3 ms·
> In my understanding, they are denying the presence of an animal in their car, not necessarily the disabled person. Your understanding is incorrect, because
by Iftheshoefits 12y ago
> In my understanding, they are denying the presence of an animal in their car, not necessarily the disabled person.
Your understanding is incorrect, because denying the presence of the animal is identical to denying the dependent disabled person because he's disabled. The two are inextricably linked together.
- lazylizard 12y agoits a bit like saying hearing-impaired people can't take the ride if they bring their hearing aid along.
- totony 12y agoImo there is a difference, as the motive for not allowing the person is different. Morality is majorly about motives.
- ASneakyFox 12y agoI agree there's a difference. As the objection is not to the person. But being that the person needs a dog to go anywhere in public the two are very intertwined. Also itd serve as loophole to discriminate since many blind people have service dogs.