Discussion in 'Dog News and Articles' started by Lilavati, Dec 22, 2011.
Oh FFS...even *Denver* is sort-of-nearly-almost allowing service pitties.
I'd be storming into that meeting and demanding that if this is the tactic they're going to take "a meter reader in '08 was bitten by a pit bull", then the next time someone is bitten by Rover the Golden Retriever, they need to sit down the next day and ban those dogs too, because that's the logic precedent they've set.
I particularly like the fact that they are clearly aware that it is against federal law, they just don't give a hoot. Probably figured the dog would be dead by the time the DOJ showed up, which would be right except the old guy gave the dog away first.
i can't wait to see how the city handles losing in court. from what i've seen in the news ADA suits are hard for the defendants to win. what is precedent like Lil?
If further evidence was needed that BSL advocates are ruthless, ignorant, fear mongering douchebags . . .
Hmmm . . . I don't really know. I haven't had much to do with the ADA since I took Constitutional Law in law school. Its not clear what the standard of review is under the ADA, so if it was subject to a serious constitutional challenge, that would have to be settled. Though there's a good arguement that even under "rational basis" review, it would go down . . .
However, I do know that the DOJ has said that it views discrimination against the owners of service dogs because of BSL has breach of the ADA, and its regulations implementing the ADA And I think they'd win on that . . . after all, service animals are allowed all sorts of places that animals usually aren't, overriding all SORTS of local laws. They are going to have a really hard time saying that their right to exclude pit bulls trumps his right to have his service dog, when that same right lets him do things like take his dog on a plane or into a grocery store. So unless they really want to get into a constitutional spat with the DOJ, and really, seriously want to argue that they can discriminate against disabled people on the basis of the breed of dog they have . . .
I don't know the precedent well, but I know *I* wouldn't want to pick that fight.
When he wins, he's going to have to be eternally vigilant. Someone will try to poison his dog.
That is f-ed up. I hope change is made so that he can have his SD (although preferable the entire BSL would go)
Frankly, I think the poor man should move. But I suppose that's not practical.
The level of stupidity, ignorance, hate and petty tyranny are just beyond belief.
Forget that its a service dog. This guy is old, half paralyized, and he served his country . . . so our thanks is to . . . take his dog away and kill it? What sort of people ARE you?
See my first post in the thread