Originally Posted By: benjammin
Not quite, more like I am tired of having to pay for someone else's troubles.
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?

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

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

Quote:
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.
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.
_________________________
Quality is addictive.