It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HomerinNC
I hope this idiot, Russell Ireland, the owner of Big I's, loses ALL his customers and has to shut down.
This guy is a piece of crap!!
Originally posted by Darth_Prime
reply to post by Zaphod58
i was referencing it to make a point, refusing to take the pictures because they are a Same sex couple is discrimination under law, and multiple people said a store has the right to refuse service,
a man gets told to leave a restaurant because his animal, so that would mean this restaurant has the right to refuse service?
Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by HandyDandy
Well, if you would have read a few more responses, you would have understood the difference.
One is the right to refuse service in your establishment, as long as it isn't breaking a law.
The other is the fact that there are laws making it mandatory for your to allow SERVICE dogs in your establishment.
Get it?
Originally posted by Zaphod58
If they said "I won't do it because you're gay" then they're in the wrong under discrimination laws.
www.legalzoom.com...
As an owner of a restaurant I wouldn`t want any animals at all through my doors to be honest
Originally posted by AthiestJesus
Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by AthiestJesus
SOO
this is NOT about a veteran whose nature of disability is PTSD? And the Dog was NOT assigned to him as part of his treatment?
because I could have sworn that that is EXACTLY what this is about. That the law still applies to him and the reason why is everything I just stated, as stated in the OP....
If I am wrong then slap my ass and call me naughty. I thought everything mentioned was on topic and your little opportune rant about the sickening nature of "military praise" was not. (out of place, inappropriate)
Maybe you should keep your sickness and your tripe to yourself. No one cares about that. THAT is for sure.
edit on 28-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)
Yeah yeah yeah , let it all out .
What I posted was not a rant , and let me try to get this through your ego one more time - This story is not about a veteran , the story ---- is not about his service history ....... This story has nothing to do with his background ........ getting it yet ? There is no need to mention the fact that he`s a veteran over and over , that is a media trick used on people like your self who hear the word veteran and immediately start marching around the living room singing the national anthem.
My sickness ? Dude you`re acting like a complete idiot here , I`m sick for not worshipping glorified murderers who don`t know their arse from their elbow ? Oh man this site is funny some times.
Just look at how worked up you`re getting over this , you`re playing right into their hands .edit on 28-8-2013 by AthiestJesus because: (no reason given)
Same could be said about having a dog in a restaurant though to be fair , a lot of people would see it as fairly rude to bring a dog into an area where they were eating food .... especially in this day and age .
If they left out his background they would have a story , but all they have here is gossip about a veteran .
Originally posted by AthiestJesus
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by AthiestJesus
If they left out his background they would have a story , but all they have here is gossip about a veteran.
So why is it that since he's a veteran it's just "gossip about a veteran" and not a story?
Because they make a point of highlighting the fact that he is a veteran .... It isn`t hard to understand .
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by AthiestJesus
And? The law still applies to him. It is still a story and the restaurant was still wrong to do it. The basic facts of the story are exactly the same veteran or not.
Originally posted by HandyDandy
Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by HandyDandy
Well, if you would have read a few more responses, you would have understood the difference.
One is the right to refuse service in your establishment, as long as it isn't breaking a law.
The other is the fact that there are laws making it mandatory for your to allow SERVICE dogs in your establishment.
Get it?
Had you read the other threads, it was against the law in the other cases as well but people didn't like the law and said the owner has the right to refuse.
Which is it?
Originally posted by InhaleExhale
just read the thread, its all here. this isn't other threads
The owner has the right to refuse but not discriminate, get it.
If a store owner refused service because of a persons skin colour, religious belief or sexual preference then its discrimination,
But go read those threads and see how many people where championing the right of the owner to refuse service for any reason they saw fit.
turn it around to a veteran with a service dog and now they want the owner to loose their bussiness.
Originally posted by InhaleExhale
Yes because its against the law.
Same as the photographer refusing for the reasons of the couple being gay.
Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go. For example, in a hospital it would be inappropriate to exclude a service animal from areas such as patient rooms, clinics, cafeterias, or examination rooms. However, it may be appropriate to exclude a service animal from operating rooms or burn units where the animal’s presence may compromise a sterile environment.
Originally posted by Darth_Prime
reply to post by Zaphod58
i was referencing it to make a point, refusing to take the pictures because they are a Same sex couple is discrimination under law, and multiple people said a store has the right to refuse service,
a man gets told to leave a restaurant because his animal, so that would mean this restaurant has the right to refuse service?
Now why was 95% of ATS applauding the discrimination of a gay couple but those same people want the owner of this restaurant to loose his bussiness?
I know the answer but I want to hear it from you.