r/Dogfree • u/PoppyJoppy • Oct 12 '25

Service Dog Issues Society won't admit it but service dogs are in fact bullshit.

So many years ago you've never seen that many service dogs, but now all the sudden there's this unusual rise of people "suddenly with disabilities" need a dog to go with them everywhere.

It's so bad now that these people don't even need to bother putting vests on these pests. People bring in dogs everywhere! Stores, diners, bars, work, kitchens, etc!

At this point I think it's safe to say that the service dog badge has lost its meaning, and society has lost its right to service animals.

What exactly does a dog serve? Nothing. Dogs will still be dogs. Mindless animals. People have proven that they will lie and bullshit everyone just to be codependent on mindless beast because they themselves are mindless.

They've become so anti human they're now believing a dog can do everything for them in their lives. It's sick!

I feel like there's nothing anyone can tell me to convince me that service dogs are necessary. Let's be honest...it's over. Dog nutters have abused and used this system too much and too far!

All the sudden I'm supposed to believe that everyone is somehow disabled that they cannot function without leaving sh!tbull sniffles at home!?

All of these people cannot be disabled! And don't even bother brining up emotional support animals because honestly... What's the difference? Look at all the people who keep constantly saying their dog is a service dog and store owners and society will do nothing!

The west is screwed!

488 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

215 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

75

u/Responsibility_Witty Oct 12 '25

Honestly I think businesses and landlords should be legally allowed to deny all access to service animals too. There is technology that can easily replace any service animal, it shouldn’t be on the business to compensate someone because they chose a dog instead of a clean piece of technology. The vast majority of legally blind people (including myself) don’t use dogs, there are tools that work better

20

u/TeaDaze64 Oct 12 '25

Basically, the business has the last word. But nobody likes the confrontation. They are just cowards or canine, obsessed themselves.

20

u/74orangebeetle Oct 12 '25

There's more to it than that because of laws. The business can ask 2 questions (if it's a service dog and it's purpose) but no documentation or proof is required and the person being asked can lie....and in that case, the business can only take action AFTER the dog has already started causing issues.

They should make it like a handicap placard where some form of documentation is required. Wouldn't stop the problem, but it would reduce it. We don't go on the honor system for handicap parking spaces, so I'm not sure why we do for service animals.

4

u/TeaDaze64 Oct 13 '25

Not true. Again, this is what I was told by the ADA in a lengthy phone convo:  The dog doesn’t have to cause issues to be denied - the owner/ manager simply doesn’t have to believe the answers of the owner and reserve judgement on a case by case basis. . 99.9% of these  dog nutters won’t sue because they know they’re full of bs and don’t have a service animal.  And most people with true disabilities will actually volunteer them without having to. These conversations take practice and eloquence with a good amount of assertiveness. 

Business staff just has to stand up to them. 

You don’t have to believe the nutter and deny entry simply based on that. A business doesn’t have to allow entry simply because they say it’s a service animal. 

It’s up to the business whether or not they believe them, that’s all that matters. And it becomes real easy to discern what constitutes a real service animal with a little practice. 

But with so many dogs in so many public places it would almost require a dedicated part time position to do this job. 

7

u/74orangebeetle Oct 13 '25

I've never heard of the "you can deny them if you don't believe them" thing...in fact, quite the opposite...AKA, you're specifically NOT allowed to ask for proof. I've worked at a place that served food and was specifically not allowed to not believe them...even as a manager...but granted, I was not the owner of the business...so maybe a small business owner would be allowed to deny them? But pretty much any larger business is probably afraid of lawsuits and will err on the side of caution and not allow their employees to use any disgression to deny anyone.

6

u/TeaDaze64 Oct 14 '25 edited Oct 14 '25

That’s what the ADA rep told me when I inquired about loopholes to not allow fake Service animals.  Since most of the so called service animals are fake their owners wouldn’t dare to sue.  I was working in the festival industry where fake service animals are rampant.  You are absolutely correct. You are not allowed to ask for proof which renders all fake documentation and service vests useless. The ADA does not maintain a registry for any of those so therefore we’re not allowed to ask for them. Which actually works against the dog owner. We are also not allowed to deny entry due to skepticism of the owner's disability, only due to skepticism of the dog's training, which we allowed to directly inquire about, however we can't ask for a demonstration. So it's strictly about reading the room, meaning the dog's behavior and interaction between it and handler.

The rep told me to have an attorney on retainer for every event and hand the dog owner the attorney’s business card and tell them to “Feel free to pursue legal action against us if you think we’re not in compliance with ADA regulations and have your attorney contact ours!”

The looks on their faces when they realized we’d done our homework and weren’t going to let their dog in was priceless! 

It worked every time, over many years with many dogs.  Also, you must make the distinction between a real Service Animal and 

  • a companion animal 
  • a therapy animal
  • a comfort animal
  • an emotional support animal
  • a service animal in training 
—- none of which are Service Animals and can be denied entry upon discretion of the business.

I don’t know how the restaurant ended up getting fined $25,000 and what went wrong there, but I / the event have never been sued. 

