# Service dogs denied from b&b



## Kaiser2012

I have been googling for dog friendly places to stay in anticipation of my wedding next year and I came across a bed and breakfast that clearly indicated on its website that no dogs, not even service dogs, are allowed in the rooms because the owner is allergic to dander. As a business, can they restrict access to true service animals? Neither of mine are service dogs but I was curious about the matter. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## runnershigh108

Any business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone they wish, including dogs.


----------



## Kaiser2012

Wow...I mean I knew that as far as people go, but for an animal that is serving a real purpose for someone who needs them? Bummer 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Galathiel

True, but the person doesn't necessarily "need" to stay at the B&B. They can stay at pet friendly accomodations elsewhere.


----------



## SFGSSD

runnershigh108 said:


> Any business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone they wish, including dogs.


This is not exactly true. I am ion my phone and cannot provide a link to the law, TJ, could you post a link to the law that covers this please.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## martemchik

runnershigh108 said:


> Any business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone they wish, including dogs.


False...you cannot refuse service to anyone for things listed under discrimination laws. Disabilities are one of those things. Refusing service to someone beacuse they are disabled is ILLEGAL.

I'm not sure what would happen in this situation, but I believe they could be forced to take the dog. Only issue is that if the owner does have a bad allergy...it might give them enough grounds not to have to accept the dog as it will cause an inconvenience or be life threatening (the allergy) to the owner and to the other guests.

On top of that you have to consider that people have other options. If this was the only option for reasons x, y, z, you might have a case (as the PWD) but if there is a hotel right next door, or down the street, that does accept dogs (for an equal or fair rate) the case does lose merit.


----------



## runnershigh108

I don't know the exact law or how it is worded. 

You can pretty much refuse service to anyone as long is it is not based on race, religion or disability. 

They are not refusing the person based on their disability they are refusing because of the dog.


----------



## angelas

runnershigh108 said:


> I don't know the exact law or how it is worded.
> 
> You can pretty much refuse service to anyone as long is it is not based on race, religion or disability.
> 
> They are not refusing the person based on their disability they are refusing because of the dog.


They are refusing service to the person by refusing to allow a disabled person bring their medical device with them. That is what a service dog is, a medical device, same as a cane or wheelchair.

Now, if the owner is allergic and the B&B is their home they might have a case. While the B&B is a business the building is also their residence.


----------



## Kaiser2012

This is very interesting! 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## runnershigh108

Sounds like something that would need to be settled in court for someone truly offended or looking to get paid 

Im biased though due to being a dog lover. Let the dog in!


----------



## shepherdmom

There has got to be an exemption for the Business Owner who is really allergic. Sometimes allergies can be life threatening. I would think that owners of services dogs would understand that and stay at a different place.


----------



## martemchik

runnershigh108 said:


> Sounds like something that would need to be settled in court for someone truly offended or looking to get paid
> 
> Im biased though due to being a dog lover. Let the dog in!


Lol you wouldn't get "paid." You can force them to provide the service, or you can force them to pay for a more expensive place that you ended up renting because they wouldn't allow you in or for the extra cost of commuting to a farther place that you had to stay in because this one wouldn't allow you in. But you really wouldn't make out big...especially after court costs.

You'd also risk the chance that if the allergy is really bad they are allowed to ban any and all dogs.


----------



## runnershigh108

martemchik said:


> Lol you wouldn't get "paid." You can force them to provide the service, or you can force them to pay for a more expensive place that you ended up renting because they wouldn't allow you in or for the extra cost of commuting to a farther place that you had to stay in because this one wouldn't allow you in. But you really wouldn't make out big...especially after court costs.
> 
> You'd also risk the chance that if the allergy is really bad they are allowed to ban any and all dogs.



I would not want to get paid. I would simply take my business else where. Most hotels/motels will allow service dogs.


----------



## Lucy Dog

What they're doing is illegal.

*1. Q: What are the laws that apply to my business?
*
A: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), privately owned businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, *hotels*, retail stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, *are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities*. The ADA *requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals* onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed.

Commonly Asked Questions About Service Animals in Places of Business


----------



## runnershigh108

Lucy Dog said:


> What they're doing is illegal.
> 
> *1. Q: What are the laws that apply to my business?
> *
> A: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), privately owned businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, *hotels*, retail stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, *are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities*. The ADA *requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals* onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed.
> 
> Commonly Asked Questions About Service Animals in Places of Business


great find Lucy!!! This is awesome to know!!!!


----------



## Shade

I have severe allergies myself to several things so I can empathize with the owner if that truly is the reason but it is a service business and that means being forced to open your doors by law. SA are a medical necessity, you can't bar them from coming and advertising the restriction is asking for a lawsuit


----------



## Lucy Dog

This really has nothing to do with being an animal lover or not. A service dog is like a wheel chair. It's a medical need. Would this business not allow a person with a wheel chair to stay either?

I wouldn't spend a dime at a place like this whether I had a service animal or not. Horrible business practice. Hopefully someone makes an example out of them some day.


----------



## NancyJ

Personally, I think the ADA laws should only apply to businesses of a certain size. They can drive a very small business (and I think most B&Bs are that way) out of business.


----------



## Castlemaid

I'm thinking the B&B is different. This is not a freestanding business where the staff comes in, works for a number of given hours, then go home. It is part time business, full time primary and private residence of the business owners. I would think that as a home-owner, you have a bit more rights about setting some specific limitations.


----------



## wildo

Lucy Dog said:


> A service dog is like a wheel chair. It's a medical need. Would this business not allow a person with a wheel chair to stay either?


If they were allergic to wheel chairs, probably not. Though I see no issue with what the business is doing (as Castlemaid pointed out- this is the owner's home [likely]), but I do wonder if they are legally bound to ADA laws in this regard.


----------



## NancyJ

I found this; it says 5 rental rooms or more

Is Your Lodging Establishment in Compliance with 2012 ADA Requirements?


----------



## wildo

Great find Nancy!


----------



## Lucy Dog

I was thinking of more of an establishment with like 10+ rooms and more of a typical hotel/motel business type atmosphere instead of just someones home. Not someones small home with a room or two being rented out. 

OP.. Any idea how big this place is? How many rooms?


----------



## Kaiser2012

jocoyn said:


> I found this; it says 5 rental rooms or more
> 
> Is Your Lodging Establishment in Compliance with 2012 ADA Requirements?


Hmm...off hand from memory I think they have at least 6, maybe 8.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## NancyJ

Well that link is also an interpretation. I would like to find it in the actual regulations but don't really have time. ............


----------



## Courtney

crud, wrong link.


----------



## arycrest

This is really interesting. I wonder if one extreme disability can legally "outrank" another extreme disability ... people with mega-allergies can die from anaphylactic shock caused by allergic reactions to such allergens as exposure to dog dander.


----------



## Courtney

arycrest, I also find this situation interesting and would like to know what the law states.

This is the link that I removed. It's only for the blind & those with low vision. I don't think the disabilty was mentioned in the thread?

ADA Guide for Places of Lodging: Serving Guests Who Are Blind Or Who Have Low Vision


----------



## Gretchen

jocoyn said:


> Personally, I think the ADA laws should only apply to businesses of a certain size. They can drive a very small business (and I think most B&Bs are that way) out of business.


I agree. We had a disabled person several years ago in our county, going into businesses just to see if if they met ADA requirements, if not he sued. It was just to make money, he was not a legitimate customer. These were small businesses in older buildings. When my daughter was younger, she could not do a lot of stairs, she has a physical disability. Some buildings are old and you cannot put in a ramp or elevator. We just did not got to that business, no big deal. My BIL had to redo his bathroom in a food business, he had to fit a wheel chair. So he went from 2 stalls to 1. The thing is more than half his business are orders to go. It is a very small business.


----------



## SFGSSD

Here is the section right from the DOJ

"Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility."


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## NancyJ

SFGSSD said:


> Here is the section right from the DOJ
> 
> "Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility."
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


How do you do that when the person who runs the B&B is allergic, does NOT have cleaning staff and THEY must clean the room with the dog? 

Listen I have two in home caregivers for my mother and the regulatory nonsense is killing me. All kinds of papers to file, taxes, e-verify, scnewhire, quarterly filings, workmen's comp. I understand why people skate under the laws. If we did not have some assets to protect I think we would.

My CLEARLY severely handicapped mother cannot get a new handicapped tag because to do so we would have to go the the DMV and get a new handicapped ID. The DMV is NOT handicapped accessible, we would get thrown out because she starts hollering curse words (stroke patient/dementia) when she is not seen right away. Sooo we are forced to simply drive to a handicapped spot, get her out, then move the handicapped van out in the stix until it is time to load her up again. While we are doing all this out bops little susie using gramma's handicapped tag.


