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 HandyDandy
reply to post by matafuchs
No one is able to draw parallels?
I just find it funny that many are A-OK with skirting one law but bastardize a bussiness for another parallel law.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Furthermore, to say that having dogs in restaurants is a bad idea is idiotic.
According to studies published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, scientific journal of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAA&I) up to 10% of the general population and 40% of allergic individuals react to cats and dogs.
One of the major causes of allergic reactions to dogs and cats is not the hair or fur, but what's under it:
dander or old skin scales (similar to, only much smaller than dandruff on the human scalp) which are constantly shed into the environment. These allergens are extremely tiny, like microns of dust or powder, that allergy sufferers seldom, if ever, know are circulating in the air, clinging to furniture, draperies and wall coverings.
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 AthiestJesus
Originally posted by VoidHawk
Originally posted by TheOutcast
Probably not going to be popular with my opinion, but I agree that dogs shouldn't be allowed into anywhere where food is being prepared or eaten, regardless whether it's a junk yard hound or Lassie.
(Imagine a rat wandering around a restaurant but being told it was okay because it had served in Iraq, it's still a rat)
I'll reluctantly make a concession for guide dogs, but anything beyond that is a no-no for me.edit on 28-8-2013 by TheOutcast because: to do editing type stuff.
Your shoe is much more likely to be a source of disease than a dog! Domestic dogs live in the same environment as humans, so why should they be considered to be of more risk?
It's a known fact that people who live with dogs tend to be more healthy than those who dont keep dogs!
To be fair dogs lick their ballz , roll around in mud , and generally mess themselves up at every available opportunity ........ that`s why they require a lot of care and attention .... but dogs that have a role such as guide dogs etc. are usually very well trained and cleaned on a regular basis as apposed to your average fun loving ball licking bullet-hole sniffing mutt . As an owner of a restaurant I wouldn`t want any animals at all through my doors to be honest , saying that , I wouldn`t be greasy enough to own a restaurant and charge stupid amounts of money for little portions of crap.
Originally posted by tracehd1
Originally posted by AthiestJesus
Whilst I agree that this is pathetic of the owner , I need to point out that I do not like the way I`m having this man`s service background slammed in my face as if he is more important than anyone else simply because he was in the forces . Obviously written that way to stir up emotions and "rally the troops" , a shame really because the story is big enough without the whole "patriot" string pulling routine .
Wow, I had to let you know that for me.... Strictly speaking.... You nailed it!!!! I am sick to death of men and women being put on a pedestal only for the fact they're Military all the while screaming they're fighting for my freedoms.
" but, but i only killed innocent people so i could have oil and lithium and go to college! Whats the biggie?"
Gag!!!!edit on 28-8-2013 by tracehd1 because: Correct
I`m sick for not worshipping glorified murderers who don`t know their arse from their elbow ?
Next, this is not a story about a vet.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by LightOrange
Then they are at just as much risk going to any outdoor public area, where cats, dogs, and other animals are abundant.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by Char-Lee
Not to mention humans scratch their butts, scratch their balls, pick their noses, fondle their gonads, wipe themselves, and rarely wash properly afterwards. On top of spitting and doing disgusting things to food for revenge or amusement.
Originally posted by HandyDandy
Originally posted by InhaleExhale
Yes because its against the law.
Same as the photographer refusing for the reasons of the couple being gay.
Thank you.
The point I was making.
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.
Originally posted by brandiwine14
By law it sounds like the restaurant was wrong.
That said I personally don't want to go out to eat at a restaurant and be seated near a dog. You have no idea how clean this guy keeps his dog he could be bringing fleas into an eating establishment. Dogs also shed a lot of hair which ends up everywhere.
I love dogs and I can imagine that this one is a very special friend indeed but dogs don't belong in restaurants period.
edit on 28-8-2013 by brandiwine14 because: (no reason given)