You can often tell in an opinion what the judge really thinks, even if the opinion is well written and has solid legal grounding. Often, the judge lets you know . . . and in this case through his choices of quotes and comments he made in dicta, he's definitely signaling that he not only thinks the law is against them but that this dispute is absurd and that the city needs to remove its cranium from its anus. Its also clear that he thinks discriminating against service dogs on the basis of breed is illegal and, moreover, pointless. As for his view on BSL . . . that's not reallly so clear, but my guess is that he's inclined to think its overbroad (and is even more likely to think so after hearing this case and the totally irrationality underlying the law)
Its perfectly kosher for judges to signal like that . . . they aren't machines, and moreover, that sort of signalling plays its own part on establishing precedent. We now know that at least one federal court judge has not only ruled on solid legal grounds that a BSL ban on service dogs is likely to fail on the merits, but from his tone has revealed that he doesn't even think this is a hard question and also that there may be other issues here as well . . . perhaps not under the ADA, but the moral and ethical issues might implicate other laws as well. Its subtle, but its there.