----------



## SFGSSD

jocoyn said:


> How do you do that when the person who runs the B&B is allergic, does NOT have cleaning staff and THEY must clean the room with the dog?
> 
> Listen I have two in home caregivers for my mother and the regulatory nonsense is killing me. All kinds of papers to file, taxes, e-verify, scnewhire, quarterly filings, workmen's comp. I understand why people skate under the laws. If we did not have some assets to protect I think we would.
> 
> My CLEARLY severely handicapped mother cannot get a new handicapped tag because to do so we would have to go the the DMV and get a new handicapped ID. The DMV is NOT handicapped accessible, we would get thrown out because she starts hollering curse words (stroke patient/dementia) when she is not seen right away. Sooo we are forced to simply drive to a handicapped spot, get her out, then move the handicapped van out in the stix until it is time to load her up again. While we are doing all this out bops little susie using gramma's handicapped tag.


I would call them and arrange for them to make accommodations. If they refuse, I would speak with an attorney that specializes in disability rights to see if you can legally take action. To the best of my knowledge, all public facilities need to be handicapped accessible. However, I am not an attorney and cannot advise you if in fact you have a case.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## wildo

SFGSSD said:


> If they refuse, I would speak with an attorney that specializes in disability rights to see if you can legally take action.http://www.petguide.com/mobile


People are so sue happy, it's ridiculous. Why would they _want_ to stay here if the owner is clearly not interested in having them?? There must be other B&B options, you'd thing. I'd think that anyway.


----------



## SFGSSD

wildo said:


> People are so sue happy, it's ridiculous. Why would they _want_ to stay here if the owner is clearly not interested in having them?? There must be other B&B options, you'd thing. I'd think that anyway.


I understand where you are coming from, as I firmly believe non disabled people have rights too that may not be taken into consideration from time to time. Even rights that may conflict with disability rights. 

Not to sound like I am brushing you off but if you do not like the way the law is written, contact your senator and express your concerns. I may not like a lot of things in regards to "law" myself, but I must follow the law like everyone else that is a law abiding citizen.

In this particular case, I do see both sides of the argument. Weather or not I feel the B&B owner has a valid concern for HIS health and well being is irrelevant. The law is the law.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## wildo

Well if the article Nancy posted is a legitimate interpretation of the law, then I have no issue with it. Well, truth be told- the law has no bearing on me at this point so I'm indifferent. In fact, I would add that I don't actually see an issue with the law at all. I think normal people would simply move on to a different B&B and not make a fuss about this.


----------



## Courtney

wildo said:


> Well if the article Nancy posted is a legitimate interpretation of the law, then I have no issue with it. Well, truth be told- the law has no bearing on me at this point so I'm indifferent. In fact, I would add that I don't actually see an issue with the law at all. I think normal people would simply move on to a different B&B and not make a fuss about this.


I agree with you.


----------



## SFGSSD

wildo said:


> Well if the article Nancy posted is a legitimate interpretation of the law, then I have no issue with it. Well, truth be told- the law has no bearing on me at this point so I'm indifferent. In fact, I would add that I don't actually see an issue with the law at all. I think normal people would simply move on to a different B&B and not make a fuss about this.


The law is properly interpreted here 
http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

I hear you, but this contributes to the confusion that already exists. If this one gets away with it, tells a friend who tells a friend soon people will think it is not a legal requirement they need to comply with. 
Personal feelings never trumped the law as far as I know. Even not knowing what the law is, is no excuse for not following it according to the common phrase "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law." 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## wildo

The B&B owner isn't getting away with anything if he's below 5 rooms of service, as I understand.


----------



## Jukebox

off topic slightly, but my wife has bad panic attacks. we were thinking about training Jackson to be a service dog for her. would she be the only one allowed to take him in to "no pets allowed" places?


----------



## SFGSSD

wildo said:


> The B&B owner isn't getting away with anything if he's below 5 rooms of service, as I understand.


Not sure about that. As I said I am not a lawyer. I did however post what covers this from the department of justice and a link where you can find it directly. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Cheyanna

Jukebox said:


> off topic slightly, but my wife has bad panic attacks. we were thinking about training Jackson to be a service dog for her. would she be the only one allowed to take him in to "no pets allowed" places?


Only the disabled person can take him. He is not a SD to you.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Cheyanna

We interviewed someone who said she is "deathly allergic" to dogs. I had to leave Fiona in my office to interview her. She was a disability attorney and I asked her who loses out when two people have conflicting disabilities and accommodations. She said have to accommodate both. Her office not near mine and we don't share a room. Ended up not having to worry about it because budget $ dried up. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## AngelaA6

I don't think someone getting married in a year would want to take on a legal case...I personally wouldn't have wanted to at least. 

I can see from both sides, the b&b where they clean up the rooms and don't have other staff and the owner has allergies and the SD side (they should be allowed everywhere that someone without a SD is) and I'm torn on who I'd side with.

Best of luck and congrats on your future wedding!


----------



## NancyJ

My only point is when you get down to forcing the hand of very very small businesses there are often unintended consequences. 

Maybe someone who could get by providing accomodations to folks in a few rooms in an existing house now can't because being forced to accomodate would be more harm than benefit to them. So now the B&B closes its doors, the house gets sold. How does the person with the service dog benefit?

The law is the law. I am not an advocate for breaking it and can't find that 5 room thing elsewhere and don't have a B&B or a service dog so...I just know firsthand that compliance for very small businesses (such as my hiring two in home caregivers) is outrageous and a real disincintive to hiring individuals for anything.


----------



## Liesje

SFGSSD said:


> Here is the section right from the DOJ
> 
> "Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility."


To me, accommodating both seems more like if there was an allergic *customer* also at the B&B, not the actual home owner who also uses it as a private residence.


----------



## martinaa

The section I found said "are GENERALLY not valid reasons..." Putting that word back in shows how subjective the ADA can be. I have a disabled son (wheelchair) and I also have clients in the real estate business that have been subjected to the scam ADA complaint process that was the rage a few years ago so this was an interesting topic for me. There are definitely abusers on both sides of the issue. But generally, ADA requires "reasonable accomodation" and businesses aren't required to make accomodations that put "undue hardship" on them. It all depends on the hearing officer and how they balance your right to be accompanied by your service dog and the business owners right to an allergen free home and work environment.

Seems so many people are in a rush to insist on their right to trample someone else's rights. The hard part can be determining who is trampling whom - but 'luckily' we have lawyers eager to help sort all that out.


----------



## Chicagocanine

This type of thing also may be covered by state law, the state may give more guidelines than the ADA so you should also check the laws for the state where the business is located.
We had some issues/questions when we were looking for a vacation rental (cottage type places for weekly rental) about the legalities for these rentals rules when a person is accompanied by a service dog, and I found that the state law for where we were staying also offered some additional regulations for these types of rental properties as well as B&Bs, more than what is covered in federal regulations.


----------



## SFGSSD

martinaa said:


> Seems so many people are in a rush to insist on their right to trample someone else's rights. The hard part can be determining who is trampling whom - but 'luckily' we have lawyers eager to help sort all that out.


I second that...Well put. 




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ILGHAUS

Q. Is a Bed & Breakfast a public accommodation with title III obligations?

A. A Bed & Breakfast where owner lives onsite ... Title III obligations are based on a minimum number of rental rooms. 

Quote from the ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual:
"1) Places of lodging (e.g. , inns, hotels, motels) (except for owner-occupied establishments renting fewer than six rooms);"

And as I try to do as much as possible - to give a link so that anyone who wishes can go to primary source:

Americans with Disabilities Act
ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual
Covering Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities

ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual


To sum it up -- it does not matter if owner of B&B is allergic or not -- if they are renting out fewer than six rooms -- they are not under Title III of the ADA. They can refuse to allow SDs into their facility.

No one needs to ask advice from or retain the services of an attorney, one disability does not trump over another, not a matter on any Civil Rights violations.


----------



## SFGSSD

Thank you TJ for posting this. It appears my interpretation was off and more generalized than the 6 room or less clause you posted. Thanks for pointing to the right section. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Kaiser2012

I just checked, they have 8 rooms. Obviously i won't press the issue since I don't have a service dog, but this is the only b&b that came up in a google search in the area. My parents also asked me if I wanted to stay there when we go up for a food tasting at the venue (without dogs) but I'm hesitsnt tongive my business to someone who tries to quote the ada as an excuse allowing them to ban service dogs, when based on the above post they cannot exclude them. I know, if it bothers me then just go elsewhere, but I can't help but feel like they should be made aware of their mistake. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Jax08

What ever happened to common courtesy? The owner of the B&B has allergies so does not want animals there. Why do people get in an uproar instead of just looking for a different place to sleep in a place that will not adversely affect others? Allergic reactions are miserable and could be very serious including fatal.