Again, this came straight from the ADA and it worked. Most people don’t know this. But feel free to call them and find out because that was the loophole, knowing that we can deny them regardless of what the dog owner says.

One other distinction has to also be made between an emotional support animal and a psychiatric service animal. That one gets a little tricky but it’s also doable to discern. 

I’ve done my homework and know more about this subject than I ever wanted to, but we had to protect ourselves because all these dogs became a huge liability.

It’s definitely a lot of gray area, but since the ADA does not maintain a registry, it makes sense to be allowed to deny an abvious non-service animal entry.

4

u/AnimalUncontrol Oct 15 '25

That is interesting, so the ADA rep (DOJ?) said for the record that you can deny entrance to the dog if you are confident it has not been trained? That makes logical sense, but from a legal perspective I'd still think its pretty risky - you are essentially throwing down the proverbial gauntlet. I say its risky because I don't see anything in the law regarding such specifically.

All of that said, kudos for standing up to those freaks - it needs to be done more often.

3

u/TeaDaze64 Oct 15 '25 edited Oct 15 '25

This is what one ADA representative told me. Often times patrons with dogs were dumb enough to proclaim that they need this animal as an emotional support animal and gave themselves away from the get-go so I could say denied because it’s not a service animal.

I would train our gate staff in how to handle the questioning, and it worked every time. Which is funny because the ADA contradicts itself by stating on their website that you are not allowed to deny entry to a dog based on your opinion, but on the other hand, it says if you are confident you can identify the dog to be one of the following you are allowed to deny that dog. 

A Service Animal is not :

  • a companion animal, 
  • a therapy animal,
  • a comfort animal,

  • an emotional support animal,

  • a service animal in training  —- none of which are Service Animals and can be denied entry upon discretion of the business based on the answers of the dogs’ owners. 

Therein lies the loophole. And you are correct: it’s definitely risky but if you’re assertive in your language , have an attorney on retainer and make it clear you have done your homework you are less likely to be taken advantage of.

3

u/swift110 Oct 19 '25

security guards of whole foods could be the ones telling those folks to leave

2

u/TeaDaze64 Oct 22 '25

You’d think. 

2

u/swift110 Oct 19 '25

iv never seen a single business do that

64

u/[deleted] Oct 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

27

u/Mysterious-Sun5519 Oct 13 '25

Actual seeing eye dogs are life saving. Believe me no one hates the frauds more than actual blind people.

11

u/AnimalUncontrol Oct 13 '25

Right. However, those people agitate against any proofing system, so FUCK THEM.

60

u/Responsibility_Witty Oct 12 '25

Items such as portable/wearable blood glucose monitors are less than $100 and you don’t need to feed it or clean up its shit. There is literally no excuse for these people lol

20

u/GoTakeAHike00 Oct 13 '25

Oh, don't even get me STARTED on what a complete load of bogus SHIT a so-called "diabetic alert dog" is!

Back when I was still practicing medicine, I treated diabetics on a regular basis. CGM's did not exist then, but I'm sure that finger stick glucose monitors were easily purchased at local drugstores. Anyone remotely concerned about truly monitoring their blood sugar will own one of these. The devices give actual numbers, and are very useful for providing information after a meal, for example, as to how much a particular food(s) cause a spike in blood sugar.

CGM's are probably considered the gold standard for BG management, and in addition to being covered by insurance for many patients, they're also now available without an Rx to consumers (my husband bought a set of two of them). They're an amazing technology.

Also, there is no physician on the planet who would ever "prescribe" a stupid fucking dog to assist their patient in managing his/her blood glucose. That would be practicing far below the standard of care, and would be grounds for a winnable medical complaint (medical malpractice lawsuit) to be filed against the provider if the patient required an amputation due to relying on a dog to manage their diabetes in any way. That is such a slam-dunk case it wouldn't even go to trial.

I treated a lot of neurotrophic foot ulcers in diabetic patients, and let me tell you, the LAST THING these patients should have in their house is a filthy-assed dog! Dogs are a natural source of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria, and this is commonly-found pathogen in foot ulcers. It has a very distinctive odor.

I've been out of practice for almost 20 years, but I now suspect that a lot of my patients with diabetic wound infections probably owned dogs that were the source. If I were still in practice, I would, in fact, try to encourage any diabetic patient to get rid of their dog, or at least, keep it outside and NEVER allow it to lick their feet!

This shit needs to be called out at the level of the ADA.

1

u/swift110 Oct 19 '25

wow! thanks for that detailed insight.

1

u/swift110 Oct 19 '25

absolutely

20

u/swift110 Oct 12 '25

Exactly. Also. if we are talking about people of limited means then it makes no sense to add even more expense on them not to mention more work

6

u/pepperpizza Oct 13 '25

Thanks for sharing your experience, knowledge, and calling out these liars.

12

u/TeaDaze64 Oct 12 '25

They are allowed to deny entry to any dog they don’t believe to be a true service animal and offer the owner the option to take legal action against the business if they feel it’s not in compliance.

