committed what incredible sin? Asking the patron to eat breakfast elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Sin? Sin of being an ahole.
Sin of having no compassion or empathy for a person with an illness.
My bet is he is some jerk off that got turned down for service and now has a chip on his little shoulder.
How a nation, and people, treat animals and those with real problems says alot about those people.
I hope a real turn down in biz enlightens this man.

One of the this gs I lobed about Colorado was that your dog need not be a service dog to be allowed at most establishments.

VanceMack said:

The Libertarian party platform supports gay marriage. i am fine with gay marriage provided that it is passed on a state level by its citizens. I guess you could say my position is similar to Obama's.

The Libertarian 'party' is no different than the party machine of the dems and GOP. Their biggest problem is that most of what they promote is the ridiculous (example-legalizing drugs for example-rather than holding a position that states/citizens should decide and that the fed should be involved in one thing...illegal trafficking). If instead they focused on strong individual rights and responsible NECESSARY government, their membership levels would grow. However they have the same party problems as the other two in that so many party members believe there is no room for independent thought on matters.

Click to expand...

That is an excellent analysis. There are at least 3 sides to everything, sometimes more, and these Parties always park themselves at the most extreme. So instead of progress, we get conflict.