I guess my view is your rights end at my nose...I, too, have rights...

and if it is going to adversely affect a persons health to accommodate another's rights then we have an issue.


----------



## wildo

Jax08 said:


> What ever happened to common courtesy?


It went away with common sense.


----------



## shepherdmom

Jax08 said:


> What ever happened to common courtesy? The owner of the B&B has allergies so does not want animals there. Why do people get in an uproar instead of just looking for a different place to sleep in a place that will not adversely affect others? Allergic reactions are miserable and could be very serious including fatal.
> 
> I guess my view is your rights end at my nose...I, too, have rights...
> 
> and if it is going to adversely affect a persons health to accommodate another's rights then we have an issue.


:thumbup:


----------



## AngelaA6

wildo said:


> It went away with common sense.


Sorry, I chuckled. Thanks for the giggle


----------



## Chicagocanine

So if you think it's ok for them to not allow service dogs, what if other people followed suit and just decided to claim allergies because they don't want dogs in their business?

Yeah personally if I had an issue with a place like a that, I would just go elsewhere, because I wouldn't want to stay where I'm not welcome. But still where do you draw the line where it's "ok" to not accept service dogs? What if the employee on site or owner at a store or other business where someone wants to bring a service dog says they are allergic, is that ok for them to say no service dogs because they have allergies (or a fear of dogs maybe)? What about people on flights, etc...


----------



## NancyJ

Listen, I absolutely hate to fly when someone has a cat on board. My eyes burn, my nose is stuffy the whole flight. I am miserable the entire time for someone's convenience (cat not = service animal). 

I think we need to meet everyone's needs as much as possible but sometimes the needs of one person so overpower everyone elses needs it is ridiculous. I personally think we should have a *lot* more scrutiny as to what = a service animal and the reason for its use should be compelling. 

Allergies are real. Goodness - kids can't take peanut butter to schools now to accomodate peanut allergic kids but a child allergic to dogs has to tolerate a service animal. How is that fair? And if a child is truly scared of dogs, what accomodations will we make for them to have a condusive learning enviornment if a service dog goes to school. I really think we need consideration for all. 

I think special accomodations make sense when it is a larger business that can spread out the cost more effectively than a small one.


----------



## Jax08

Chicagocanine said:


> So if you think it's ok for them to not allow service dogs, what if other people followed suit and just decided to claim allergies because they don't want dogs in their business?
> 
> Yeah personally if I had an issue with a place like a that, I would just go elsewhere, because I wouldn't want to stay where I'm not welcome. But still where do you draw the line where it's "ok" to not accept service dogs? What if the employee on site or owner at a store or other business where someone wants to bring a service dog says they are allergic, is that ok for them to say no service dogs because they have allergies (or a fear of dogs maybe)? What about people on flights, etc...


First, lets not put word in my mouth. Second, why are allergies being dismissed as if they are nothing? 

So, lets say I run a B&B but have to restrict animals allowed because my daughters allergies will set off her asthma. Want the stats on hospitalizations and deaths resulting from asthma? Want to know how many times I've sat next to my daughter in the ICU with O2 blowing up her nose?

This thread is not about a hotel with 30-100 rooms. This is about a B&B that is not allowing any dogs due to allergies by the owner. A larger business can accommodate all without anyone suffering.

Airplanes? When you choose to step into an enclosed space you have to deal with what is there. Perfumes, body odors, stale air, animal dander. I think that is a bit different than a hotel or restaurant


----------



## shepherdmom

Chicagocanine said:


> So if you think it's ok for them to not allow service dogs, what if other people followed suit and just decided to claim allergies because they don't want dogs in their business?
> 
> Yeah personally if I had an issue with a place like a that, I would just go elsewhere, because I wouldn't want to stay where I'm not welcome. But still where do you draw the line where it's "ok" to not accept service dogs? What if the employee on site or owner at a store or other business where someone wants to bring a service dog says they are allergic, is that ok for them to say no service dogs because they have allergies (or a fear of dogs maybe)? What about people on flights, etc...


Allergies/Asthma are very real. I can't tell you how many times I've wound up in the ER as my throat is swelling shut on me.  Thankfully pets are the one thing I'm not allergic too... However, when someone can die just so you can have the convenience of your dog with you is where I draw the line. You can easily choose to stay somewhere else. 

When did one persons rights start meaning more than others?


----------



## wildo

shepherdmom said:


> Allergies/Asthma are very real. I can't tell you how many times I've wound up in the ER as my throat is swelling shut on me.  Thankfully pets are the one thing I'm not allergic too... However, when someone can die just so you can have the *convenience of your dog with you* is where I draw the line. You can easily choose to stay somewhere else.


I agree with your general sentiment, people do need to be mindful of others' allergies, but let's be clear that this is the service dog forum. I imagine some disabled folks could choose to take offense to the "convenience" comment. For disabled folks, I'm sure their dog is not viewed as a convenience. This instance is about a small(er) B&B not allowing SDs. I'm happy to see the ADA laws do cover situations of less than 6 rooms as that's a pretty good line in the sand. It also shows some foresight on the legislature author's part.

(Though you may have been making a general statement not directed to service dogs... :shrug


----------



## Cheyanna

shepherdmom said:


> Allergies/Asthma are very real. I can't tell you how many times I've wound up in the ER as my throat is swelling shut on me.  Thankfully pets are the one thing I'm not allergic too... However, when someone can die just so you can have the convenience of your dog with you is where I draw the line. You can easily choose to stay somewhere else.
> 
> When did one persons rights start meaning more than others?


Having my SD is NOT a mere convenience to me. Fiona serves a very valuable service to me that without my ability to be out and about would be severely limited. For some who has a fear of dogs, too darn bad. Seek psychological help with that. A person's fear does not trump my disability. I am mindful of allergies. I have a co worker with animal allergies. I talked with him before I even got Fiona. I have a student with similar allergies. I talked with him to figure out how to accommodate him and myself.

As previously stated, this is the ONLY B&B in the area. Would you rather I stay home? 

Some of the comments seem to come from a place of ignorance and can be insulting to some one with SD. I am not trying to railroad over other people's "rights". The person with the allergies chose to turn her home into a B&B and then offer more rooms than would have protected her under the ADA. Her choices limited her own "rights". I am just trying to get to do what people who are not crippled get to do.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## martemchik

Cheyanna said:


> Having my SD is NOT a mere convenience to me. Fiona serves a very valuable service to me that without my ability to be out and about would be severely limited. For some who has a fear of dogs, too darn bad. Seek psychological help with that. A person's fear does not trump my disability. I am mindful of allergies. I have a co worker with animal allergies. I talked with him before I even got Fiona. I have a student with similar allergies. I talked with him to figure out how to accommodate him and myself.
> 
> As previously stated, this is the ONLY B&B in the area. Would you rather I stay home?
> 
> Some of the comments seem to come from a place of ignorance and can be insulting to some one with SD. I am not trying to railroad over other people's "rights". The person with the allergies chose to turn her home into a B&B and then offer more rooms than would have protected her under the ADA. Her choices limited her own "rights". I am just trying to get to do what people who are not crippled get to do.


Lol...so why exactly does your disability trump another person's disability (fear of dogs or allergies)? The other comments were ignorant...but no offense, so is that one. To say that YOUR problem is bigger than ANOTHER'S problem is questionable at best.

There are a lot of reasons why the person chose to make their home a B&B...if its the only one in the area, I doubt that someone HAS to go there. It's not like a work conference or some other mandatory thing. No one would choose to have a big meeting of people knowing that the only accommodation is a 10 room B&B. So the guest is CHOOSING to go to this area as well. If we're going to get into a discussion on choices, rights as you said get very important.


----------



## Jax08

Why is the subject of "fear" coming up? We aren't talking about someone with a fear of dogs. The B&B stated no dogs due to them having a PHYSICAL condition...allergies. A fear of something would only be a physical issue if it caused such anxiety a person couldn't function. 

My issue is when a person has a physical issue that could be a major issue, including fatal, that everyone is ignoring. Yes, most allergies are an inconvenience. But there are many people out here that it could be a serious, medical issue. 

Service Dogs are NOT a convenience. They are a part of the person and help them function. 

So, it's the only B&B. Is it the only place to stay? In the whole area? The only hotel within 30-60 miles? Would you rather have the person close their doors and not have the business rather than choose to stay somewhere else?

I have to wonder where enforcing a persons rights started to mean trampling on another persons rights and well being.


----------



## Chicagocanine

I'm just wondering where you draw the line, if it's ok for someone with a B&B to ignore the laws, is it also ok for someone who has allergies and owns/works in another business, such as a small store or whatever to do the same? They could also have problems if they are in a small space and someone brings in their service dog. At what point do you think is it ok/not ok for them to claim allergies and say they don't have to allow someone in who needs a service dog to assist with their disability?


