Deaf student files complaint against Sonny's

Status
Not open for further replies.
mushbean said:
Thank you firetiger as code 413.08 paragraph b states

(b) Every deaf or hard of hearing person, totally or partially blind person, or physically disabled person shall have the right to be accompanied by a dog guide or service dog, specially trained for the purpose, in any of the places listed in paragraph (a) without being required to pay an extra charge for the dog guide or service dog; however, such person shall be liable for any damage done to the premises or facilities by such dog. The dog guide or service dog must be capable of being properly identified as being from a recognized school for seeing-eye, hearing-ear, service, or guide dogs.
Click to expand...


Federal law trumps state law.

That is not required under the ADA.
 
Babyblue said:
(quoted from the article in the OP)




This is what I question...

Service dogs are usually on a leash. This makes it sound like the dog did not have a leash or a vest.

She was carrying the dog in the restaurant. People are trained that service dogs are on a leash and wearing a vest. For all these people knew. It was just a pet that she was carrying in her arms.
Click to expand...
I missed that one, Thank you so much for pointing that line out. If that dog is a service dog how does a dog go back and forth to the sounds to alert his/her owner to follow the dog to the source of the sound if the owner is carrying the dog? I don't believe the dog was a hearing service dog, I believe the dog was a pet.

rockdrummer said:
No. In fact it says just the opposite.
Click to expand...
I'm so surprise that owners do not have to legally required to display an identification card. It makes it so easy for people to take advantage of the system. *smh*
 
rockdrummer said:
this is a perfect example of somebody standing up for their rights. I don't care if people don't think about the ADA so much anymore. It still exists and there are laws that need to be followed. Sometimes it takes sending a clear message like this to get people aware again. I am proud of this person for standing up for her rights.
Click to expand...

I agree although I dont feel that deaf people dont really need service dogs but then again, I am not all deaf people. I am just happy for whoever can stand up for their rights.
 
mushbean said:
You want to know how I know, well for one I have actually been in the restraunt when a disabled person came in with a service dog, they ended up sitting accross from me. No I do not own the business. Also there has never been a complaint. What are we susposed to believe what the Sterry's say is true that they are in the right and Sonny's is in the wrong.

I welcome anyonw to take issue to my statement. I also see I even made a comment and asked a question here and another forum that no one will answer. I have nothing to hide by answering questions, what is it you all have to hide by not.

If the claim they made were true, then why ask for gift certificates. If it were true and it was me I would never want to go in tat restraunt again. I also guess the hearing impared want us to feel sorry for them and what they say goes. Well I am sorry it does not work like that in the real world.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have a personal vendetta with either the girl or against all deaf/hoh people?

Just curious.
 
No I have no vendetta against the girl or the deaf communuity.

Why is it the deaf community always throw that up, they know its not true but have to use that card to get what they want. I see things have not changed.

Everyone expects us to believe if she claims she was discriminated against, barred and suffered such sever damage we should just believe what she says and give her and her family what they want. Sorry it does not work that way.

I can not wait till this is over and they walk away with nothing, cause if this were true and it really happened why are they trying to get compinsated with certificates and money, why wouldn't they say they if they win they would put the money towards educating people and other good causes.
 
shel90 said:
I agree although I dont feel that deaf people dont really need service dogs but then again, I am not all deaf people. I am just happy for whoever can stand up for their rights.
Click to expand...
Should deaf people be able to use service animals? :hmm: Sounds like a topic for another thread Shel. Go for it!!
 
mushbean said:
No I have no vendetta against the girl or the deaf communuity.

Why is it the deaf community always throw that up, they know its not true but have to use that card to get what they want. I see things have not changed.

Everyone expects us to believe if she claims she was discriminated against, barred and suffered such sever damage we should just believe what she says and give her and her family what they want. Sorry it does not work that way.

I can not wait till this is over and they walk away with nothing, cause if this were true and it really happened why are they trying to get compinsated with certificates and money, why wouldn't they say they if they win they would put the money towards educating people and other good causes.
Click to expand...

I can see where you're coming from, gotta say I'm deaf. I don't believe she was discriminated, It would had made things so much easier if she had provided her documents to identify the animal, a leash on the animal, and a vest that states that that animal is a hearing service dog. When a restaurant sees her carrying her animal, and doesn't have a vest or hasn't seen any documents, what are they supposed to think? If the restaurant hasn't said anything, then probably customers would say something regardless of the animal. She should have done the responsible thing to avoid all the hassles but instead she screamed "discrimination" :roll:
 
mushbean said:
No I have no vendetta against the girl or the deaf communuity.

Why is it the deaf community always throw that up, they know its not true but have to use that card to get what they want. I see things have not changed.

Everyone expects us to believe if she claims she was discriminated against, barred and suffered such sever damage we should just believe what she says and give her and her family what they want. Sorry it does not work that way.

I can not wait till this is over and they walk away with nothing, cause if this were true and it really happened why are they trying to get compinsated with certificates and money, why wouldn't they say they if they win they would put the money towards educating people and other good causes.
Click to expand...


You made a blanket statement about "hearing impaired" people wanting to be felt sorry for so just got me wondering.
 
rockdrummer said:
Should deaf people be able to use service animals? :hmm: Sounds like a topic for another thread Shel. Go for it!!
Click to expand...

