Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

[specklebang]

I mean they are fine with that sign in a restaurant window, and they are.

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

 

[Fisher]

He attempted to educate him on the spot, not once, but twice, and now a third time through the public.

What do we have so far?

1) Federal law doesn't back up your first argument.
2) The standards for service dogs don't back up your second argument and third argument.

So you resort to a non sequitur and completely subjective opinion. How's that working out for you?

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20100502/NEWS/5020307/In-tide-PTSD-cases-fear-fraud-growing

 

[TiredOfLife]

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

This has all the answers you seek: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-a...graph-gay-wedding-violation-human-rights.html

 

[tererun]

Maybe this has more to do with a culture where there are lots of questionable disabilities and some people may be sick of seeing perfectly healthy people skirting the rules because they got a doctor to sign off on being handicapped. I am not saying this vet is not handicapped, but every time you watch some healthy person getting out of some handicapped spot, or some perfectly fine person riding around on some cart meant for legitimate handicapped people you get a little cynical. How long until we have ADHD service dogs who are there because some kid can't be quiet without their beloved pet? Where I don't really care if a well behaved dog is in a food place, I am a bit skeptical about a service dog for PTSD. I know it is a condition, but the dog is not helping him see, or helping to do things for him like you would consider a service dog doing. Eventually doing this is going to get people to have themselves diagnosed with PTSD just so they can drag their chihuahua into places with them, and it really starts to lower the legitimacy of necessary things like service dogs when you have a physically healthy person who is capable of doing everything for himself carrying around an animal that has a purpose of doing things for the disabled. We all gain comfort from our pets, why shouldn't some shy person be allowed to bring their animal around, or some depressed person because the animal might give them comfort in case of some mental attack?

You have PTSD I am good with helping with shrinks, pills, counseling, and a few other things, but you are capable. Seriously, you went out and faced down peiople with guns and bombs, and now you tell us you cannot eat breakfast without your dog? Hate me for it, but i don't buy it.

 

[Fiddytree]

In tide of PTSD cases, fear of fraud growing | Army Times | armytimes.com

If you're going to give a knee-jerk reaction because it involves people with disabilities, the very least you can do is pretend to read the story.

James grabbed Jack’s paperwork to show the doubting owner that he was indeed a legitimate service dog but was still given a fight. He told WFXT FOX 25 News, “I said, ‘I have his certification paperwork right here. He’s not fake, he’s 100% legit.

Instance #1 where the disabled veteran goes above and beyond the law to prove it.

So James called the police and Sergeant Anthony Saad with the Oxford PD confirmed the dog’s paperwork and attempted to convince Ireland.

Instance #2 where the disabled veteran goes above and beyond the law to prove it, by using the law enforcement officers to provide proof of legitimacy.

Now, again, how is this justified?

 

[Hatuey]

In tide of PTSD cases, fear of fraud growing | Army Times | armytimes.com

This guy clearly isn't a fraud as verified by not 1, two different sources. He provided the dog's papers as service dogs, he was then validated by the police who checked his paper. Again, your arguments are getting more desperate.

 

[Fiddytree]

Maybe this has more to do with a culture where there are lots of questionable disabilities and some people may be sick of seeing perfectly healthy people skirting the rules because they got a doctor to sign off on being handicapped. I am not saying this vet is not handicapped, but every time you watch some healthy person getting out of some handicapped spot, or some perfectly fine person riding around on some cart meant for legitimate handicapped people you get a little cynical. How long until we have ADHD service dogs who are there because some kid can't be quiet without their beloved pet? Where I don't really care if a well behaved dog is in a food place, I am a bit skeptical about a service dog for PTSD. I know it is a condition, but the dog is not helping him see, or helping to do things for him like you would consider a service dog doing. Eventually doing this is going to get people to have themselves diagnosed with PTSD just so they can drag their chihuahua into places with them, and it really starts to lower the legitimacy of necessary things like service dogs when you have a physically healthy person who is capable of doing everything for himself carrying around an animal that has a purpose of doing things for the disabled. We all gain comfort from our pets, why shouldn't some shy person be allowed to bring their animal around, or some depressed person because the animal might give them comfort in case of some mental attack?

You have PTSD I am good with helping with shrinks, pills, counseling, and a few other things, but you are capable. Seriously, you went out and faced down peiople with guns and bombs, and now you tell us you cannot eat breakfast without your dog? Hate me for it, but i don't buy it.

