Service Dogs In Restaurants

[gallantwarrior]

Did you do that on purpose?

 

[Asclepias]

Yes. The law wasnt the issue. She thought a dog being in the restaurant was nasty. They were trying to convince her it wasnt nasty. No one asked the dog owner to explain the law to the woman and from what the woman said the dog owner did it in a confrontational manner in front of her child. The woman was leaving. The dog owner should have let it go and never said anything to her.

Your comment does not make sense-----the lady with the service dog ""should not have mentioned the issue of
the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES LAW in front of 'a child' ??? Why? -----it is OBSCENE. Seems
to me that children should learn about laws

A couple of reasons. First of all the law wasnt the issue. You cant force someone to think your dog is clean. Second of all you dont confront someone in front of their child.

where do you get WHO was confronting? -------the crazy bitch who was SCREAMING-----clearly, had no thought for
a child

From the woman that admitted she took it upon herself to explain the law when that wasnt the issue. Obviously your sight is bad too. The child doesnt appear to be there while all the screaming is going on. If you see the child please point her out.

Actually, we didn't witness the alleged original "confrontation" between the people with the dog and the woman, either. Where was the child when the dog-people were "educating" the mother?

Right there. We know it happened because both parties agreed she was confronted.

 

[Asclepias]

Probably went something like this...

woman..."i dont want to eat here next to this dog. lets go"

dog owner...I approached you in a nice manner to explain federal law. ( she literally said this)

yes----something wrong with that?

Yes. The law wasnt the issue. She thought a dog being in the restaurant was nasty. They were trying to convince her it wasnt nasty. No one asked the dog owner to explain the law to the woman and from what the woman said the dog owner did it in a confrontational manner in front of her child. The woman was leaving. The dog owner should have let it go and never said anything to her.

Your comment does not make sense-----the lady with the service dog ""should not have mentioned the issue of
the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES LAW in front of 'a child' ??? Why? -----it is OBSCENE. Seems
to me that children should learn about laws

A couple of reasons. First of all the law wasnt the issue. You cant force someone to think your dog is clean. Second of all you dont confront someone in front of their child.

While I agree, to an extent, that confrontation in the presence of a child might be best avoided, how do you feel about the language and manner the mother demonstrated...in front of her child?

I didnt see the child in the video so my assumption is that she is outside the establishment. The level of anger tells me she suppressed it long enough to tell the child to go to the car or something.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Your comment does not make sense-----the lady with the service dog ""should not have mentioned the issue of
the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES LAW in front of 'a child' ??? Why? -----it is OBSCENE. Seems
to me that children should learn about laws

A couple of reasons. First of all the law wasnt the issue. You cant force someone to think your dog is clean. Second of all you dont confront someone in front of their child.

where do you get WHO was confronting? -------the crazy bitch who was SCREAMING-----clearly, had no thought for
a child

From the woman that admitted she took it upon herself to explain the law when that wasnt the issue. Obviously your sight is bad too. The child doesnt appear to be there while all the screaming is going on. If you see the child please point her out.

I did not see a child at all--------YOU CITED A CHILD. You claimed that the screaming woman had been CONFRONTED
IN THE PRESENCE OF HER CHILD -------I did not see any action that I would describe as "confrontation" at all------
I did see a short bit in which a woman tried to explain something about AMERICANS WITH DISABIILITIES ---that
could not possibly traumatize a child any more than an HYSTERICAL NUT screaming and jumping around

If you didnt see a child why did you say she was screaming in front of the child? Obviously this was after the fact. Are you drunk or something? I ask because you are saying some weird things.

Thats correct I cited a child. If you listen you can hear the woman say she didnt appreciate the dog owner confronting her in front of her child. How do you know what type of confrontation traumatizes a child? You are not an authority on what traumatizes a child.

With a mother like that, the poor kid probably exists in a constant state of trauma. Seriously, who loses it like that when their child is present and there is no imminent threat of physical harm?

 

[aaronleland]

I have been in restaurants a million times in my life, and never one where there was a service dog present. So let's say this happens one day and for some reason I don't like it. So one meal of my life is made mildly unpleasant because some guy has THE NERVE to risk his life for our country. This fucking c*nt...

Ah, you're one of those @ssholes who think if a mercenary made some money shooting at people he gets a ticket to be an @sshole for life, such as taking a big, smelly dog into restaurants, where no but him in the restaurant wants the dog to be. Not only can the restaurant not keep the dog out for fascist legal reasons, it'll have to grovel and pretend that the dog is welcome, else you and your fellow assholes will harass the restaurant.

