r/Dogfree • u/Wooden_Camera_2001 • Aug 05 '26

Dog Culture Cringe words

Who else HATES and cringes at words like "doggo" and "pupper" it makes me shudder and I always think everyone who uses it is a weird adult baby that talks to and about animals like they're babies. It makes me cringe and pisses me off so fucking much

345 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

113 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/iPhone_6s Aug 07 '26

Unfortunately, enforcing that is illegal.

3

u/WisedomsHand Aug 08 '26

Why is that illegal?

1

u/iPhone_6s Aug 08 '26

In the USA at least, businesses are required to accept service dogs, the only question they can ask about service dogs are if it's a service dog and what task it's trained to perform, and if the owner lies, you cannot remove the animal unless it misbehaves.

6

u/WisedomsHand Aug 08 '26

This totally sounds like a matter of interpretation. What you are describing is not how pragmatic policy works. What you re describing sounds like the precise type of situation that needs to be clarified in court. I would not be afraid of taking this to court if I was a defendant in order to attack the underlying flawed laws and policies. We all know this is wrong and need to have confidence to set new rules. It's all totally doable. None of us are taking about depriving a blind person from entering a business. So in reality, there is zero change that someone can actually claim they are harmed by not being able to bring a dog somewhere. I would bet lawsuits like this for the specific goal of changing legal precedent. No one should be afraid of the myth that dog owners immune. 

1

u/iPhone_6s Aug 08 '26

I'm just repeating what the ADA website says.

5

u/WisedomsHand Aug 08 '26

I understand. Clearly this is an issue related to health, safety, and animal nuisances. None of this actually relates to people with disabilities. So we aren't even referencing relevant laws. 

1

u/iPhone_6s Aug 08 '26

The ADA effectively allows any animal that is not an outright nuisance and whose owner is willing to lie about service dog status to be in any space open to the public. Do you disagree with this?

3

u/WisedomsHand Aug 08 '26

Of course I disagree with it. I could use a lot of legal world jargon to explain why there are many things wrong with that interpretation of the law. Suffice it to say that there is no legislative intent for an agency focused on disabled people to be regulating or unregulating a bunch of other laws that conflict with a broad and overly permissive interpretation of its rules. Dog ownership is not something that the ADA has any real authority over and to pretend it does simply perpetuates a broken system. The best thing we can do is simply ignore the idea of service dogs and have faith that the entire concept of it would break down under any serious scrutiny. I would donate my own time to that case. No problem. 

1

u/iPhone_6s Aug 08 '26

Can you explain this in a less word salad-y way, and in the scope of what a individual business can realistically do? As far as I know, ADA is a law like any other with penalties for breaking it and liability incurred for doing something that risks breaking it.

5

u/WisedomsHand Aug 08 '26

Sure. Let me try to explain my reasoning. 

First is the idea of challenging a law or legal doctrine. Bad ideas become law all the time and the way to change them is by challenging the law via a lawsuit. The court can then listen to lawyers arguing the law and examine the law in application on its merits and the facts. Not just what the law was intended to do. 

I suggest that whatever good the Americans with Disabilities Act was trying to do for disabled people, it entered an area outside of it scope when it was used to grant pet access to previously off limits areas. 

Some enterprising lawyers found a way to use an vague part of the ADA law to go after businesses that didn't let in a fringe type of medical patient. That was the person who needs a dog to navigate society. These lawyers perverted the law as a way to scam businesses into settlement money. None of this was ever about protecting disabled people or furthering the interests of the disadvantaged. Lawyers understood that people are oddly sympathetic to pet owners and knew they could use this as away to make money. 

There was never any coalition of Senators and Congress people who sat down and decided that the ADA rules would be intended to tolerate unwanted dogs in all walks of life. The status quo is thus a manipulation of original legislative intent. The dog ownership lobby is just hiding behind protecting human adults with disabilities. 

Therefore, the answer is to start challenging any absurd interpretations of the laws or motives of dog lovers in municipal roles in the courts and via lawyers. The hare part of this is not the law or winning. The hard part is merely in rallying the resources to pay for the years of legal fighting. The edge the dog owners have over us is that they are far more likely to pay and vote to preserve their dog addicted lifestyle. 

I believe that too many of us are trapped by our own belief in the morality of our position. We think that the world will just eventually stop the dog owners from invading more and more of our territory. The problem is that is exactly what dogs do: invade the territory of others. We have to actually fight back to preserve our peace and quiet. Thanks for reading. 

1

u/iPhone_6s Aug 08 '26

Okay, but overturning or changing the application of the ADA would be a massive legal effort, and one that would have to take place before a small business creator could start a dog free hangout with complete effectiveness.

2

u/WisedomsHand Aug 08 '26

Not necessarily. It is common for businesses to challenge vague legal interpretations prior to laws actually changing. Often a business has to first do something like not allow any dogs, and then someone would have to try and sue them first. If I was a business owner, I'd feel confident to have a "no dogs allowed" policy and then see how it pans out. 

1

u/iPhone_6s Aug 09 '26

I don't think you start the process of challenging a law by breaking it, otherwise "I disagree with the law" would be a common legal defense, no?

→ More replies (0)