The whole "service animal" thing is also ridiculously overblown. A guide dog for a blind person obviously must be with the person at all times.

For the rest - "emotional support" animals, therapy animals - it is ridiculous to put these into the same category.

The abuse of the program is a direct result of the regulations that are already in place.

Why would you have to fake that you have a service dog if dogs weren't prohibited by prior laws? So let's make a new law because people have found a way of abusing the prior law.

This is the same thing as anti-smoking laws. The establishment owners aren't allowed to decide, but it is regulated by the state. So then you have the bars that allow it illegally and have a system setup that catches the "raids". I've seen it done in California, Ohio, Pennsylvania and several other states.

Most states have done it right with the gun-free zones.

So this is a matter where over-regulation leads to more over-regulation. As opposed to the sign at the local laundromat I use to do my big that says all pets are prohibited.

a Great Dane at Hotel Lutetia in the lobby bar

I'm curious, what was the Dane drinking?

Aside from emotional support animals, arent seeing/hearing eye dogs and dogs trained to sense seizures and low blood sugar, ect already trained by professionals? Dont they already have certificates?

When I worked in a coffee shop, we had a few people bring animals in, both service and otherwise. We had a "no pets" policy, but service animals are obviously excluded from that.
The thing is, the well trained animals (usually the service animals, but a few others) weren't even noticeable until the customer was right in front of me. I always figured that if I didn't notice the animal, they weren't going to be an issue. The vast majority of people with dogs sat on the patio anyway, and there was no rule against that.we

Not even a Tuborg?

Not all service dogs are for an obvious issue such as blindness.

As mentioned above, there are ones for hearing, seizures, etc. There are even dogs for limited vision individuals (who may see well enough to select a melon in the grocery store, and therefore not be obviously "blind" but have highly limited peripheral vision making walking through the parking lot dangerous without assistance).

I have seen a few dogs in my area that were service dogs in training. Usually young yellow labs in a blue vest that clearly stated they were in training. Basically, they were being taken absolutely everywhere by a person/family so they were used to all sorts of people, sounds, smells, stores, etc. and could later be trained to ignore all the background stuff.

Here in Switzerland, it's pretty normal to see dogs in restaurants and shops. Not as common as it used to be, but certainly not unusual. Not grocery stores, which makes sense (they might help themselves). In restaurants, you rarely know a dog is there, because they generally lay down under the table and sleep.

However, I have also seen dogs in the UK, where behavior is likely closer to what would happen in the US. The last time I visited, for example, I was eating at a restaurant (sitting outside). A couple of tables over, a women allowed her dog to jump onto the table and stay there while they ate.

Too many people in the UK and US think their dogs are too precious to discipline. Allowing dogs in restaurants in the US would probably be a disaster.

"It is one of our most important rights, the right to not be info-jacked, to reveal only the details about ourselves we choose to reveal."

Where do you think we should balance the privacy interest against society's interest in disclosure when the individual is seeking some form of special accommodation?

JimP has my favorite comment so far. Minimize the value of the accommodation and you will minimize abuse.

Look at how medical pot has panned out. At minimum you have to disclose your disability to a doctor and in some states you have to disclose it to the Department of Health and Human Service. Yet a look through the ads in any paper that carries Amy's column will show that our disclose and licensing requirement do nil to deter abuse.

If an individual is willing to tote around a fake service animal in order to get on the bus for 50 cents, I think they will be willing to go down to city hall and get the official card that allows them to get on the bus for 50 cents.

"Not grocery stores, which makes sense (they might help themselves"

My local pet store had an old as hell Persian cat. They would lay out food and treats for him and he'd be like FUCK THAT.

He'd go around ripping open various bags of cat food and eventually deciding which he liked best. He loved opening the biggest bags too.

Here in Austin, the Health Department regulations allow for dogs in the outside seating area of bars and restaurants. No where as liberal as what you experienced in Paris, but a step in that direction.

Getting certified as disabled is red tape that takes time and money and added aggravation a disabled person does not need. I woe especially not want to make clearin this hurdle a requirement for veterans who would have to go through the VA.

And f#ck third party training requirements and disability identification. The real issue is liability. Require animal handlers to carry insurance, so that if somebody's service monkey goes ape shit in public, the public won't get stuck with the bill.

I *would* especially not want to make clearing this hurdle...

I'm trying to envision what it would be like if Americans were allowed to bring their dogs everywhere. In Germany, for instance, when a dog and its owner enter a restaurant and are taken to their table, the dog (understanding protocol) immediately goes under the table.

Basically, the expectation in Germany is that dogs taken in public places will behave themselves and they do.

I can't see Americans applying the same discipline to their own dogs. Some will, of course, but there will always be more than a few who will take advantage of this law and terrorize local restaurants with their undisciplined feral beasts.

I moved to an island in the Puget Sound in Washington from SoCal a few years ago. Dogs are everywhere here. Casual restaurants, retail shops, craft fairs, even grocery stores. Just a couple of days ago I saw a handsome little Maltese leading his man through Walmart. I have yet to see anyone complain, and except for one really, really active Husky puppy at Home Depot (who was actually wearing a training vest), all the dogs have been very well-behaved.

I don't know why there's such a different view on dogs here, but it's plain that if they're well-trained, they don't pose much of a problem. I've wondered why there's not more of an issue made due to allergies, but then again I've noticed there seem to be fewer people with allergies around than there were in Ca.

I have allergies to dogs, including service animals, but they aren't usually a big deal unless the dog hasn't been washed in quite some time (allowing dander from them licking themselves to build up). There is one blind customer at one of my jobs who clearly does not groom her dog, and that's the one service animal I encounter that gives me allergies. All the rest of the individuals that have service animals seem to take very good care and cleaning of their animal very seriously.

So the first time that someone's fake service dog pees or takes a dump on the floor of the dining room, and all of the other customers demand refunds and swear to never come back, what's the restaurant's recourse? But on a lighter note:

"He'd go around ripping open various bags of cat food and eventually deciding which he liked best. He loved opening the biggest bags too."

My previous cat was an expert on hunting down and killing bags of food. I eventually had to resort to storing the food in a big plastic jar. He'd track down the jar and beat it up, but he never figured out a way into it. Score one for the human.