You can spell out "asshole". This isn't a kid's forum, faggot.

 

[Tank]

Right there. We know it happened because both parties agreed she was confronted.

And she couldn't handle it like a civilized human

 

[gallantwarrior]

I had to stop the vid @ 40secs.
Service dogs should be allowed.

I work in a hospital where dogs are sometimes allowed in to visit their owners. We also have dogs brought in by volunteers to visit certain patients.

The dogs allowed in have gone through special training.

I agree but that wasnt the issue. The woman thought the dog was nasty and wanted to leave. The dog owner wanted to convince her otherwise.

I agree, the dog owner should have just let her leave. Some people are beyond reason.

 

[Tank]

That's the way the blacks act

 

[gallantwarrior]

Your comment does not make sense-----the lady with the service dog ""should not have mentioned the issue of
the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES LAW in front of 'a child' ??? Why? -----it is OBSCENE. Seems
to me that children should learn about laws

A couple of reasons. First of all the law wasnt the issue. You cant force someone to think your dog is clean. Second of all you dont confront someone in front of their child.

where do you get WHO was confronting? -------the crazy bitch who was SCREAMING-----clearly, had no thought for
a child

From the woman that admitted she took it upon herself to explain the law when that wasnt the issue. Obviously your sight is bad too. The child doesnt appear to be there while all the screaming is going on. If you see the child please point her out.

Actually, we didn't witness the alleged original "confrontation" between the people with the dog and the woman, either. Where was the child when the dog-people were "educating" the mother?

Right there. We know it happened because both parties agreed she was confronted.

But there is no evidence of a child's presence.

 

[Asclepias]

A couple of reasons. First of all the law wasnt the issue. You cant force someone to think your dog is clean. Second of all you dont confront someone in front of their child.

where do you get WHO was confronting? -------the crazy bitch who was SCREAMING-----clearly, had no thought for
a child

From the woman that admitted she took it upon herself to explain the law when that wasnt the issue. Obviously your sight is bad too. The child doesnt appear to be there while all the screaming is going on. If you see the child please point her out.

I did not see a child at all--------YOU CITED A CHILD. You claimed that the screaming woman had been CONFRONTED
IN THE PRESENCE OF HER CHILD -------I did not see any action that I would describe as "confrontation" at all------
I did see a short bit in which a woman tried to explain something about AMERICANS WITH DISABIILITIES ---that
could not possibly traumatize a child any more than an HYSTERICAL NUT screaming and jumping around

If you didnt see a child why did you say she was screaming in front of the child? Obviously this was after the fact. Are you drunk or something? I ask because you are saying some weird things.

Thats correct I cited a child. If you listen you can hear the woman say she didnt appreciate the dog owner confronting her in front of her child. How do you know what type of confrontation traumatizes a child? You are not an authority on what traumatizes a child.

With a mother like that, the poor kid probably exists in a constant state of trauma. Seriously, who loses it like that when their child is present and there is no imminent threat of physical harm?

Well first off I dont believe the child was present when she went off. Secondly I would guess a mom would be able to determine the level of danger from someone disrespecting her by confronting her. If the woman had the gall to confront her in front of her child who knows what she could have done.

 

[Asclepias]

A couple of reasons. First of all the law wasnt the issue. You cant force someone to think your dog is clean. Second of all you dont confront someone in front of their child.

where do you get WHO was confronting? -------the crazy bitch who was SCREAMING-----clearly, had no thought for
a child

From the woman that admitted she took it upon herself to explain the law when that wasnt the issue. Obviously your sight is bad too. The child doesnt appear to be there while all the screaming is going on. If you see the child please point her out.

Actually, we didn't witness the alleged original "confrontation" between the people with the dog and the woman, either. Where was the child when the dog-people were "educating" the mother?

Right there. We know it happened because both parties agreed she was confronted.

But there is no evidence of a child's presence.

Yes there is. The Black woman plainly says she was confronted in the presence of her child.

 

[Asclepias]

Right there. We know it happened because both parties agreed she was confronted.

And she couldn't handle it like a civilized human

You arent civilized so how would you know?

 

[gallantwarrior]

yes----something wrong with that?

Yes. The law wasnt the issue. She thought a dog being in the restaurant was nasty. They were trying to convince her it wasnt nasty. No one asked the dog owner to explain the law to the woman and from what the woman said the dog owner did it in a confrontational manner in front of her child. The woman was leaving. The dog owner should have let it go and never said anything to her.

