Therapy dogs in shops and restaurants

[Humpback21]

Where I used to work we had a rule of no dogs except assistance and guid dogs etc. in the last few years at that job we get dogs coming in as “therapy dogs” with coats for the dog saying therapy dog.One lady would bring her big dog pulling on the lead I questioned her and politely said no dogs allowed she claimed it was a therapy dog but it didn’t like to wear its coat and collar. I recently saw a dog outside the supermarket with therapy dog written on its coat waiting with its owner and all their shopping. There are no dog charity’s that train dogs to be assistance therapy dogs. I know of charities that bring therapy dogs into hospitals and care homes. Are people really buying fake coats for their dogs so they don’t have to part with them. I’m all for dogs and am a massive dog lover but surely dog owners have to realise that a trained assistance dog in a public or private space is trained to be

dogsforautism.org.uk/assistance-dog-handler-information/

Ah, ok. I misunderstood the OP.

👏👏👏

It’s not ‘my reasoning’
it’s a legal definition of people with disabilities under the act.

if that’s you, then grand.

I don’t personally define or enforce the law 😁

Literally no one on this thread has used that term 🤷‍♀️

So you’re happy for emotional support dogs who assist people with mental health related disabilities to take their dogs in places- great glad we agree. I assume everyone else does as I would hate to see discrimination against disabilities

Isn't it great @OMG12 No one will object to an emotional support dog for a person with autism or any other type of assistance dog and people won't use language that infers that there is illegal disability.

Said no disabled person ever. Because we all know that's not true.

I’m happy for any assistance dogs that support people to ensure equality - of course! Why wouldn’t I be?

I’m not sure why my opinion is so important to you but glad, it’s made you happy!

When someone apologises for making a genuine error, the gracious thing is usually to accept it and move on.

you’re obviously free to keep making snide remarks and imagining an agenda on my part to bolster your sense of outrage if you choose. But that’s your choice, and it absolutely does not reflect my intention.

Have you any idea how ill defined the law is on this issue? If it were that simple disabled people would not be dying because they've been denied the benefits designed to support them. Your posts drip with ableist bullshit. You may not define or enforce the law, but you clearly think you should based on your comments here. Lawyers make livings out of arguing what the law on disability means in practice, but you know better? If its not up to you to decide whether someone meets the requirements of the act. More to the point, it is not up to anyone else either. There is no register or standard for being disabled, and you simply cannot accept that your version of reality is not informed by living a life with a disability.

I would be very much in favour of a national standard for service dogs, and for a national register, to include any dog trained to that standard, no matter who trained it. But your posts don't offer solutions becuse you aren't remotely interested in solutions, just another excuse to bash people with disabilities.

So disabled people have to be gracious and move on and aren't allowed to be angry about ableism. Got it.

Fascinating that you assume I don’t have a disability.

pretty ableist too. I actually have two conditions that mean I meet the legal definition of disability.

but I guess uninformed assumption supports you misplaced outrage and enables you to make further erroneous assumptions about me.

Where have I ‘bashed’ anyone?
and why are you looking to me to provide solutions on access for assistance dogs?

you seem to have unrealistic expectations of someone who simply linked to the definitions under the law .

No you don’t have to do anything.

how you choose to behave, is up to you.

you’re perfectly entitled to disregard a genuine apology and continue making snide comments to me based on your erroneous assumptions about my character if you prefer 🤷‍♀️

Please point out where I made ANY comment about your character. Thanks.

It’s also worth noting that I’m responding to you not ‘all disabled people’

btw I prefer the term ‘people with disabilities’ myself, but I don’t berate you for your choice of terminology or take personal offence to it.

I only corrected your use of a phrase that you linked to a legal definition.

I'm entitled to use the language I choose, as are you. I haven't corrected any other words you have used, except those that inferred there was illegal disability.

I didn’t say that you did.
I said that your ongoing snide comments were based on erroneous assumptions about my character (and intentions)

I have made no assumptions about your character at all.

Just the one post ‘correcting me’ then? definitely not multiple snide comments aimed towards me and your erroneous inference of my words.

Aye, right.

If I had any views on your character, I would have said so. I don't have a view on your character at all. And I certainly have not made any assumptions about your character.

Yeah. You definitely didn’t assume I was making sweeping statements about all people with disabilities when it was very clear I was responding specifically to you.

and you definitely didn’t assume I was making inferences about ‘illegal disabilities’ (whatever they are 🤷‍♀️)

Definitely no assumptions about me, nope.

Having a disability doesn't mean that someone isn't ableist as well, any more than suggesting that black people can't be prejudiced. If you had any awareness of the wider world of disability you wouldn't be making judgemental comments about the disabilities of other people and what their needs are.

Perhaps you aren't interested in solutions. That's the easy way isn't it? Pontificate your opinion but offer nothing positive. Service dogs for physical and mental disability are "a thing", and until there is a defined solution then neither you, nor anyone else, has the right to say that someone does not actually need their service dog.

I didn't assume anything. Statements about "legal disabilities" infer there are illegal disabilities.

There are not. And the language in the Equality Act 2010 doesn't say that.

When someone apologises for making a genuine error, the gracious thing is usually to accept it and move on.

You're not entitled to police my reaction.

If you had any awareness of the wider world of disability you wouldn't be making judgemental comments about the disabilities of other people and what their needs are.

where exactly have I made these comments?

And what opinion have I ‘pontificated’?