----------



## Cheyanna

*Not trampling rights*

I am not saying my rights trample some one else rights. I am saying she WAIVED her rights. She had protection under the law. All she had to do was limit the number of rooms she offered to have her medical condition trump my SD. She CHOOSE not to do that. That means she WAIVED her right. The law tells her how to protect her rights and what she must do to enforce them. It also tells me my rights and what I might do to enforce them. If she choose to not follow the law, then my rights under the law are in effect and hers are waived. No one forced her to have a B&B and no one forced her to have more rooms than the law said she could have and protect her rights. She made that choice. If she was ignorant of the law, then that is her own dumb fault. It is very simple to google and find the answer.


----------



## Cheyanna

Chicagocanine said:


> I'm just wondering where you draw the line, if it's ok for someone with a B&B to ignore the laws, is it also ok for someone who has allergies and owns/works in another business, such as a small store or whatever to do the same? They could also have problems if they are in a small space and someone brings in their service dog. At what point do you think is it ok/not ok for them to claim allergies and say they don't have to allow someone in who needs a service dog to assist with their disability?


I don't draw the line. The law does. As I said and demonstrated, I am mindful of people with allergies.


----------



## Cheyanna

martemchik said:


> Lol...so why exactly does your disability trump another person's disability (*fear of dogs* or allergies)? The other comments were ignorant...but no offense, so is that one. To say that YOUR problem is bigger than ANOTHER'S problem is questionable at best.
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why the person chose to make their home a B&B...if its the only one in the area, I doubt that someone HAS to go there. It's not like a work conference or some other mandatory thing. No one would choose to have a big meeting of people knowing that the only accommodation is a 10 room B&B. So the guest is CHOOSING to go to this area as well. If we're going to get into a discussion on choices, rights as you said get very important.


THat is why I talked about fear of dogs. That is NOT a disability under the ADA.


----------



## Jax08

I guess I don't know the answer to that. A store is in and out with little exposure to dander. And service dogs are kept so clean that it would be minimized even more. A B&B has the animals there for a longer time period and more contact with furniture and floor coverings. I don't know where you would draw the line.

There is a wide range of issues from allergies. Mine...itchy eyes and pollen related. DH has watery eyes, sinuses and issues breathing with pollen and animals. Peanuts will KILL him. DD seems to have gotten his allergies along with a much worse case of asthma. I don't allow smoking in my house and I quit many years ago for her. 

My issue is that one persons well being is being ignored for the benefit of another persons well being. It's the complete lack of courtesy for another persons health issue just because you (general) have the "right" that really bothers me. I am the first one to get upset when I see an able bodied person park in the handicapped zone or irritated to see a handicapped person wait while some woman with no issues is using the handicapped stall. Waiting for a stall and walking a few more feet are an "inconvenience" but it does not adversely affect an able bodied person. An allergic reaction does adversely affect someone.

Here are some asthma facts
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America - Information About Asthma, Allergies, Food Allergies and More!

*Every day* in America:


44,000 people have an asthma attack.
36,000 kids miss school due to asthma.
27,000 adults miss work due to asthma.
4,700 people visit the emergency room due to asthma.
1,200 people are admitted to the hospital due to asthma.
*9 people die from asthma.*
*
*
How allergies that trigger these asthma attacks are brushed off just floors me. But then I've watched my ex-stepmother turn blue and sat next to my child in the hospital on three different occasions and battled thru two very hard winters watching her not be able to walk to the kitchen wwithout being out of breathe.


----------



## NancyJ

Cheyanna said:


> I am not saying my rights trample some one else rights. I am saying she WAIVED her rights. She had protection under the law. All she had to do was limit the number of rooms she offered to have her medical condition trump my SD. She CHOOSE not to do that. That means she WAIVED her right. The law tells her how to protect her rights and what she must do to enforce them. It also tells me my rights and what I might do to enforce them. If she choose to not follow the law, then my rights under the law are in effect and hers are waived. No one forced her to have a B&B and no one forced her to have more rooms than the law said she could have and protect her rights. She made that choice. If she was ignorant of the law, then that is her own dumb fault. It is very simple to google and find the answer.


I am confused. The OP is in NC and you are in CA. Are you talking about the same B&B? Or are you talking about a hypothetical case.

All good and well to tell someone with fears to "get over it" as long as all psychiatric service dogs are not covered by the ADA. Maybe they are not.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Cheyanna, Great points - especially that law draws the line. It is not the disabled person's responsibility to accommodate the business, but the business to accommodate the disabled person. If the business meets the criteria, under the law, that it must accept service dogs then it must. Period!

I have a disabled child. I know how hard it is to have him granted his rights. If anyone thinks a disabled person just has things handed to him, think again. It is an uphill battle. If you and your family have never been disabled, count your blessings. Remember that no one ever expects to be disabled - but accidents, tragedies, and violence happen every day.


----------



## shepherdmom

Cheyanna said:


> Having my SD is NOT a mere convenience to me. Fiona serves a very valuable service to me that without my ability to be out and about would be severely limited. For some who has a fear of dogs, too darn bad. Seek psychological help with that. A person's fear does not trump my disability. I am mindful of allergies. I have a co worker with animal allergies. I talked with him before I even got Fiona. I have a student with similar allergies. I talked with him to figure out how to accommodate him and myself.
> 
> As previously stated, this is the ONLY B&B in the area. Would you rather I stay home?
> 
> Some of the comments seem to come from a place of ignorance and can be insulting to some one with SD. I am not trying to railroad over other people's "rights". The person with the allergies chose to turn her home into a B&B and then offer more rooms than would have protected her under the ADA. Her choices limited her own "rights". I am just trying to get to do what people who are not crippled get to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Wow so you would rather see someone die because you would be severely restricted in getting around? I am not talking about a fear of dogs... I'm talking about an all out Anaphylaxis attack. Yes, many people are that allergic. There are plenty of other hotels you could go to but that is this persons residence. 

Anaphylaxis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW crippled or not doesn't give you the right to decide your life is more important than someone elses.


----------



## Jax08

Cheyanna said:


> That means she WAIVED her right. ..... She made that choice. If she was ignorant of the law, then that is her own dumb fault. It is very simple to google and find the answer.


I don't need to google anything. It used to be illegal for woman and blacks to vote. You can google that too. Many things are law...it doesn't make them right. IMO, it is just as ignorant to purposely ignore a person's physical well being just because there is a law that says you can. 

Here's a hypothetical for you...

So you fight the woman and win. She has to accommodate you. During your stay, the dander sends her into a serious asthma attack and she dies...

Is it still "her own dumb fault"? Did she waive her right to live? Do you gleefully go on your way with no remorse?


----------



## Lucy Dog

Jax08 said:


> So you fight the woman and win. She has to accommodate you. During your stay, the dander sends her into a serious asthma attack and she dies...
> 
> Is it still "her own dumb fault"? Did she waive her right to live? Do you gleefully go on your way with no remorse?


I think she made that choice when she decided to open up her home to the general public as a business establishment. There are laws in place and she has to follow them. Laws aren't always fair to everyone, but they still have to be followed.


----------



## Jax08

Lucy Dog said:


> I think she made that choice when she decided to open up her home to the general public as a business establishment. There are laws in place and she has to follow them. Laws aren't always fair to everyone, but they still have to be followed.


I'm not arguing that. Again...my issue is with the mindset that "I have this right and I'm going to do it and everyone else be damned". So the owner either has to give up their business and income...or their health. That all seems perfectly logical to me.


----------



## Shade

I have to go with the rights of the SD and handler. If there is a severe allergy then you simply don't open your home, or you keep it under the limit as the law is written. 

I'm sure most if not all of SD and handlers DO accommodate other people's feelings and health issues as much as possible.


----------



## Lucy Dog

There really should be a law that allows a waiver to a small business like this for accommodating service animals only if a severe reaction (like hospitalization or ever death) is a real possibility. 

Other than that, I really can't see any excuse for not allowing service animals at a place like this when the law clearly states it's allowed. Breaking out in hives, watery eyes, and other typical minor allergy symptoms is no excuse. These are some of the sacrifices you're just going to have to make when your home is a public business. 

When something as severe as death is a possibility, a waiver should be allowed to the business, but only in the most severe cases. Just my opinion.


----------



## shepherdmom

Lucy Dog said:


> There really should be a law that allows a waiver to a small business like this for accommodating service animals only if a severe reaction (like hospitalization or ever death) is a real possibility.
> 
> Other than that, I really can't see any excuse for not allowing service animals at a place like this when the law clearly states it's allowed. Breaking out in hives, watery eyes, and other typical minor allergy symptoms is no excuse. These are some of the sacrifices you're just going to have to make when your home is a public business.
> 
> When something as severe as death is a possibility, a waiver should be allowed to the business, but only in the most severe cases. Just my opinion.


