3 ms·
Yeah. In the author’s words, it’s the pet bans that are a “racket” and a “disguised class system, where anyone rich and savvy enough to engage with the gatekeep
by eyelidlessness 2y ago
Yeah. In the author’s words, it’s the pet bans that are a “racket” and a “disguised class system, where anyone rich and savvy enough to engage with the gatekeeping process gets extra rights”.
Ultimately pet bans, in most cases, reduce to a proxy for limiting damage and repair costs. In some cases they reduce to more general liability reduction. In all those cases there is a much more straightforward way to address the intent: insurance. Renter’s insurance, travel insurance, whatever.
The only valid cases for banning pets is “you’d be introducing an allergen into a place shared by people with allergies” or “an existing pet is already present and introducing a new one would cause conflicts with the incumbent pet”.
- giantg2 2y agoOr contamination vector for food service areas.
- eyelidlessness 2y agoYeah good point, although I think it may be applied too heavy handed in some cases. Like… foot traffic-only areas of the breakfast service at a hotel that otherwise accepts pets? That’s not meaningfully limiting contamination, it’s just making it harder for pet owners to get a cup of coffee.
- pseudalopex 2y ago> a place shared by people with allergies Any public place?
- eyelidlessness 2y agoIf by “public place” you mean “place providing services to the public”, sure. Most such places have at least the right to refuse service and no one generally objects to that excluding non-service pets. If you mean publicly owned spaces, I think it’s reasonable to discuss indoor restrictions. Outdoor? Probably not beyond certain specific circumstances and accommodations.
- pseudalopex 2y agoThere would be little discussion of emotional support animals if their owners did not object to places providing services to the public excluding non service pets. What outdoor publicly owned spaces where you believe pets should be allowed ban them?