MY OPINION (and nothing more) is that this is yet another example of our culture's manifestation of "no harm/no fowl" running wild (pun intended!).
I have no problem whatsoever with true "service animals" such as well-trained dogs from a certified facility, assisting the blind. That makes total sense to me. The laws were first put into place so that people with real needs could utilize an animal that truly improved their ambulatory mobility. "Seeing eye dog" was the term back in the day.
But a "emotional support peacock"? That's just hogwash. (another pun intended, as people have tried to get pigs on flights as well).
The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters. - under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan - over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
It is also a BIG problem in the landlord community:
People with ESA are using the regular ADA law and scare to force their way into ESA unauthorized pets/damages/rent.
Combined with some cities making it very hard to conduct business in the affordable level, they just shoot themselfs in the foot since everybody would just sold out to big outfits or move to higher income levels/luxury market....
Unfortunately I know firsthand of a person who has no issues whatsoever, but had their pocket dog classified as a "service animal" to enable flying with it.
That angers me.
The thing I'm waiting to see is what happens when someone highly allergic to animal ____ has to sit next to someone who is bringing it on board. Ive been on flights where due to a person having a peanut allergy, they weren't allowed to offer peanuts to anyone. Perhaps animal allergies aren't as bad, but then what? Who gets to not fly?