I agree with everything except that hives are not a minor allergy symptom. My eyes, mouth and throat swell up to the point that I can't breath. A full out hive attack can lead to death.


----------



## wildo

Shade said:


> I have to go with the *rights of the SD* and handler.


Small side note. Service dogs themselves have no access rights. The rights fall to the handler. The dog is a piece of medical equipment. A minor, but important point.


----------



## Shade

wildo said:


> Small side note. Service dogs themselves have no access rights. The rights fall to the handler. The dog is a piece of medical equipment. A minor, but important point.


They're one and the same, a team. Also, a SD in training has certain rights over a non SD. That has nothing to do with whether the handler on the end of the leash is disabled or not. N/A in this scenario but still noteworthy


----------



## Lucy Dog

shepherdmom said:


> I agree with everything except that hives are not a minor allergy symptom. My eyes, mouth and throat swell up to the point that I can't breath. A full out hive attack can lead to death.


Not going to pretend to be an allergy expert here, but I guess that would depend on the severity of the hives. I've seen people hold cats before and break out in hives all over their arms from it, but no other major symptoms. 

If there were to be a waiver, it should only cover the most severe cases and that's it.


----------



## Jax08

Lucy Dog said:


> If there were to be a waiver, it should only cover the most severe cases and that's it.


That would certainly be satisfactory to protect the rights of both people. I will say that allergies can worsen over time. However, this is not just about watery eyes and hives. There are many factors involved in allergic reactions.

I've seen hives that were just surface reactions. But I've seen reactions that led to asthma attacks. And....not all dogs affect DH the same. The Boxers are different than Jax and for some reason, Chaos is worse that all three combined. There is something different about her dander and her hair.


----------



## shepherdmom

Lucy Dog said:


> Not going to pretend to be an allergy expert here, but I guess that would depend on the severity of the hives. I've seen people hold cats before and break out in hives all over their arms from it, but no other major symptoms.
> 
> If there were to be a waiver, it should only cover the most severe cases and that's it.


Unfortunately, I am an expert having spent the last 30 years with chronic autoimmmune urticaria as well as asthma. I don't have problems with animals but I've had to get up and leave restaurants because someone's perfume was so strong it was sending me into an attack. I don't sue the restaraunt or start a fight with someone... I just ask for my check and leave. I figure it is as much their right to wear perfume as it is mine to avoid it. I have learned to bring my own pillows and bedding when I stay in hotels because often times I am allergic whatever soap they use. Again I don't sue the hotels or complain, I just work around it. I think we have become a sue happy society and forget that we all have to live in this world together.


----------



## Kaiser2012

Wow I had no idea my question would turn into such an insightful discussion. 

In this case there are other places to stay 30-60 minutes away but this is the only b&b that came up during our search IN the specific town. Of course someone with a sd can stay elsewhere but good points were made on both sides...the business owner did choose to have more than the number of rooms alloweable to fall within the exception to the law...however my issue now is that they are quoting the general law as an excuse NOT to allows a sd. Of course they could simply be misinformed but that is kind of a big thing to get wrong, and it should have been clarified before they opened their doors...IF they really do have severe allergies. If they have minor allergies like I do to pollen and simply don't want dogs there for whatever reason and is using the law as a supposed out...well...I have a problem with that.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ILGHAUS

OK -- all who are getting a little agitated here please step away from the keyboard and take a nice cleansing breath.

I just glanced over the last couple of pages so I might have missed some of what was going on but ...

First, someone had what I think was a question about Psychiatric Service Dogs. They are by law legally full Service Dogs and as such are covered by the ADA through the various Regulatory Agencies madated by Congress to oversee the various Titles such as the DOJ, HUD, EEOC etc. Psychiatric Service Dogs are not the same as Therapy Dogs or Emotional Support Animals. 

The ADA is a Civil Rights Law. The ADA is not to give extra or super rights to a person with a disability. The ADA Title III is to bring access and opportunity to participate in receiving public products and services up for a PWD to the level available to non PWDs. 

When going through licensing and permits for a business, information on requirements are given to the new business owner. Someone with a B&B will receive info on local and state laws concerning zoning info, health depart. requirements, and amounts on other topics. A small B&B will have certain regulations to follow whereas a larger B&B or one which is not the primary residence of the business owner during the application process will include various ADA compliance regulations. 

If a business will be under ADA Title III Public Access regs., than the business owner will also receive packets of info on ADA facility access guidelines among other ADA requirements. At this time the new business owner must make any additional alterations to the place of business to stay under compliance. This goes from size of doors, to slope of any ramps, to height of fixtures in a bathroom, to grab bars located in the bathroom among pages of other regs.

The B&B owner who lives on site at that time would have to make a decision to limit rental rooms to 5 max. or to make needed alterations. They may have to have a separate venting system for heating and air for the section open to the public from their private quarters or they may have to have other family members or hire outside help to clean the area open to the public.

_I would suggest to anyone that wants to look into a business venture such as this to contact the Dept. of Justice and begin asking there. It is possible that there are exemptions for this circumstance. If there is, I am sure that there would have to be documentation proving this severe of an allergy to be real. But for legal guidance on this issue for someone wanting to open a larger B&B they can not get that from an Internet forum. _


----------



## martemchik

Cheyanna said:


> THat is why I talked about fear of dogs. That is NOT a disability under the ADA.


So things are only disabilities once the government says they are?

Here is the definition of a PWD from the ADA website...An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.

Why can't the stress caused by the fear of a dog be considered a disability then? If its so crippling to their life that having a dog around would LIMIT their ability to service a guest, there is a history of it recorded by a doctor, and other people have seen the person completely break down at the sight of a dog.

Seems like it could be a disability...but that wasn't my point. My point was, that you are ranking YOUR disability (whatever it is that limits your major life activity) above THEIR disability (something that limits their major life activity) and are claiming that because LEGALLY theirs might not be considered a disability, you have more rights than they do. Sounds to me like you're discriminating against them for not having what YOU perceive to be "not as big" of a disability as the one you have. Seems wrong IMO.

Just to add...I do believe that this business owner does need to open their B&B up to service animals as per the law. I just believe that its wrong for someone with a disability to be saying another person's (possible) disability isn't as important as theirs.


----------



## ILGHAUS

Back to the *Rights* topic and who has these rights. 

*The ADA covers the Civil Rights of the person with the disability(ies).* A particular right given by the ADA through one of the ADA Titles and regulatory agency belongs to the person with the disability. The right and the manner to the use of a piece of medical equipment by a person with a disability belongs to the PWD using the equipment. A wheelchair, crutches, walker, or even a SD has no Civil Rights. 

All Public Access Rights (per ADA Title II and III / Dept. of Justice) are those of the person with a disability. The dog itself has no Public Access Rights. A PWD with a dog trained to mitigate their legal disability has the right to take that dog into MOST places even if pet dogs are not allowed. A family member or friend of the PWD does not automatically have any rights (per ADA Title II and III / Dept. of Justice) to take that same dog into any location where a pet dog is not allowed. The rights do not automatically transfer to whoever has control of the dog .


----------



## ILGHAUS

Dispute on levels of disabilities for a particular incident often go into the legal system so ....
There is no way that a discussion or claim on whose disability ranks highest can be satisfied via any forum. 

To continue on this path may only lead to an upset between members but it could easily go into official warnings given by Mods/Admins.


----------



## Shade

ILGHAUS said:


> Back to the *Rights* topic and who has these rights.
> 
> *The ADA covers the Civil Rights of the person with the disability(ies).* A particular right given by the ADA through one of the ADA Titles and regulatory agency belongs to the person with the disability. The right and the manner to the use of a piece of medical equipment by a person with a disability belongs to the PWD using the equipment. A wheelchair, crutches, walker, or even a SD has no Civil Rights.
> 
> All Public Access Rights (per ADA Title II and III / Dept. of Justice) are those of the person with a disability. The dog itself has no Public Access Rights. A PWD with a dog trained to mitigate their legal disability has the right to take that dog into MOST places even if pet dogs are not allowed. A family member or friend of the PWD does not automatically have any rights (per ADA Title II and III / Dept. of Justice) to take that same dog into any location where a pet dog is not allowed. The rights do not automatically transfer to whoever has control of the dog .


To clarify, I was referring to a trainer or PWD accompanying the dog not just anyone, I should have taken the time to make it clear. Also that a service dog in training *could* be allowed with *permission* into a place such as a library or store where a pet couldn't enter regardless. Reading it again I shouldn't have used the word "rights" in that context, I apologize

Does a PWD have the same public access rights with a service dog in training as with a certified service dog? Sorry if I'm not using the proper verbage as I'm not sure how else to word the question


----------



## Cheyanna

Jax08 I was not telling you to google it. I meant the owner could have googled it and found out before she opened her B&B. 

