Not quite, more like I am tired of having to pay for someone else's troubles. The notion of a disabled person paying me for some social privilege is abhorrent, but equally so that I must always pay for their convenience as well. Were the shoe on the other foot, I would not be comfortable with compelling other people to concede to my special needs and force them to accomodate me just so I can haved some special consideration at their involuntary expense. It's one thing to ask, quite another to insist. I don't mind compromising for a handicapped person, but I would rather they ask than to simply tell me I have to. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I would much prefer that our society function as a whole more on that level than to insist that those more fortunate must always accede to the needs of those less so.

When I speak of remuneration, my frame of mind was from a legal standing. In terms of tort concessions, one party acquiring gains at the expense of another party usually invokes a remuneratory claim. Probably not the right model for the argument, but that was how my day went yesterday. More appropriately, I think the argument is who is to bear the burden for an individual's special needs in the public domain, and to what extent? Certainly many of the accomodations we as a society incorporate nowadays are prudent and reasonable, but when the law extends the rights of one set of individuals above the rights of the majority, and to the latter's debtriment, that I think is going too far. If we are going to allow handicapped people to have pets in public places, then there's no reason not to allow everyone to do so. Categorical exemptions of this nature just don't make any sense to me.

Gotta chime in here ben. I am in no way a great lover of people having critters in places they are not typically viewed as normal like some rich blond travelling with her cat or dog on an airplane because "I can't bear the thought of leaving my XXX in kennel while I'm away". I believe the animals in question are truly specially trained service animals; not pets. A pet is what I have; my two stupid dogs. They are basically noise-making mooches. I see no reason for some old lady carrying her "cute little dog" with her through a store. It is obvious the animal is a pet and the owners are usually too stupid to leave them at home when it is 90+ degrees when they have to run Wally World. That annoys the living snot out of me!! The other animals work for the benefit of their owners. When I see a service animal I give them plenty of room and let them do there job. As to the types of animals that are true service animals, that will always cause a rub.

Yes, I would tend to agree with your observation, and I would advocate that no one should be allowed to take their animal into public areas without some means of certification that the animal is trained properly for the environment and conditions it is likely to encounter.

My whole point, though, is it is unfair to grant rights to one group of people and not to the rest of us. Service animals do typically receive a level of training that often includes some form of certification, and if the authorities were to allow the same for non-service animals, then at least we can hope for some measure of equality. To categorically exempt any one group from the restrictions and limitations imposed on the rest of us is and will always be just as discriminatory, debtrimental and costly to our society as when the reverse is allowed.

What I wonder is this: If these people were not allowed to use/have service animals what are their prospects for independent living? Would they be relegated to moving into care facilities where they would have to "wait their turn" for an escort?

Anyway this whole thread is way off-topic. Yes, Ironraven was discriminated against.

good luck looking to make a discrimination case if you are a straight white male!

[quoThat isn't strictlyte=kevingg]good luck looking to make a discrimination case if you are a straight white male! [/quote]

That isn't strictly true. It's been done in the UK. What generally happens is that some white, straight male is passed over for a promotion (which he has a reasonable expectation of) in favour of some other ethnic group (OEG). For an unlawful reason. Like discrimination in favour of that group. Criteria for promotion is set higher for the WSM than the OEG etc, etc.

I have personally been in that situation. I was carrying out the same duties as a female member of staff and a male member of another ethnic group. The problem was that they were both one pay grade above me. Having checked the legal position, I objected to this on the grounds that UK law expressly forbids discrimination (other than under certain very tightly delimited circumstances)for sex, race, creed, religion, marital status or sexual orientation. Then I requested a formal meeting with my Line Manager and raised the matter with him. I got my promotion.

The important thing is to be very certain as to the legal position and to act in a reasonable none threatening manner. Give them the chance to be graceful.

I should also add that one has seen members of other ethnic group's being mistreated and I have always made it my business to step on such conduct. I have always taken the view that you promote on ability and track record only. Anything else is dishonorable and despicable.

Um, but in your scenario you had an allergy to dogs. Surely by your logic, your allergy is your problem? Why does your allergy trump the other fellow's blindness?

Again, with your allergy the shoe is on the other foot.

And if you're not allergic to dogs, why the fuss?

Generally a helper dog for the blind is not a "pet". In the UK (and I assume in the US) they are exceptionally well-trained, disciplined and obedient working animals. The benefit of allowing the dog is higher, and the cost is lower, then with an ordinary pet.

Umm, Leigh - how would you rationalize this position with your initial post on this thread, where you recommended this course of action in response to a theater manager asking a customer to leave their baggage outside?

Leigh [emphasis added]:
I would first complain to higher managment. But one would do it as a solicitors letter.
For:
Sex discrimination.
Libel/slander/defamation/breach of her duty of care to you.

Make it extremly clear that you will have satisfaction. One way or another, and the only satisfaction you will accept is her dismissal.


Requiring some $12/hr theater manager to be sacked in response to enforcing a no bags policy - is that graceful and non-threatening, or perhaps would it put their back up against a wall?

There are some letters that it is better to have written for you. Politely nasty. As apposed to nasty-nasty. Which will only get you arrested for threatening behaviour. It also gives notice that you are serious.

I have to point out that the Theater Manager was being a petty, bigoted tyrant. Towards men. If she was enforcing a no bags policy then she should be enforcing it according to law. With out distinction of race, sex etc.

In my case going nuclear would have been counterproductive. Unless they had told me to .... off. At that point I would have sort remedy through a court.

I think it is a difference in approach then - we had one point of view expressed, and you saw the manager as a petty, bigoted tyrant. I'd like to hear from the manager herself before deciding she was as harsh and oppressive as all that. With all due apologies to the original poster, I've been down the road with many complaints, too many to trust to any single side of the story. Are you sure the original poster didn't leave out some crucial element that could have raised the manager's suspicions about this particular patron with this particular bag (said suspicions being apparently addressed, otherwise he would have had his admission refused and ticket refunded)?

Same with her reaction, which happened to be towards a man. This one time, no other evidence of a similar reaction to towards any other man. Or, no evidence of a similar reaction to women carrying bags. No evidence at all basically, just an incident. Hardly enough to conclude that she was guilty of discrimination, based on sex, because she was talking to a man. Left to those criteria, everyone has a roughly 50:50 chance of being guilty of sex discrimination, instead of just being wrong this one time.