I believe there was a thread about it or similiar to it. I will have to dig it up..if nothing, then I will create a new thread when I am not so busy doing errands and stuff. :)
 
Bottesini said:
Federal law trumps state law.

That is not required under the ADA.
Click to expand...

Actually as long as the two do not contradict there is no issue- 'properly identified' is usually a harness or coat and a leash.

I do not see where there is a contradiction, both state that papers or ID cards are NOT required.
 
FireTiger said:
Actually as long as the two do not contradict there is no issue- 'properly identified' is usually a harness or coat and a leash.

I do not see where there is a contradiction, both state that papers or ID cards are NOT required.
Click to expand...

The bolded blue part of the statement contradicts the ADA.
 
rockin'robin said:
I like Sonny's BBQ, and go there often with my boys when we're in the mood for BBQ and I'm not in the mood to fix it myself....

It was "my understanding" that service dogs were welcome at restaurants that had "outside seating", such as a patio. Sonny's does not.

And as long as the dog is wearing a "service vest".!

As for people taking their dogs "inside" the restaurant, I say NO....there are patrons that could be allergic to dogs, the dog could have an accident while the people were eating, the dog could have fleas and the restaurant could get infested......so many things could happen and spoil the enjoyment of other patrons.

I once worked part-time at a Salad Bar in a nice restaurant. This lady walked in with a very, very big dog! It wore a service vest. The dog looked dirty! The other patrons didn't like this.....however, my manager let her stay.

I am OK with service dogs eating at restaurants that have an outside seating.....but going inside, NO. And as long as the dog has a service vest, certification, looks clean and "not scratching" from fleas, etc.
Click to expand...
I agree... it's not just Sonny, but ANY restaurant that hesitates at the sight of ANY animals.

Even though you have rights, there are also health issues to consider and health issues should override the rights of having a dog.

What if someone there had a severe allergic reaction to dogs? They couldn't risk a customer dying just because a deaf person said, "I have my rights!"

Besides, why do you need a hearing service dog in a restaurant?
 
I was looking for a list of 50 states about laws of hearing guide dogs.

Seems like NAD does not maintain a list of hearing guide dog laws for all 50 states ?

National Association of the Deaf

Does anyone have a good link about hearing guide dogs and what the law says in each state ?
 
Mod's Note:

Several of the posts were deleted, so we will give this thread another chance. Please discuss this in a civil manner.

Thanks,
Brian
 
With regards to the comments about allergies. It is VERY rare to have an allergic reaction to a dog that is so severe that it is considered disabling. If an individual does indeed have an allergy to dogs that is so severe they are considered to be disabled and protected under the ADA, the restaurant has the responsibility to accommodate BOTH the allergic individual AND the person with the dog. Often, this would mean seating them on opposite sides of the establishment. I have never heard of this happening.

I cannot offer an opinion about d/Deaf and hearing dogs because I am hard of hearing and my future service dog will be assisting me primarily with walking/mobility. This story was a bit fishy, however, especially since there was no mention of individual task training. Lots of animals with working ears look towards the location of sounds. That's not a trained task.
 
I understand about having service dogs, and I have never minded them being in a restraunt or any business, but here also an issue who is to say who is telling the truth and who is lieing just cause they say it does not make it true especially if you look back and see Sonnys never refused a service animal.

Ok the girl her family and friends claim the dog they got last year which is posted in the record says they got it from a breeder that breeds low key dogs, nothing said it came from a trainer, was trained as a service dog, I read it takes as little as 6 months to train a dog for hearing impared, I know there is no way to train a new born puppy to 5 months old to assist in alerting when someone is nearing.. The girl and her family even said the dog has a leash but she was carrying the dog, they also said they have a service card id, but if this was such a big issue why wasn't it just shown.

My thing is and regardless of what some twit says or claims to know about me, I am not against anyone with a service dog, but if this was such a big issue why not just show the card since the dog was being carried like a pet ( service animals can not be pets) then fight the issue, but to claim you were embarassed, kicked out (said dog cant come in), traumatic feeling, emotional pain, suffering and consequential damages and emotional distress, and to say this girl is not on a equal playing field and don't feel safe. If all that were true why would anyone want to ask for food certificates more or less go back to a place that caused you such damage. They said they looked for an attorney for 6 months but no attorneys would touch it but found one in Jacksonville, I am sure the Attorney in Jacksonville took it cause its free publicity and hoping for a settlement. If these people were violated and damaged why try and settle out of court, wouldn't you want to set an example and instead of trying to make money off it say any money won would be donated to help further education instead of saying so this doesn't happen to my (her) friends, well what about everyone else.

All the years Sonny's has been in business and have let service animals in why would they start now breaking the law and refusing a service animal in. Just cause someone says they did and has friends and family to agree only makes it bias, anyone knows family and friends will stick together.
 
Ok then why is it when something goes wrong they cry state law and when its turned down they then cry federal law?
 
Wow I just learned something new. I just got off the the phone with ADA. I was told you have to check with each State on what the laws are in regards to leashes, and since Florida has a leash law that law has to be obeyed, ADA will not over step that, and also if you take a service animal into a restraunt, the restraunt can ask what task its preforms.

So the claim is the animal can alert the owner that someone is behind you, so what purpose does the service aniaml provide in a restraunt especially when there are people behind, in front and on the side of you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top