We've had this conversation before.
There is a difference, a very important one, between service animals and emotional support animals.
No person or company can ban a qualified service animal in the States. Service animals go thought significant detailed training by licensed companies, with specific purposes for the animal.
ESAs, in my opinion, are not without controversy and I believe any person or company should be able to ban them if they can reasonably justify the effort, even on an "as needed" basis.
Remember the whom desired her ESA peacock to the on the flight? Or the ESA snake. It's already gotten ridiculous; this thread just illuminates the topic is continuing.
For the rest of my response, I'm going to exclude true "service animals" and only speak to the topic of ESAs. I fully accept that true service animals have bonafide purposes. ESAs, however, are where the disagreement starts.
It's entirely possible that a pit bull can serve as an ESA. But there's plenty of reliable data to indicate that breed is also a very large risk to public safety. While I do accept that we would like to believe that banning is affront to freedoms, the reality is we do it all the time. We, as a society, generalize. And for good reason.
- It's possible that a person could drive drunk, and never hit anything, but we don't want to take that chance; OWI is considered "banned" because data shows they have a far greater propensity to get into accidents and hurt other people or damage other people's property
- It's possible that a person in 1000 could haplessly discharge a firearm into the air in celebration in a crowded area without it hurting someone, but we don't allow that either; too much risk to the general public
And it's possible any animal breed (dog, raccoon, chicken, pony, etc) could fly on a plane and not hurt anyone, but there are some breeds that have proven seriously dangerous. "Seriously dangerous" is a combination of motive and opportunity, in a legal sense. There are lots of small dogs that might bite, but they simply cannot kill in an acute sense. Pit bull type dogs have both the propensity AND the ability to seriously harm/kill people and other animals.
Further, why is it that people treat air travel differently in a sense of "rights"? No one has a "right" to air travel. It is true that there are laws that prohibit the discrimination of certain issues (race, religion, gender) which do apply, but that is not unique to air travel; it covers essentially all human presence in the States. However, there is no law that assures you a "right" to take an emotional support animal with you on a conveyance that flies in the air. Do we hear about people boarding buses with ESAs and demanding to have the animal board? Should Greyhound be forced to admit that pet llama onto the bus just because farmer Joe cannot live comfortably without it? Further, why not apply this concept to other venues, such as restaurants or movie theaters. Do you have a "right" to take your ESA boa constrictor into the bar to get a beer? Do you have a right to take your ESA pet possum into Arby's or McD's? Why is it that when we talk about planes, it suddenly becomes a matter of bias that people must be allowed their penchant for animal presence? Restaurants have the right to ban ESAs. Movie theaters also. Should we allow ESAs into the sports arena also? You want to sit next to someone with a pet monkey at the next college football game you attend, knowing that monkeys are very hyper, prone to defecation shenanigans, and often spit as a means of defense when they feel threatened?
Your right to have an ESA does not usurp my right to be free of a sensible fear of being attacked or otherwise physically breached in a some manner. Your right to have an ESA does not usurp the right of a company to provide a generally controlled and safe environment for all it's patrons.
For every one person that wants to take their ESA pit bull on a flight, there are 150 others that reasonably believe that the risk outweighs the reward.
For every one person that wants to take their ESA pit bull into a confined venue, there are hundreds of companies that fear the impending litigation of anyone whom is injured because the airline/restaurant/theater/arena contributed to unsafe conditions by allowing the animal to be present.
The venue (airline, bar, theater, whatever) should be free to operate as it deems fit. If the owner of the ESA does not like that they cannot take their species into the venue, then they are free to choose another venue, or start their own business that would provide that service to others of like mind.
In contrast, if the venue does choose to allow the animal, then I have a right to take my business elsewhere.
The problem comes into play where you buy a ticket to the venue; how to you know if you'll be seated next to a pleasant person, or a breed of animal proven to have a propensity to attack and harm?
Your rights to have an ESA do not usurp the rights of others. Your rights stop where mine starts.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2019/08/full-13645-35220-fb_img_1557902523251.jpg "[Linked Image]")
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2019/08/full-13645-35221-fb_img_1557902573178.jpg "[Linked Image]")
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2019/08/full-39399-35222-220px_ginger_december_3579836414e4b5ce786eopitbull.jpg "[Linked Image]")
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/V09lA7K.jpg "[Linked Image]")
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/qFx5uht.jpg "[Linked Image]")