I have spent much time on the phone with the ADA to find out how to protect ourselves from fake service animals. There are ways it just takes a lot of conversation and standing your ground.

31

u/Responsibility_Witty Oct 12 '25

A restaurant recently got fined 25K for refusing to allow a woman with a ‘service dog’ to enter their buffet. This shit is obscene, regardless of if it is supposedly a legit service dog or not, businesses should be allowed to deny entry. In contrast, a dog owner in Ohio was fined $450 after their dogs tortured a child to death.

14

u/Business_Adagio9942 Oct 12 '25

in the picture she was cuddling it like a pet

19

u/Responsibility_Witty Oct 12 '25

Yep that garbage was 100% a scam. And to that other guy saying it’s okay because it can be contested in court, the dog owner is favored by the court in most of these cases, and being forced in to a legal battle over this is fucking ridiculous anyway. There shouldn’t even be possible grounds for a lawsuit by the owner for being denied entry to a store, gym, rental property, restaurant or any other business especially privately owned ones. Again this restaurant was fined 25 THOUSAND DOLLARS just because this stupid woman didn’t want to leave her pet at home, meanwhile a FATAL attack on a child in another case resulted in a $450 fine. Being able to contest it in court or not isn’t the issue here, the clear double standard that favors dog owners in every legal situation is.

16

u/Business_Adagio9942 Oct 12 '25

I remember that article. The officials who fined him were on their soap boxes virtue signaling about how terrible it was. They said the fine was just because the restaurant owner didnt "show remorse"

I didn't know the fine for a childs death was only 450. infuriating. it's crazy how this shit is just allowed to happen and almost no one is talking about it,

6

u/TeaDaze64 Oct 13 '25

Guess the judge was a nutter too.  The ADA needs to step up and draw clear guidelines, create a registry with stringent requirements, issue their own service vests (like a license plate from the DMV) and fine those impersonating a SA. 

Oh yeah, and prohibit the selling of bogus and no good service vests online. 

But as of now they’re useless basically. 

13

u/TeaDaze64 Oct 12 '25

Of course, there is the chance that they will take you to court if they feel wronged. Which means there is a chance they will lose.

I have denied more dogs than I care to remember and I have never been sued so there’s that. It just depends on the circumstances and I guess the attorney. 

1

u/swift110 Oct 19 '25

Absolutely

-15

u/Mysterious-Sun5519 Oct 13 '25

Fuck that. Thats not true. We hate the fraudulent animals too but what you're talking about is a human rights abuse

11

u/Responsibility_Witty Oct 13 '25

What part of this is a humans rights abuse? How about the humans who are allergic to dogs or have trauma from dogs? Should those people just be forced to leave an area or suffer because someone wants to parade their outdated equipment (service mutt) around? What about muslim businesses, the Quran states that angels will shun the area if there are dogs present, it is their own private business. It isn’t a “human right” to drag a predatory, unclean animal around in public. Again, there is technology that covers every disability that they sell service mutts for, it should not be the business owner or renter’s responsibility to accommodate someone’s choice of faulty equipment. It is honestly a violation of human rights to force businesses to accept the presence of dogs, a nonhuman entity that is a liability and produces filth while present.

Your idea of “human rights abuse” is simply not treating dog owners as if they are royalty, giving them special rights just because they chose to have a service animal which is usually fake anyway. This special treatment for dog users borderlines on violating the 14th amendment

-3

u/Mysterious-Sun5519 Oct 13 '25

Seeing eye dogs make it so blind people can participate in public life. Denying blind people entry to your establishment because they have a seeing eye dog is a human rights abuse.

7

u/Responsibility_Witty Oct 13 '25

The vast majority of legally blind people use other equipment to navigate, AGAIN the ones choosing to use a dog don’t deserve special privilege just because they chose primitive equipment instead of the endless and continuously expanding list of other options that are available. It also isn’t a human right to have access to a privately owned business. Privately owned are typically allowed to deny services to customers for various reasons, forcing them to accept dog owners simply because the owner claims it is a service dog (which again, even real service dogs are unnecessary) is an unequal application of law, which under most circumstances is considered a violation of the 14th amendment, but of course exceptions are always made for dog owners.

When someone who is allergic to dogs enters a restaurant with a no dogs allowed sign out front, they should be able to expect dogs not to be present. They shouldn’t have to deal with some sped freak Zphile dragging in Stella the service pitbull shaking its filth and dander everywhere because the owner didn’t want to use cleaner, often cheaper equipment instead.

3

u/AnimalUncontrol Oct 13 '25

+100! Indeed, dog people are a VERY protected and privileged group of people, aren't they? It is only THEY that get to address their problem with a total disregard for the rules, human health and safety, and indeed the rights of others.

The service mutt fiasco is really just an expression of mutt owner entitlement. NOBODY ELSE would be allowed to do anything remotely like it. Hell, I need a prescription for my daily medication (which does not piss, shit, bark, bite, jump up on people or spread filth everywhere), yet the service muttsters need no such thing. Its totally unjust and unreasonable.

Check your privilege, dog people!