I am not saying that my disability trumps anothers. I understand allergies, I have them myself. I am saying that the owner of the B&B has rights as person with a disability. She choose not to exercise her rights. That is a very different case than where someone intersects with me and we both have those rights. As I stated before, neither trumps the other and we have to try and find a way to work it out for both of us. That is what I did with both my co-worker and my student. I didn't demand that they accept the dog and to bad for them. I asked them what I could do so as to not interfere with their allergies. And I do those things.


----------



## Cheyanna

jocoyn said:


> I am confused. The OP is in NC and you are in CA. Are you talking about the same B&B? Or are you talking about a hypothetical case.
> 
> All good and well to tell someone with fears to "get over it" as long as all psychiatric service dogs are not covered by the ADA. Maybe they are not.


Sorry for the confusion. The police have told me that I am now free to leave the state, so I thought about travel. I am kidding about the police. But I was speaking about that particular B&B.

I don't think I said get over it. You can get help for fears. They way psychiatrist help you get over your fears is to expose you to what causes your fear in a controlled environment. I suppose that someone who fears dogs could have a service dog. The problem is that fear has not found to be a mental impairment. Does not mean that it can't, just means no one has demonstrated it. 

I was specifically referring to someone who has a fear of dogs. I am not sure if fear is part of PTSD or not.


----------



## Cheyanna

shepherdmom said:


> Wow so you would rather see someone die because you would be severely restricted in getting around? I am not talking about a fear of dogs... I'm talking about an all out Anaphylaxis attack. Yes, many people are that allergic. There are plenty of other hotels you could go to but that is this persons residence.
> 
> Anaphylaxis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> BTW crippled or not doesn't give you the right to decide your life is more important than someone elses.


Not sure how you got that I wanted someone else to die so that I can be mobile. In fact, what you quoted was me demonstrating the exact opposite. I worked with the two people at my work that my SD would impact. I did not sentence them to death.

The person's residence is also a business. A business that is governed by laws. The B&B owner could have protected herself from Fiona, my killing machine, by simply complying with the law. Why am I at fault for her failure?

Never said my life was more important than hers nor did I imply that. I said that our rights were equal, but then she gave her rights up. So if she gives away her rights and I keep my rights, then she has no rights left to compare with my rights. This is an easy fix for the B&B owner. I suggest she do it right away. Comply with the law. Then in fact, her rights would trump mine.


----------



## NancyJ

I guess I understand a very real fear that I had which took decades to get over of course when I was a kid there was no such thing as psychological counseling. Saw a kid sucked into an escalator when I was 4. Screaming. Blood. Firemen taking apart the escalator mechanism etc. Back then no such thing as a cut off switch. Blacked it out completely until I was a teen and my mother explained it to me. Took me some time but by my twenties I could (albiet uncomfortably) ride on them but I still absolutely hate them and am still not happy to be on one.

So I could see a kid who saw a serious dog attack or one who was, themselves attacked have a serious fear issue. 

But then in the days of restricted medical budgets with psychiatric care most restricted I am not sure how much help someone may get in that regard. I guess it is all PTSD


----------



## Cheyanna

Jax08 said:


> I'm not arguing that. Again...my issue is with the mindset that "I have this right and I'm going to do it and everyone else be damned". So the owner either has to give up their business and income...or their health. That all seems perfectly logical to me.


I doubt you could think that i have that mindset. Perhaps there are other disabled people with that mindset. I can understand how they got that way, but I am not there. No one has to give up anything. But she does have to follow the law whether she is disabled or not. She can easily protect her business, income and health, by following the law.


----------



## Kaiser2012

jocoyn said:


> I guess I understand a very real fear that I had which took decades to get over of course when I was a kid there was no such thing as psychological counseling. Saw a kid sucked into an escalator when I was 4. Screaming. Blood. Firemen taking apart the escalator mechanism etc. Back then no such thing as a cut off switch. Blacked it out completely until I was a teen and my mother explained it to me. Took me some time but by my twenties I could (albiet uncomfortably) ride on them but I still absolutely hate them and am still not happy to be on one.
> 
> So I could see a kid who saw a serious dog attack or one who was, themselves attacked have a serious fear issue.
> 
> But then in the days of restricted medical budgets with psychiatric care most restricted I am not sure how much help someone may get in that regard. I guess it is all PTSD


Not to hijack my own thread, lol, but you weren't in Illinois when that happened, where you? An escalator ate my foot when I was three...they had to take apart the entire side of the elevator and i got a piggy back ride to the ambulance. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Cheyanna

martemchik said:


> So things are only disabilities once the government says they are? Whether you like it or not, the answer is yes.
> 
> Here is the definition of a PWD from the ADA website...An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. Fear has yet to be recognized as an impairment. Someone with it would have to go to court and prove it for it to be recognized.
> 
> Why can't the stress caused by the fear of a dog be considered a disability then? If its so crippling to their life that having a dog around would LIMIT their ability to service a guest, there is a history of it recorded by a doctor, and other people have seen the person completely break down at the sight of a dog. No court has yet to say it is. The B&B owner is free to go to court and prove it and win her case.
> 
> Seems like it could be a disability...but that wasn't my point. My point was, that you are ranking YOUR disability (whatever it is that limits your major life activity) above THEIR disability (something that limits their major life activity) and are claiming that because LEGALLY theirs might not be considered a disability, you have more rights than they do. Sounds to me like you're discriminating against them for not having what YOU perceive to be "not as big" of a disability as the one you have. Seems wrong IMO.
> I am not ranking anything. She has the same rights as I do. She choose to give them up. I did not take them from her, no one did. She gave them up. So without her rights, then yes, because I kept my rights and did not give them up, my rights would trump hers. Not my disability. Also, she could take back her rights with a simple fix, comply with the law. Then her rights would trump mine. Rights are different from disabilities.
> Just to add...I do believe that this business owner does need to open their B&B up to service animals as per the law. I just believe that its wrong for someone with a disability to be saying another person's (possible) disability isn't as important as theirs.


 I never said that.


----------



## martemchik

Cheyanna said:


> I doubt you could think that i have that mindset. Perhaps there are other disabled people with that mindset. I can understand how they got that way, but I am not there. No one has to give up anything. But she does have to follow the law whether she is disabled or not. She can easily protect her business, income and health, by following the law.


Actually...your idea for the business owner to "follow the law" and therefore keep those rights is to not protect her business or income...its forcing them to decrease her business and her income potential by shrinking the amount of rooms they offer.

Listen...in a normal situation, of course they should allow the dogs. If the allergies are just an inconvenience and not fatal, they should still allow the dogs. But if they have deadly allergies, or they have a crazy fear of dogs that stops them in their tracks, they should be able to still keep their income producing ability and not limit it because the law says so and doesn't give an exemption for someone that can PROVE extreme fear or allergies.

Look at the point that ILHAUS was saying...these are all civil matters. So no one has yet to challenge the rule about service dogs. If they were to challenge it, go to court over it, then the owner can prove those things. Until then...its unnecessary to prove that they have a fear that can be considered a disability.


----------



## Cheyanna

I probably should have kept my big mouth shut. I was reading all the replies, but kept silent because I was getting annoyed. It was until the convenience comment that I lost control of my mouth (or fingers).

If you have never had a disability, it is hard to understand what we go through. With or without the SD, the stares, the snide comments, the hurtful and ignorant things said.

I apologize if I came off as being defensive, because I was. :blush: I hope that this was a learning opportunity for all involved.


----------



## Cheyanna

martemchik said:


> Actually...your idea for the business owner to "follow the law" and therefore keep those rights is to not protect her business or income...its forcing them to decrease her business and her income potential by shrinking the amount of rooms they offer.
> 
> Listen...in a normal situation, of course they should allow the dogs. If the allergies are just an inconvenience and not fatal, they should still allow the dogs. But if they have deadly allergies, or they have a crazy fear of dogs that stops them in their tracks, they should be able to still keep their income producing ability and not limit it because the law says so and doesn't give an exemption for someone that can PROVE extreme fear or allergies.


They can get the exemption and I suggest they do. But they would have to prove it. The only way for them to get an exemption from the law is to go to court. So if she wants to maintain her B&B as is, she has to go to court and seek the exemption. For the record, even tho I am a lawyer and most of us are sue happy. I am not. I am a Christian before being a lawyer. So I would not sue here and would probably go elsewhere. But I would take the opportunity to educate her and show her the law. 

