this should open an interesting can of worms

[smileyeagle1021]

I disagree with your assertion that the masses will demand civil rights for minority groups.

Did Prop 8 not pass in California?

Prop 8 did pass... something that I'm still having problems with... but you have to keep in mind, it's popular to be homophobic now, it's not popular to admit you hate disabled people. That just isn't cool anymore. It's cool now to help someone with disabilities... that said Prop 8s passing is temporary at best... if you look at the public outrage across the country it will eventually turn into the single greatest achievement of the gay rights movement. So I'm willing to say, let the shop owner be a douche and risk awakening public outrage.

[AFPheonix]

Sorry, civil rights are not a popularity contest. That's why we have the law. The shop owner violated the whatever ADA equivalent Britain has and should receive the due consequences.

Protests and a loss of business would be icing on the cake at this point.

[smileyeagle1021]

Sorry, civil rights are not a popularity contest.

you won't ever hear me arguing against that... but, I do think that if you can use a popularity contest to attain those ends, then why not?

That aside, California unfortunately has proven that civil rights are a popularity contest... hey, I'm one of the people they deemed unpopular so I don't like it anymore than you do, but we have to face facts eventually.

[Greenday]

you won't ever hear me arguing against that...

I will. As long as what is considered a civil right is something voted on by the public and not only people who understand what actually defines a civil right, it IS a popularity contest.

[Rapscallion]

I will. As long as what is considered a civil right is something voted on by the public and not only people who understand what actually defines a civil right, it IS a popularity contest.

I have to admit that the one thing that bothered me about the constitution of the US and the rights enshrined in there is that it's effectively a small group deciding what's decent. I don't disagree with most of it, but is it really democratic?

Mind you, looking around at the population of my country, I wouldn't be likely to approve of complete control by some of the idiots around me.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

I have to admit that the one thing that bothered me about the constitution of the US and the rights enshrined in there is that it's effectively a small group deciding what's decent. I don't disagree with most of it, but is it really democratic?

Mind you, looking around at the population of my country, I wouldn't be likely to approve of complete control by some of the idiots around me.

Rapscallion

Eh, America isn't really democratic. We are generally a republic, run by people we elect into power, and those people we elect into power get to make the decisions, whether we agree with them or not.

As for your second paragraph, that's what bothers me the most. So many people demand the right to vote for whatever they want, but so many of the citizens are far too stupid and ignorant to really know about the issue to really deserve a vote.

[Rapscallion]

Eh, America isn't really democratic. We are generally a republic, run by people we elect into power, and those people we elect into power get to make the decisions, whether we agree with them or not.

It's a form of democracy called 'representative democracy', as far as I understand it. It's far less cumbersome than everyone voting on everything.

Of course, when it comes to election time and you're facing a choice between two or three parties, I always wonder how I can select a little from column A and a little from column B...

I'm not keen on party politics.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

you won't ever hear me arguing against that... but, I do think that if you can use a popularity contest to attain those ends, then why not?

That aside, California unfortunately has proven that civil rights are a popularity contest... hey, I'm one of the people they deemed unpopular so I don't like it anymore than you do, but we have to face facts eventually.

Not if the courts have anything to say about it. This is why there are motions to challenge prop 8 before the California Supreme Court. This is why laws that are made ultimately are compared to the constitution. If they do not measure up, they will be struck down, as I think this one will be. I hope that within the next decade DOMA will follow.

[Flyndaran]

Not if the courts have anything to say about it. This is why there are motions to challenge prop 8 before the California Supreme Court. This is why laws that are made ultimately are compared to the constitution. If they do not measure up, they will be struck down, as I think this one will be. I hope that within the next decade DOMA will follow.

With this court? I seriously doubt they'll strike down laws that even on their face are unconstitutional. They'll just keep finding reasons to avoid taking the cases, in effect turning a blind eye to bigotry and hate.

[AFPheonix]

It hasn't gone to the US Supreme Court. The Californian Supreme Court can probably handle it just fine.
But yes, the USSC would probably pussy out of it.

[Evandril]

thank you admin assistant.

That is exactly the way to get things like this to change. The business owner can tell people all he wants that he will not allow dogs in his business. There are plenty of other businesses that will allow the service animal in the restaurant that he can go to. Eventually either enough people will leave stop going to the restaurant that doesn't allow service dogs (either because they can't go there themselves or out of distaste for the business practice) and the owner will either have to close or allow service dogs or it's not a big enough issue and he continues operating, just without the revenue of those customers who have decided to stop coming. Let the market decide on this one.

One problem with that...The store has been open for HOW long, and this *just* came up? 'Tis not a common situation, and the loss of money from blind people I do not think will really be noticeable, to be honest.

[Slytovhand]

One problem with that...The store has been open for HOW long, and this *just* came up? 'Tis not a common situation, and the loss of money from blind people I do not think will really be noticeable, to be honest.

No, but like the cake shop that refused the swastika and 'Adolf Hitler' on it, it will get publicity, and those people who heard of this may make an effect. TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if they get a bit more flack out of this than just people staying away.

(naturally, the cake store will get more positive results )

[Evandril]

No, but like the cake shop that refused the swastika and 'Adolf Hitler' on it, it will get publicity, and those people who heard of this may make an effect. TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if they get a bit more flack out of this than just people staying away.

(naturally, the cake store will get more positive results )

Could just be I'm more of a cynic I don't really think this will have a negative effect on the resturant's buisness, overall, unless they are punished in some way. There is truth to that saying 'There's no such thing as bad publicity'...He got lots of free advertizing, and quite a few people will happily go to a place that doesn't allow dogs *sighs* IMO, at least, would love to be proven wrong

[pile of monkeys]

I can only speak from a US perspective, but the laws here are very clear: service animals are allowed anywhere their owners are allowed. The lack of legal licensing and/or certification for such animals is somewhat problematic, but that's a separate issue (you are not legally required to register your service animal with any type of government agency, and the laws are fuzzy-ish on what constitutes a service animal).

I work in a spa, a business that is regulated by the Board of Health, among others. We are absolutely required, as are restaurants, to grant access to service animals and their owners. It's only come up a few times that I recall, but I had an employee ask me what to do once when a woman and her dog came in. (Keep in mind, people try to bring their pets in, especially small dogs, all the time. We do not allow that.) I asked the woman if the dog was a service animal (it had a vest and harness, and was freakishly well-behaved). She said yes, it was a seizure alert dog (she was not obligated to disclose what condition necessitates having the dog, but she chose to. I didn't ask). I said, "No problem, enjoy your services." As I am legally obligated to. Afterwards, she thanked me and I asked a few questions about the dog (I love dogs), which she kindly answered, and she said that access issues are very common, especially in restaurants and, unsurprisingly, Wal-Mart. Honestly, the dog was better behaved, cleaner, and less trouble than many of our clients. No big deal.