3 ms·
>Transporting people, including their service animals if needed, __is__ an intrinsic function of the job. I understand your statement but to clarify, my open q
by jasode 12y ago
>Transporting people, including their service animals if needed, __is__ an intrinsic function of the job.
I understand your statement but to clarify, my open question was about whether it __should__ be an intrinsic function of the job.
Should a person's personal car be compelled to accept service dogs with no restrictions? I assume your answer would be yes. I then ask, __should__ personal homes that have a spare bedroom to rent be also compelled to accept service dogs? At the moment, personal residences are exempt from FHA & ADA laws favoring service dogs but let's not talk about what the law __is__ -- we already know what it is. Instead, to entertain the hypothetical, the question is __should__ homeowners be compelled to the same standard as drivers?
If the restrictions/freedoms for a personal car and a personal home __should__ be different, the question could then be... why?
- DanBC 12y agoPartly the difference is one of time. Someone living in your he could make you suffer for many months, even years. A car ride is at most a day. The other is analogous to common carrier or net neutrality. Earning money from passengers is a privilege that society grants some drivers, and one of the things society demnds in return is that the drivers do not discriminate based on protected characteristics. On one hand I see some drivers with medical condition that makes it harder for them to have dogs in their cars. On the other hand I see a group that faces continuing discrimination and ignorance from wide sections of society. I find it hard to have much sympathy for drivers. Especially in the cases listed in the article where it's not clear whether any of the drivers have dog allergies or not.