It's a historical issue deeply held in American public policy:

First, Brown justifies assistance to disabled veterans not merely in terms of their need but also as repayment for past military service. He bases their claims before the government not on their impairments alone but also on the moral worth and social worthiness of these men. A survey of modern U.S. disability policy reveals that Brown is far from alone in this view. Many public disability programs were, and are, based on past contributions. For example, the largest federal program that provides cash payments to people who have a disability, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), is a social insurance program available only to those who have participated in the paid workforce and have paid payroll taxes into the Disability Insurance trust fund. While Supplemental Security Income, a federal income maintenance program, provides cash benefits for those who have never worked, SSI benefits are significantly lower than payments made to most SSDI beneficiaries. In every type of disability policy and program, from veterans pensions to vocational rehabilitation, from social insurance to civil rights, notions of moral worth and social worthiness have played a central role in determining what individuals have qualified for benefits or protections.

Richard K. Scotch, "American Disability Policy in the Twentieth Century" in The New Disability History: American Perspectives, 375-376.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

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

That's very true, unfortunately.

Some people think because they can't "see " the disabling condition, one doesn't exist.

So sad that in this day and age, some are still discriminating against those with mentally disabling illnesses.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Maybe this has more to do with a culture where there are lots of questionable disabilities and some people may be sick of seeing perfectly healthy people skirting the rules because they got a doctor to sign off on being handicapped. I am not saying this vet is not handicapped, but every time you watch some healthy person getting out of some handicapped spot, or some perfectly fine person riding around on some cart meant for legitimate handicapped people you get a little cynical. How long until we have ADHD service dogs who are there because some kid can't be quiet without their beloved pet? Where I don't really care if a well behaved dog is in a food place, I am a bit skeptical about a service dog for PTSD. I know it is a condition, but the dog is not helping him see, or helping to do things for him like you would consider a service dog doing. Eventually doing this is going to get people to have themselves diagnosed with PTSD just so they can drag their chihuahua into places with them, and it really starts to lower the legitimacy of necessary things like service dogs when you have a physically healthy person who is capable of doing everything for himself carrying around an animal that has a purpose of doing things for the disabled. We all gain comfort from our pets, why shouldn't some shy person be allowed to bring their animal around, or some depressed person because the animal might give them comfort in case of some mental attack?

You have PTSD I am good with helping with shrinks, pills, counseling, and a few other things, but you are capable. Seriously, you went out and faced down peiople with guns and bombs, and now you tell us you cannot eat breakfast without your dog? Hate me for it, but i don't buy it.

Do some volunteer work at an intake VA hospital with newly reintroduced state side war time vets, then get back with me.

 

[specklebang]

There is something troubling my inner detective. At the end of the interview version I watched on Fox.com he says he won't give this guy his business again.

Again? Were you there before? Did you bring your dog? Did you act up? So, I searched for more info and it seems to be that suing restaurants over service animals not a new thing occurrence. Some substantial settlements from McDonalds.

So, I think I need to know more about why an owner would make a bad business decision and refuse to extricate himself or even speak up for himself. Yes, I heard his moronic response but talk about an absence of context, that was pretty short.

The Jury is still out. I did pal around with PTSD assholes for a while during my hippie era (more recent than you think). If I owned a restaurant, I wouldn't have let us in. So, no firing squad - yet.

 

[Hatuey]

There is something troubling my inner detective. At the end of the interview version I watched on Fox.com he says he won't give this guy his business again.

Again? Were you there before? Did you bring your dog? Did you act up? So, I searched for more info and it seems to be that suing restaurants over service animals not a new thing occurrence. Some substantial settlements from McDonalds.

So, I think I need to know more about why an owner would make a bad business decision and refuse to extricate himself or even speak up for himself. Yes, I heard his moronic response but talk about an absence of context, that was pretty short.

The Jury is still out. I did pal around with PTSD assholes for a while during my hippie era (more recent than you think). If I owned a restaurant, I wouldn't have let us in. So, no firing squad - yet.

So he basically tried to get his dog by supplying the necessary paperwork, then called the police to validate his claim - all so he could maybe have a case for a lawsuit? I'd say your inner detective is working overtime and needs a rest.

 

[specklebang]

So he basically tried to get his dog by supplying the necessary paperwork, then called the police to validate his claim - all so he could maybe have a case for a lawsuit? I'd say your inner detective is working overtime and needs a rest.

You don't need to defend him. I didn't accuse him of anything. I think I explained rather well what bothered me. I'm sure I'll be smarter in the future.

 

[Hatuey]

You don't need to defend him. I didn't accuse him of anything. I think I explained rather well what bothered me. I'm sure I'll be smarter in the future.

What bothered you was illogical considering what we know about how the events turned out, the people in question and the attempts made by this guy to simply have his companion with him at the restaurant. :shrug:

 

[specklebang]

What bothered you was illogical considering what we know about how the events turned out, the people in question and the attempts made by this guy to simply have his companion with him at the restaurant. :shrug:

One man's logic is another mans trivia. Why the blind defense? If this is totally legit, he'll get his fortune. If it isn't, well, then he won't.

 

[tererun]

It's a historical issue deeply held in American public policy:



Richard K. Scotch, "American Disability Policy in the Twentieth Century" in The New Disability History: American Perspectives, 375-376.

First, that seems to do a lot with health coverage, which again I have no problem in having funding, better than we have now, for vets who need medicine and profesional help for physical and mental trauma. but the idea that some perfectly healthy guy needs his dog with him because he is sad is pretty much spitting on the idea that we should be making some sacrifice for people who live with some real problems. You have some vet who is blind, lost limbs, or in some way needs a dog to do things for him and I am all there with you, and even willing to help myself. This guy is scamming the system. Just like when you see some ADHD person who is on disability and getting social security payments because they feel bad when they work. I know people want to claim all vets are great people who deserve extra stuff, but there is a reason why some people start getting bothered because everyone starts having disabilities which let them get beyond the rules when you start allowing this.

 

[Hatuey]

One man's logic is another mans trivia. Why the blind defense? If this is totally legit, he'll get his fortune. If it isn't, well, then he won't.

The above statement assumes 1 thing:

This guy is suing.

As far as we know all he is doing is filing a complaint with VA and making sure his story is told. The gold digging thing is a figment of your imagination as far as this case is concerned.

 

[tererun]

What bothered you was illogical considering what we know about how the events turned out, the people in question and the attempts made by this guy to simply have his companion with him at the restaurant. :shrug:

A service dog for a disabled person is not a companion. It is something that helps them to do things. We do not allow them because it makes the disabled feel better, it is because that animal actually does something for the disabled. Why not just let every service person have their companions with them in that case? I am sure they feel bad for some reason and could use a smile from their dog while eating breakfast. They have to live with the horrors of war also. This guy is healthy physically just like they are.

 

[tererun]

Do some volunteer work at an intake VA hospital with newly reintroduced state side war time vets, then get back with me.

yeah, you do not get a free pass to scam the system because you are a vet. Sorry, I can see why some people do get help and have real legitimate problems that come from all of that. I can even see psychological counseling for people with PTSD and if meds help would be willing to pay for them through taxes also. Your dog is not a psychologist trained to deal with mental attacks. A PTSD dog is not helping get them things they are physically unable to get because of their injury. If he wants to wander around with his personal headshrinker because he might have a panick attack, I am not going to argue with that, but unless that dog is scooby doo the only thing it will do if you have a panic attack is to drool on you and bark. It is not going to talk him down, adminsiter a sedative, or do anything useful. Making this crap up is not helping out legitimately injured people who do need a service animal.

 

[Surtr]

Yeah, I see so many people trying to force their pets into places where pets are not allowed or customary, I really can't blame the owner, especially since the health department could shut him down.

I don't know about other parts of the US, but this county requires businesses to accommodate service animals, unless they want to receive punitive actions only a multibillion dollar corporation could walk away from.

 

[Hatuey]

the idea that some perfectly healthy guy needs his dog with him because he is sad

Do you know what PTSD is? Please tell me you do. Is "sadness" one of the symptoms?

Symptoms of PTSD: Re-experiencing the traumatic event
Intrusive, upsetting memories of the event
Flashbacks (acting or feeling like the event is happening again)
Nightmares (either of the event or of other frightening things)
Feelings of intense distress when reminded of the trauma
Intense physical reactions to reminders of the event (e.g. pounding heart, rapid breathing, nausea, muscle tension, sweating)

Symptoms of PTSD: Avoidance and numbing
Avoiding activities, places, thoughts, or feelings that remind you of the trauma
Inability to remember important aspects of the trauma
Loss of interest in activities and life in general
Feeling detached from others and emotionally numb
Sense of a limited future (you don’t expect to live a normal life span, get married, have a career)

Symptoms of PTSD: Increased anxiety and emotional arousal
Difficulty falling or staying asleep
Irritability or outbursts of anger
Difficulty concentrating
Hypervigilance (on constant “red alert”)
Feeling jumpy and easily startled

Symptoms and Diagnosis of PTSD | Psych Central

There are three main kinds of symptoms that clinicians look for when diagnosing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These include re-experiencing symptoms, avoidant symptoms and symptoms of increased arousal.

DSM-5 Criteria for PTSD - NATIONAL CENTER for PTSD

Diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters: intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity. The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms; the seventh assesses functioning; and, the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition.

Again, you don't get diagnosed with PTSD because you're feeling sad.

 

[sangha]

First, that seems to do a lot with health coverage, which again I have no problem in having funding, better than we have now, for vets who need medicine and profesional help for physical and mental trauma. but the idea that some perfectly healthy guy needs his dog with him because he is sad is pretty much spitting on the idea that we should be making some sacrifice for people who live with some real problems.

Like some guy who is sad because he doesn't have a vagina

 

[specklebang]

The above statement assumes 1 thing:

This guy is suing.

As far as we know all he is doing is filing a complaint with VA and making sure his story is told. The gold digging thing is a figment of your imagination as far as this case is concerned.

A service dog for a disabled person is not a companion. It is something that helps them to do things. We do not allow them because it makes the disabled feel better, it is because that animal actually does something for the disabled. Why not just let every service person have their companions with them in that case? I am sure they feel bad for some reason and could use a smile from their dog while eating breakfast. They have to live with the horrors of war also. This guy is healthy physically just like they are.

I too believe that service animals are valid and important and legally protected. In fact, I really don't know that you'll find many who disagree.

The guy said something that troubled me. I'll try to get over it and not cry myself to sleep. So, I'd like to hear the other side of the story. Surely that's not unreasonable?

 

[tererun]

Do you know what PTSD is? Please tell me you do. Is "sadness" one of the symptoms?



Symptoms and Diagnosis of PTSD | Psych Central



DSM-5 Criteria for PTSD - NATIONAL CENTER for PTSD



Again, you don't get diagnosed with PTSD because you're feeling sad.

That is nice and all, and that is pretty much feeling bad. Those are feelings you know, and they would appear to be negative ones hence the bad. Now that you have done all of this can you explain to me how a dog stops most of them? Does the dog have an infaltable shrink couch he carries around so he can address the trauma when it occurs? Does he have a drum of anti-psychotics to drink out of when the guy startys getting all panicky? Does the dog jump on him and give him a relaxing massage when he starts to fell these feelings? In case he falls asleep at the table was the dog trained at the inception school for dream intervention to come in and rescue him from his nightmare? I am all for shrink, and meds, and counseling to help, but the owner was right. If you cannot handle eating breakfast without a freakout perhaps you need a bit more than a dog.

 

[Henrin]

Like some guy who is sad because he doesn't have a vagina

and you said that to tererun. :lamo

 

[Fiddytree]

First, that seems to do a lot with health coverage, which again I have no problem in having funding, better than we have now, for vets who need medicine and profesional help for physical and mental trauma. but the idea that some perfectly healthy guy needs his dog with him because he is sad is pretty much spitting on the idea that we should be making some sacrifice for people who live with some real problems. You have some vet who is blind, lost limbs, or in some way needs a dog to do things for him and I am all there with you, and even willing to help myself. This guy is scamming the system. Just like when you see some ADHD person who is on disability and getting social security payments because they feel bad when they work. I know people want to claim all vets are great people who deserve extra stuff, but there is a reason why some people start getting bothered because everyone starts having disabilities which let them get beyond the rules when you start allowing this.

The argument was that nearly every major piece of public policy toward individuals with disabilities had to deal with the concept of whether or not the policy was moral by helping them, and whether or not they deserved it. Later on, which I could not in good legal standing provide you, he also demonstrated that social policy after social policy was concerned with whether or not someone would fake it. In effect, this frequently placed the individual with a disability in a de facto mode of defense at the policy level, because at the social level, a common assumption was one of skepticism and dismissal, until proven otherwise.

Now, aside from your incorrect assumptions about each diagnosis category, I had to address what seemed to be the larger implication: that there is a rampant problem, and society is merely reacting to it. This I countered with the argument that in fact, it was a long-standing bias dating back a century or longer.