Oh, I forgot she can argue for a change in the law. But she would have to go to Congress for that.
I merely saw this as a hypothetical situation which need the other side told. It is that crazy law professor in me.:blush:


----------



## martemchik

Cheyanna said:


> They can get the exemption and I suggest they do. But they would have to prove it. The only way for them to get an exemption from the law is to go to court. So if she wants to maintain her B&B as is, she has to go to court and seek the exemption. For the record, even tho I am a lawyer and most of us are sue happy. I am not. I am a Christian before being a lawyer. So I would not sue here and would probably go elsewhere. But I would take the opportunity to educate her and show her the law.
> 
> Oh, I forgot she can argue for a change in the law. But she would have to go to Congress for that.
> I merely saw this as a hypothetical situation which need the other side told. It is that crazy law professor in me.:blush:


Sorry I never read the post that said the owner didn't have the exemption...so we're all just assuming they don't have one and making them out to be the bad guy? I don't think you have to flaunt or advertise the exemption on your website in order for people not to sue you. They can go ahead and sue, you can send the lawyer a copy of the exemption, and life goes on.

And yes...that convenience comment should've pissed plenty of SD handlers off. I get what you're saying about the law, and why you have such a deep respect for the law. But sometimes, laws are meant to be bent (not broken) and its a terrible bureaucratic mess in order to get that exemption from the law, so people just go ahead and do it without going through that mess. Is it wrong? Sure...but if you don't get caught (or challenged) you're not hurting anyone.

All the comments are based off a blurb on a website, what if depending on the situation they do make exceptions...and the blurb on the website is just a way to keep most people with dogs from even asking...or trying to make it seem like their dog is a service dog (see other thread on that issue) lol. I'm sure if someone like you (cheyanna) decided to ask, and then challenge, and then threaten, they'd probably accommodate you...but speculating based on a website is kind of pointless IMO.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> Does a PWD have the same public access rights with a service dog in training as with a certified service dog? Sorry if I'm not using the proper verbage as I'm not sure how else to word the question


Title II and Title III of the ADA and regulated by the Dept. of Justice deals with fully trained working SDs. 

It is up to the individual states to deal with the issue of SDITs. This is under State Statutes. Some states have such laws and others do not. Those that do vary greatly. Some allow owner training some only by trainers working for a SD organization. Some require the dog in training to wear certain equipment to be protected under their state's statutes. Some states allow a SDIT to go into places where pet dogs are not allowed while some do not. 

*And as to "certified service dog"* -- Federal Law does not require any type of certification or registration of a Service Dog. 
Federal Law does not require any certain equipment to be used on a Service Dog. 
Federal Law does not require any type of special ID on a Service Dog.
A Service Dog is only required to have that which is required of any pet dog taken out into the community such as a County/City tag and Rabies tag.


----------



## Shade

ILGHAUS said:


> Title II and Title III of the ADA and regulated by the Dept. of Justice deals with fully trained working SDs.
> 
> It is up to the individual states to deal with the issue of SDITs. This is under State Statutes. Some states have such laws and others do not. Those that do vary greatly. Some allow owner training some only by trainers working for a SD organization. Some require the dog in training to wear certain equipment to be protected under their state's statutes. Some states allow a SDIT to go into places where pet dogs are not allowed while some do not.
> 
> *And as to "certified service dog"* -- Federal Law does not require any type of certification or registration of a Service Dog.
> Federal Law does not require any certain equipment to be used on a Service Dog.
> Federal Law does not require any type of special ID on a Service Dog.
> A Service Dog is only required to have that which is required of any pet dog taken out into the community such as a County/City tag and Rabies tag.


Again, I wasn't sure of the correct wording regarding trained or certified. Thank you for the clarification and the helpful manner


----------



## SFGSSD

ILGHAUS said:


> *And as to "certified service dog"* -- Federal Law does not require any type of certification or registration of a Service Dog.
> Federal Law does not require any certain equipment to be used on a Service Dog.
> Federal Law does not require any type of special ID on a Service Dog.
> A Service Dog is only required to have that which is required of any pet dog taken out into the community such as a County/City tag and Rabies tag.


And of course, trained to mitigate the disability.



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## selzer

With asthma like mine the dogs would not be fatal, but they probably would decrease my business and probably cause me to close up -- if dog dander was one of the things that triggered my asthma. 

This is because when I am exposed to certain stuff, I hack and become ill, kind of like a chronic cold with all the sinus junk going on, and that chronic caugh. I feel constantly tired because I am not getting enough oxygen, and the hack makes people take their little children to the other side of the waiting room. 

Do you want me cooking breakfast for you? Would I be able to manage the same work load without the oxygen and with the hacking cough? Would I lose business becaue things were not as clean, not as welcoming, and I am over there hacking away while frying eggs and bacon? 

No, I would not go into shock and die -- probably, but I would probably not be able to maintain the work load, and I would be chronically ill which does take a toll on your over all life span.

I think people who are running a small business in their home should not have to comply with ramps, handicapped toilets, service dogs if that would be a problem for them. 

Service dogs are awesome, and I think for the most part people should WANT to provide allowances for them. But there are people who do have allergies or even debilitating fears of dogs, and those people should not be trampled on. 

There are a lot of people out there masquerading their dogs as service animals when they are not. That makes this problem bigger than it should be, because you might see 8 or 10 dogs for every true service dog. 

There will be businesses that feel that allowing service animals is inconvenient or bad for business, and those people may abuse any allowance for fears or allergies. 

I would say that that is a wash though.


----------



## shepherdmom

martemchik said:


> Sorry I never read the post that said the owner didn't have the exemption...so we're all just assuming they don't have one and making them out to be the bad guy? I don't think you have to flaunt or advertise the exemption on your website in order for people not to sue you. They can go ahead and sue, you can send the lawyer a copy of the exemption, and life goes on.
> 
> And yes...that convenience comment should've pissed plenty of SD handlers off.


Well SD handlers are ticking me off plenty too. As someone who can die from her allergies, I am totally ticked off at the lack of consideration for those of us with sever allergies. Just because you can't see our disability doesn't make it not one.


----------



## ILGHAUS

shepherdmom said:


> Well SD handlers are ticking me off plenty too. As someone who can die from her allergies, I am totally ticked off at the lack of consideration for those of us with sever allergies. Just because you can't see our disability doesn't make it not one.


Some of the responses on this issue are being made by non SD handlers. Please don't take remarks from a couple of posters as a representation of many or most SD handlers. 

We have several SD handlers on this forum alone who volunteer their time going to businesses, hosting websites, and giving talks in the community to educate business owners, management, and the general public on Their rights along with rights of SD handlers.


----------



## ILGHAUS

*A second general warning (or is it 3rd)? .... some posters need to calm down a bit. *


----------



## shepherdmom

ILGHAUS said:


> Some of the responses on this issue are being made by non SD handlers. Please don't take remarks from a couple of posters as a representation of many or most SD handlers.
> 
> We have several SD handlers on this forum alone who volunteer their time going to businesses, hosting websites, and giving talks in the community to educate business owners, management, and the general public on Their rights along with rights of SD handlers.


You are right. Thank you for reminding me! I myself have known some wonderful SD handlers over the years.


----------



## SFGSSD

Although SD for disabled people is a right outlined by the Americans with disabilities act, let's not forget it is also a privilege. A privilege that can be exercised properly within the law or exploited and abused. 

Unfortunately the government and people pushing their elected government are the only ones that can change laws that that are not right or unfair. As I said in a previous post, I may not like some laws but I still must follow them until they change. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Chicagocanine

martemchik said:


> Just to add...I do believe that this business owner does need to open their B&B up to service animals as per the law. I just believe that its wrong for someone with a disability to be saying another person's (possible) disability isn't as important as theirs.


The ADA Business Brief states:
"*Allergies and fear of animals are generally not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people with service animals.*"

(From ADA Business Brief: Service Animals)


----------



## shepherdmom

Chicagocanine said:


> The ADA Business Brief states:
> "*Allergies and fear of animals are generally not valid
> 
> reasons for denying access or refusing service to people with service animals.*"
> 
> (From ADA Business Brief: Service Animals)


Looks like there is some wiggle room there.


----------



## arycrest

I wish SDs would have to have a special license, visible to the public ... just like cars have to display when using Handicap parking spaces, before they could take advantage of the laws invoked to protect the disabled. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has known someone to claim Fido is a SD when he's just a well behaved pet (and sometimes not so well behaved).


----------



## Lucy Dog

arycrest said:


> I wish SDs would have to have a special license, visible to the public ... just like cars have to display when using Handicap parking spaces, before they could take advantage of the laws invoked to protect the disabled. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has known someone to claim Fido is a SD when he's just a well behaved pet (and sometimes not so well behaved).


Yep... I know someone who flies back and forth from LA to NY all the time and they just slap that service dog vest on their Aussie so he can fly with them and sit under their seat instead of in a crate with the rest of the cargo. No one questions them because it says "service dog" on his red vest. 