Your comment does not make sense-----the lady with the service dog ""should not have mentioned the issue of
the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES LAW in front of 'a child' ??? Why? -----it is OBSCENE. Seems
to me that children should learn about laws

A couple of reasons. First of all the law wasnt the issue. You cant force someone to think your dog is clean. Second of all you dont confront someone in front of their child.

While I agree, to an extent, that confrontation in the presence of a child might be best avoided, how do you feel about the language and manner the mother demonstrated...in front of her child?

I didnt see the child in the video so my assumption is that she is outside the establishment. The level of anger tells me she suppressed it long enough to tell the child to go to the car or something.

That begs the question, how old is the child in question? One old enough to go to the car, or something, alone would indicate a child capable of understanding an explanation of the law. A younger child should probably have been escorted by an adult or older child. All that considered, I still see no reason why this woman became the screaming, abusive harpy she did. Really, no one is impressed by that kind of anger and abusive, raw language. The woman hurt her case far more with her response than if she had simply excused herself and left with the child, thereby snubbing the dog people.

 

[gallantwarrior]

where do you get WHO was confronting? -------the crazy bitch who was SCREAMING-----clearly, had no thought for
a child

From the woman that admitted she took it upon herself to explain the law when that wasnt the issue. Obviously your sight is bad too. The child doesnt appear to be there while all the screaming is going on. If you see the child please point her out.

Actually, we didn't witness the alleged original "confrontation" between the people with the dog and the woman, either. Where was the child when the dog-people were "educating" the mother?

Right there. We know it happened because both parties agreed she was confronted.

But there is no evidence of a child's presence.

Yes there is. The Black woman plainly says she was confronted in the presence of her child.

Okay, we have her assertion that the child was present. What does her being a "Black woman" have to do with anything?

 

[Asclepias]

Yes. The law wasnt the issue. She thought a dog being in the restaurant was nasty. They were trying to convince her it wasnt nasty. No one asked the dog owner to explain the law to the woman and from what the woman said the dog owner did it in a confrontational manner in front of her child. The woman was leaving. The dog owner should have let it go and never said anything to her.

Your comment does not make sense-----the lady with the service dog ""should not have mentioned the issue of
the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES LAW in front of 'a child' ??? Why? -----it is OBSCENE. Seems
to me that children should learn about laws

A couple of reasons. First of all the law wasnt the issue. You cant force someone to think your dog is clean. Second of all you dont confront someone in front of their child.

While I agree, to an extent, that confrontation in the presence of a child might be best avoided, how do you feel about the language and manner the mother demonstrated...in front of her child?

I didnt see the child in the video so my assumption is that she is outside the establishment. The level of anger tells me she suppressed it long enough to tell the child to go to the car or something.

That begs the question, how old is the child in question? One old enough to go to the car, or something, alone would indicate a child capable of understanding an explanation of the law. A younger child should probably have been escorted by an adult or older child. All that considered, I still see no reason why this woman became the screaming, abusive harpy she did. Really, no one is impressed by that kind of anger and abusive, raw language. The woman hurt her case far more with her response than if she had simply excused herself and left with the child, thereby snubbing the dog people.

I dont know. Old enough to walk to the car on her own I would guess. It doesnt matter what the child is capable of understanding. Who says its the dog owners right to explain anything to the child concerning the law? Who but the mother has the authority to make those decisions? I was thoroughly impressed by her refusal to not back down while the woman deflecting by talking about her husband being in the military and then later her insistence on trying to tell her about a law that had nada to do with the issue. If i was there I am sure things would have been handled differently instead of the gang attack the white people made on her.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Once again, I had to stop watching after listening to the black woman, Asclepias.
When are they going to learn how to properly deal with things they don't agree with?

Seriously, that kind of outrageous behavior is not limited to black people. Anyone else remember this nut:
woman goes nuts about kissing couple - My Yahoo Video Search Results

 

[Asclepias]

From the woman that admitted she took it upon herself to explain the law when that wasnt the issue. Obviously your sight is bad too. The child doesnt appear to be there while all the screaming is going on. If you see the child please point her out.

Actually, we didn't witness the alleged original "confrontation" between the people with the dog and the woman, either. Where was the child when the dog-people were "educating" the mother?

Right there. We know it happened because both parties agreed she was confronted.

But there is no evidence of a child's presence.

Yes there is. The Black woman plainly says she was confronted in the presence of her child.