There will always be people that take advantage. Personally, I can't stand stuff like that.


----------



## Lin

Ok I haven't read the entire thread yet but already had a bunch of posts to quote and reply to so I figured I'd break up my reply! Apologies if I'm repeating information that has already been said. But it is good to reiterate things. 



runnershigh108 said:


> Any business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone they wish, including dogs.


Incorrect. A business owner can NOT refuse service on the basis of a service dog, it would be discrimination and equal to refusing service on the basis of a wheelchair. 


runnershigh108 said:


> I don't know the exact law or how it is worded.
> 
> You can pretty much refuse service to anyone as long is it is not based on race, religion or disability.
> 
> They are not refusing the person based on their disability they are refusing because of the dog.


Due to what a service dog is and the law, they ARE refusing service on the basis of disability if they are refusing service due to a service dog. 


arycrest said:


> This is really interesting. I wonder if one extreme disability can legally "outrank" another extreme disability ... people with mega-allergies can die from anaphylactic shock caused by allergic reactions to such allergens as exposure to dog dander.


No disability can outrank another. This is a topic that comes up a lot actually, for example what if a student in college has a service dog and another student has the severe allergy to dog dander. Since no disability can outrank another, BOTH disabilities must be accommodated. One of the individuals may be placed in a different class for example. 


Gretchen said:


> I agree. We had a disabled person several years ago in our county, going into businesses just to see if if they met ADA requirements, if not he sued. It was just to make money, he was not a legitimate customer. These were small businesses in older buildings. When my daughter was younger, she could not do a lot of stairs, she has a physical disability. Some buildings are old and you cannot put in a ramp or elevator. We just did not got to that business, no big deal. My BIL had to redo his bathroom in a food business, he had to fit a wheel chair. So he went from 2 stalls to 1. The thing is more than half his business are orders to go. It is a very small business.


The ADA actually comes down to "reasonable accommodation" and so there ARE cases where the accommodation is not required. In court the business would argue against it being reasonable. If the accommodation would change the nature of the business it does not need to be done. For example, a historic building may not have an elevator inside and therefor is not accessible. Changing the building to add an elevator would not be reasonable due to the historic designation, and altering it changing the nature of that. There are areas of Zoos where a service dog may be restricted from due to disturbing a specific animal and thus changing the nature of the business. 


Jukebox said:


> off topic slightly, but my wife has bad panic attacks. we were thinking about training Jackson to be a service dog for her. would she be the only one allowed to take him in to "no pets allowed" places?


Correct, a service dog may only enter no pets allowed places when accompanied by the disabled handler. The law does not grant the service dog itself access, but the disabled individual the access to be accompanied by their service dog. A dog may be trained to open doors, but someone with no disability and therefor no problems opening doors may not be accompanied where pets are not allowed with the dog opening doors for them. And the spouse or another family member may not take the service dog in where pets are not allowed. 

Ok, on the basis of the original question the answer is not black and white. It depends on more information, similar to the link someone gave discussing amount of rooms. This is because a given bed and breakfast may fall under the Fair Housing Act instead of the ADA. It depends on the specifics of the bed and breakfast. For example:


> The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 extended the protections of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act) to people with disabilities. This is the law that applies to most forms of housing, including most rental housing and most condominiums. *Exceptions to this law include buildings with four or fewer units where the landlord lives in one of the units,* and (b) private owners who do not own more than three single family houses, do not use real estate brokers or agents, and do not use discriminatory advertisements.


Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act
Fair Housing Act at DOJ


----------



## Lin

jocoyn said:


> I am miserable the entire time for someone's convenience (cat not = service animal).
> 
> I think we need to meet everyone's needs as much as possible but sometimes the needs of one person so overpower everyone elses needs it is ridiculous. I personally think we should have a *lot* more scrutiny as to what = a service animal and the reason for its use should be compelling.


A cat is not a service animal, and what = a service animal IS defined by law. 


> Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities.


Revised Definition of Service Dog from ADAAA
A cat however can be designated as an ESA, emotional support animal. ESA's are not allowed in public places except on airplanes and in non pet housing. They have their own specific laws since they are not service animals. 



wildo said:


> I agree with your general sentiment, people do need to be mindful of others' allergies, but let's be clear that this is the service dog forum. I imagine some disabled folks could choose to take offense to the "convenience" comment. For disabled folks, I'm sure their dog is not viewed as a convenience. This instance is about a small(er) B&B not allowing SDs. I'm happy to see the ADA laws do cover situations of less than 6 rooms as that's a pretty good line in the sand. It also shows some foresight on the legislature author's part.





Jax08 said:


> Why is the subject of "fear" coming up? We aren't talking about someone with a fear of dogs. The B&B stated no dogs due to them having a PHYSICAL condition...allergies. A fear of something would only be a physical issue if it caused such anxiety a person couldn't function.
> 
> My issue is when a person has a physical issue that could be a major issue, including fatal, that everyone is ignoring. Yes, most allergies are an inconvenience. But there are many people out here that it could be a serious, medical issue.
> 
> Service Dogs are NOT a convenience. They are a part of the person and help them function.
> 
> So, it's the only B&B. Is it the only place to stay? In the whole area? The only hotel within 30-60 miles? Would you rather have the person close their doors and not have the business rather than choose to stay somewhere else?
> 
> I have to wonder where enforcing a persons rights started to mean trampling on another persons rights and well being.





jocoyn said:


> I am confused. The OP is in NC and you are in CA. Are you talking about the same B&B? Or are you talking about a hypothetical case.
> 
> All good and well to tell someone with fears to "get over it" as long as all psychiatric service dogs are not covered by the ADA. Maybe they are not.


Thank you to those that pointed out service animals are NOT a convenience. They're about allowing a person with a disability to have the same independence as someone who is not disabled. 

Psychiatric service dogs, as service dogs, ARE covered under the ADA and someone with a psychiatric disability has the same rights as someone with a physical disability. Since I mentioned ESAs above, its important to point out that ESAs and PSDs (psychiatric service dogs) are completely different. 

I have severe asthma and allergies as well. I actually am allergic to dogs, though not as severely as I was as a kid. I react to any new dogs I'm around until I become desensitized. I'm not saying this as a suggestion for everyone, just explaining how I'm around dogs. 

As I said before, no disability trumps another and no one has said that to be true. There are allergies and asthma that are just as severe disabilities as those that service dogs assist. And as I said before, in the instance of another disability such as severe allergy or a psychiatric disability level phobia, all have to be accommodated equally. In the instance of a plane the airline may be responsible for changing one individuals flight so there is not a problem. In a phobia, maybe the individual might be bumped to first class to not be exposed to the service animal. 



Lucy Dog said:


> I think she made that choice when she decided to open up her home to the general public as a business establishment. There are laws in place and she has to follow them. Laws aren't always fair to everyone, but they still have to be followed.


Correct. I agree with the comments made that the individual must follow the law, and it has nothing to do with a service dog handler feeling their rights are more important. 

In this instance I think a better option for the business owner may have been a note that they do have severe allergies, and could those with service dogs please try to stay elsewhere. I know I would, and in the instance that they're the ONLY place available to stay... Well then both people still need to be accommodated for. Maybe the owner could use a special mask (they make them for asthma) when around the dog or where the dog has been, and have someone else that can clean the room after the individual. 

Service dogs are very clean, and to a much greater degree than a pet dog. When working my SD has weekly baths, and she's brushed daily. She's brushed even better prior to trips where food is involved such as grocery stores or restaurants. I take her cleanliness and preparation for public work very serious. All SD handlers should, and we need to remember that in public we are representing all other SD handlers. 


Shade said:


> They're one and the same, a team. Also, a SD in training has certain rights over a non SD. That has nothing to do with whether the handler on the end of the leash is disabled or not. N/A in this scenario but still noteworthy


As already said, its the person with the disability that has the rights and not the dog itself. 

Federal law does not recognize service dogs in training at all. Some states have law for SDITs, some don't. The individual state's laws must be followed. And the law will usually specify under what circumstances the SDIT is allowed in places where pets are not. For example, designations such as "while accompanied by a service dog trainer" and "while being trained." So the handler on the end of the leash DOES matter. And in what capacity, a law that states the SDIT is only allowed where dogs are not when being trained cannot be in public just because, without actually training being the purpose.


----------



## Chicagocanine

I was told that the FHA does not cover things like vacation rentals or B&Bs/hotels though?


----------



## Lin

I don't know about vacation rentals, and it doesn't cover hotels, but it can b&bs. It depends on the specifics, because a b&b can actually be a boarding house. Boarding houses fall under FHA. But the law is nearly identical whether it falls under the ADA or FHA, coming down to the distinction of rooms and whether or not the owner lives on the premises.


----------



## Chicagocanine

Ok that makes sense.


----------