Okay, we have her assertion that the child was present. What does her being a "Black woman" have to do with anything?

That implies that your doubt a child was there is relevant to what the mom said. She was Black and being ganged up on by a troop of whites.

 

[Hossfly]

Your comment does not make sense-----the lady with the service dog ""should not have mentioned the issue of
the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES LAW in front of 'a child' ??? Why? -----it is OBSCENE. Seems
to me that children should learn about laws

A couple of reasons. First of all the law wasnt the issue. You cant force someone to think your dog is clean. Second of all you dont confront someone in front of their child.

While I agree, to an extent, that confrontation in the presence of a child might be best avoided, how do you feel about the language and manner the mother demonstrated...in front of her child?

I didnt see the child in the video so my assumption is that she is outside the establishment. The level of anger tells me she suppressed it long enough to tell the child to go to the car or something.

That begs the question, how old is the child in question? One old enough to go to the car, or something, alone would indicate a child capable of understanding an explanation of the law. A younger child should probably have been escorted by an adult or older child. All that considered, I still see no reason why this woman became the screaming, abusive harpy she did. Really, no one is impressed by that kind of anger and abusive, raw language. The woman hurt her case far more with her response than if she had simply excused herself and left with the child, thereby snubbing the dog people.

I dont know. Old enough to walk to the car on her own I would guess. It doesnt matter what the child is capable of understanding. Who says its the dog owners right to explain anything to the child concerning the law? Who but the mother has the authority to make those decisions? I was thoroughly impressed by her refusal to not back down while the woman deflecting by talking about her husband being in the military and then later her instance on trying to tell her about a law that had nada to do with the issue. If i was there I am sure things would have been handled differently instead of the gang attack the white people made on her.

Yep, all that blood and gore from the massacre. Fight of the century.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Your comment does not make sense-----the lady with the service dog ""should not have mentioned the issue of
the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES LAW in front of 'a child' ??? Why? -----it is OBSCENE. Seems
to me that children should learn about laws

A couple of reasons. First of all the law wasnt the issue. You cant force someone to think your dog is clean. Second of all you dont confront someone in front of their child.

While I agree, to an extent, that confrontation in the presence of a child might be best avoided, how do you feel about the language and manner the mother demonstrated...in front of her child?

I didnt see the child in the video so my assumption is that she is outside the establishment. The level of anger tells me she suppressed it long enough to tell the child to go to the car or something.

That begs the question, how old is the child in question? One old enough to go to the car, or something, alone would indicate a child capable of understanding an explanation of the law. A younger child should probably have been escorted by an adult or older child. All that considered, I still see no reason why this woman became the screaming, abusive harpy she did. Really, no one is impressed by that kind of anger and abusive, raw language. The woman hurt her case far more with her response than if she had simply excused herself and left with the child, thereby snubbing the dog people.

I dont know. Old enough to walk to the car on her own I would guess. It doesnt matter what the child is capable of understanding. Who says its the dog owners right to explain anything to the child concerning the law? Who but the mother has the authority to make those decisions? I was thoroughly impressed by her refusal to not back down while the woman deflecting by talking about her husband being in the military and then later her instance on trying to tell her about a law that had nada to do with the issue. If i was there I am sure things would have been handled differently instead of the gang attack the white people made on her.

Yup, it is the mother's decision what her child should experience. And while a refusal to back down might be laudable in many instances, to sink to the level of expression that this woman did just damages her "case". Being abusive and profane are the last things you would want to become when confronted with someone you cannot agree with. A cold smile and an "excuse me, I have to go." would have been much more effective, perhaps even making the dog people appear foolish. As it was, she came across as a gross termagant with a filthy mouth. Her performance leaves bystanders asking whose behaviour is more harmful to a child. I failed to notice any white gang attack in the video presented.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Actually, we didn't witness the alleged original "confrontation" between the people with the dog and the woman, either. Where was the child when the dog-people were "educating" the mother?

Right there. We know it happened because both parties agreed she was confronted.

But there is no evidence of a child's presence.

Yes there is. The Black woman plainly says she was confronted in the presence of her child.

Okay, we have her assertion that the child was present. What does her being a "Black woman" have to do with anything?

That implies that your doubt a child was there is relevant to what the mom said. She was Black and being ganged up on by a troop of whites.

No, that implies that I saw no child present during the video presented. A "troop of whites" ganging up on a "Black" was as clearly evident as the alleged child. The woman who was raising holy hell didn't make any assertion that she was being attacked by whites, either. So, I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas.