Ruin it For Everyone: Register Your Own Fake Service Animal!

Moonwalking with Einstein - The Art and Science of Remembering Everything

Subscriber Link - click here to make yours.

Wednesday, 2 November 2016

quote [ Business owners, take heed: this problem is becoming rampant as more and more people enter the market of selling certification, registration, and IDs (including laminated cards, collars, leashes, and vests) for service dogs to anyone, for a fee, and without any oversight. The lure of selling something that costs less than a buck to make (such as a certificate or ID card) for $40 and more, is just too tempting to pass by. ]

Why wait to screw over the disabled? Register your own fake service animal today!

THE GROWING PROBLEM WITH FAKE SERVICE DOGS:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/fake-service-dog-certificates_n_3709720.html

"In an exclusive story, the Post shared a number of accounts of candid dog owners in New York City who have simply bought bogus patches, vests and certificates that look like the real thing, slapped them on their dogs and now head off together pretty much anywhere they want to go without any trouble. Some say they do it for the convenience of it, others say it helps them with their dating prospects.

?He?s been to most movie theaters in the city, more nightclubs than most of my friends,? Brett David, 33, a restaurateur told the Post of his Maltese Yorkie.?I don?t care who you are, a teacup Yorkie will trump a black [American Express] card when you?re trying to pick up a girl.?"

http://kxan.com/investigative-story/fake-service-dogs-the-harm-caused-by-pet-owners-who-break-the-rules/

"Many people with disabilities, such as Baer, legitimately need a service animal, but a KXAN Investigation found websites and policies can enable sneaky pet owners, who want to abuse the laws, to get out of paying a pet deposit at an apartment, let their animals fly free or even gain access to restaurants with their pets.

"The people who are out there misrepresenting service dogs is one of the [largest], if not the largest problem we have,? said Baer. "You have dogs who don't have public access rights who aren't trained to responsibly behave in public. They bark, they growl, they lunge at other dogs or people even.?"

http://www.kesq.com/news/fake-service-dogs-cause-real-problems/62562028

Reveal

THOUSAND PALMS - There is a new band of criminals in the Coachella Valley and they're proving difficult to sniff out. You've seen them at restaurants, the mall and airport. You may even be an accomplice to one...the fake service dog.

A growing trend of people are breaking the law by dressing their personal pet up and passing them off as a service dog; taking the untrained pup into businesses otherwise not frequented by the four legged kind.

It's easy to do online. We ordered a vest, certificate and ID card for $142. There are less expensive sites but they don't include the same items. With minimal questions asked and a credit card we received our kit within five business days. Proof of our dog's training and proof of our disability were never needed.

The American's with Disabilities Act defines a service dog as one "trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability". Businesses must permit service dogs to accompany people with disabilities in all areas where the public is allowed to go.

The dog we chose to use for our investigation is Beamer. He has never had any kind of training, doesn't know the simple command "sit", and isn't even the name of the dog on our certificate or ID.

We dressed him up and walked him through the aisles of a couple of grocery stores. Our handler (person with presumed disability) paraded him by employees and shoppers, never once being stopped.

A couple shoppers bent down to pet Beamer, others told our fake handler how adorable he was. One grocery store opened a new check out line just for our fake handler & service dog while other shoppers waited.

Demonstrating how easy it is to switch out the costume in a household with multiple dogs, we then dressed a different dog in the exact same vest and visited two restaurants. Both restaurants seated us inside with other diners, no questions asked.

Establishments that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises. It was a little unsettling because our second dog, "Tubby" was restless, nervously shedding and whining at one restaurant. Our fake handler fed the dog food from his plate to calm her.

Had either of our dogs been true service dogs then both handlers and dogs would have behaved differently.

Sandy Fike-Boisvert, a doctoral student at Walden University working on her dissertation for her Phd in clinical psychology, is a clinician-trainer who prepares service dogs to assist veterans with disabilities. She tells Local 2 it's not a simple process to train a dog for a life of service.

According to Fike-Boisvert, "A dog needs to do basic behavioral training--sit, come, stay, and know their names. Service dogs have to be able to perform specific tasks for you, something to help you overcome any disabilities or deficits you may have and not be able to do on your own." In addition, " A trainer needs to take the service dog with the handler and work them together so the handler can identify what the dog is trying to tell them."

Fike-Boisvert, is currently training a dog that will be able to alert its handler when it is time to take his medication. She herself knows personally how dangerous fake service dogs can be. She was mauled by a supposed service dog. After two weeks in the hospital she required a service dog of her own and the agency that had presumably trained the dog that mauled her had closed it doors and disappeared.

It turns out the law makes it difficult for businesses to doubt a service dog's validity.

Staff can only ask two questions:

1. Is the service dog required because of a disability?

2. What work or task has the dog been trained to do?

Any other questions are a violation of the ADA and could land a business owner in deep trouble.

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless the dog is out of control and the handler can't control it, or if the dog is not housebroken.

Businesses face huge fines if they fail to accommodate a legitimate service dog. It costs $55,000 dollars for a first offense and $100,000 dollars for each additional offense. Plus, California adds civil fines.

Falsely accusing a valid service dog can result in lawsuits as well. This makes a business fearful to question a service dog's credibility.

Privacy issues are not the only problem with ADA rules and regulations. There is also NO governing body to legitimize service dogs or their trainers. Meaning there are no set standards for the training of dogs or the person training them. There are also no licenses or certifications.

The only exception to this are the Guide Dogs for the Blind. They are classified differently from service dogs and fall under the Department of Consumer Affairs. Training of guide dogs is extensive and instructors are are licensed through the state.

The recent increase of people using fake service dogs is not only a hand-tying dilemma for businesses, but it's also a big concern for people who live with real disabilities.

Service dogs are not pets, they are the eyes, ears, arms or legs to a person in need. They lead, guide and protect. There have been reports of real service dogs being attacked by fake untrained service dogs and handlers being abused by the public because their disability is invisible.

When an inquiry was made as to why there is no regulating governing body and why no standards exist for service dogs and their trainers, we received this email response from the U.S. Department of Justice:

"The Americans with Disabilities Act is a civil rights law to protect the rights of people with disabilities, including those who use service animals. The ADA does not address individuals without disabilities, such as anyone who many falsely claim that a pet is a service animal. Because this issue does not address the civil rights of people with disabilities it is not in our regulating authority under the ADA to issue regulations to penalize false claims that a pet is a service animal. However we note that the state, civil or criminal law may already penalize such claims"

A fake service dog is more apt to behave inappropriately, destroy property or injure another customer.

Fike-Boisvert explains why fake service dogs are dangerous, "They're dangerous first of all because you don't know how they were trained. a lot of them are not marked appropriately with a vest to let the public know, also the public is not normally educated on the rules of service dogs: No touching, no talking, no direct contact."

She also tells us petting and playing with a service dog is a big No-No. Service dogs are not pets they are working dogs and any distractions keep them from doing their job.

The ADA's regulations that a business owner may only ask a couple vague questions about a service dog's authenticity and because of the lack of any governing agency to regulate service dog's and trainers, a huge loophole has been created.

Some dog owners who don't have a disability are faking it so they can take their pets everywhere they go.

In California it is a misdemeanor to fake a service dog, punishable by six months in county jail and or up to a 1,000 dollar fine.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fake-service-dogs-growing-problem-f8C11366537

"Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it's a federal crime to use a fake dog. And about a fourth of all states have laws against service animal misrepresentation. But privacy protections built into the laws make it nearly impossible to prosecute offenders. It's even more difficult because no papers are legally required for real service dogs. Often, people who want to take their pets into restaurants or retail stores just go online to buy vests, backpacks or ID cards with a "service animal" insignia."

http://www.anythingpawsable.com/fake-service-dog-complications/#.WBlfceArKM8

"Rules exist for a reason and when it comes to Service Dogs and Service Dog law, too many people have come to view them more as ?guidelines.? Whether it?s someone who wishes they could take their dog everywhere or someone who has chosen to break the law by presenting their pet as a fake Service Dog, both actions cause damage and harm to the Service Dog and disabled community."

HOW CAN I SCREW OVER DISABLED PEOPLE BY REGISTERING MY FAKE SERVICE DOG?

These sites hide behind a thin veil of legitimacy, but ultimately they will sell a kit to anyone who has the cash. A real service dog doesn't need any of the stuff these sites are trying to sell you.

http://registerservicedogs.com/

https://www.officialservicedogregistry.com/register-your-dog/

http://usdogregistry.org/

https://usaservicedogs.org/

Just search for "take my dog anywhere" or "fake service dog kit" and you'll find lots of results!

This is a serious problem that impacts people who need and use real service animals. While it is important to respect the ADA and not hassle people who need service animals, it is clear we need a solution to suss out jerks who just want to take their dog everywhere and exploit the ADA.

PROTIP: Real service dogs don't need to go out of their way to prove they are service dogs. Fake service dogs come with lots of documentation because fakers know people will try to call them on it and they need something to fall back on.

EVEN IF: A service dog can be a real service dog, but if it defecates on your floor, jumps on people, is aggressive, or otherwise disrupts the location, the ADA states that the animal can be forbidden from the premises. Even a real service dog isn't welcome everywhere, all the time, under all circumstances. There are limits.

[SFW] [do it yourSElf]	[+5]
[by eidolon@3:55amGMT]

Comments

foobar said @ 4:23am GMT on 2nd Nov [Score:3 Underrated]

I'm not sure I have much of a problem with using these against scummy landlords. If you're not allowed to discriminate against babies in housing, you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against other pets either.

eidolon said @ 7:03am GMT on 2nd Nov

I disagree on that point. Not all animals are equal. Some species of animal are highly destructive. For instance, a skunk may be legal to keep as a pet, but it will try to burrow through the floors. Many rodents tend to eat floor runners and dry wall.

It does suck that some landlords do not allow pets, but pets don't have the same legal standing as children. If they did, they couldn't be service animals because that's child labor.

I side with the landlords. It is their property and they have a right to refuse service to non-humans. In a functioning system, other landlords will see the opportunity and offer pet friendly properties (though these come with pet rent, higher deposits, etc). This is not happening in places like New York and that sucks, but if that's the case tenants' rights need to be updated. Creating a fake service animal to cheat around the system isn't the right answer.

That said, I do sympathize with people who have few choices of where to live, no animal friendly choices, and no where else to go. I would never ask them to give up their pet. I wouldn't consider them a bad person for finding any loophole they could, but that is far from ideal. It's better to fix the system than cheat it.

foobar said @ 7:16am GMT on 2nd Nov [Score:1 Underrated]

Babies are pretty destructive, and they're no more or less necessary than any other pet.

We don't have a functioning system. I'm all for fixing it, but I think we both know that isn't likely to happen. Until it is, landlords need to be kept on a very tight leash, and we need to make occasional examples of any that step out of line even a little bit.

shiftace said @ 11:03am GMT on 2nd Nov

I hate it when my neighbors wallk their landlords in my yard and let them shit by my mailbox.

Bob Denver said @ 5:12am GMT on 2nd Nov [Score:3 Funny]

I once had to take my dog down a dog-forbidden path (it was a bit of an emergency and it was the quickest way back). She was on her lead and we ran into a woman who was annoyed that I had her there. I "justified" her presence by claiming that she was a "smelling nose dog" like seeing eye dogs etc. and that I had lost my sense of smell and she was able to fulfil that function. Mollified, the woman made a fuss over the dog who promptly stuck her nose into the woman's crotch. I definitely got a "look" for that.

Headlessfriar said @ 4:31am GMT on 2nd Nov

I just want fake service animal cards for animals I couldn't possibly have, like my helper-Quetzalcoatlus northropi. Her name is Bernice, and she block traffic for me so I can safely cross the street. She can also eat most other service animals whole, which I use as a threat to make sure they have proper paperwork.

backSLIDER said @ 4:39am GMT on 2nd Nov

I live in a town that loves dogs. My parents motorcycle group had their permit for a parade to raise money for the food bank. Then it got pulled so the "big dog parade" could have their parade... to benefit... dog owners? I guess?
Anyway I've seen these bullshit service dogs around here. Shit pisses me off. I knew a kid in high school who had a service dog. I know (well my family does) a service dog trainer. These dogs are important and faking service dogs should be a fine.

sanepride said @ 4:51am GMT on 2nd Nov

Someone Brought an Emotional Support Duck on an Airplane- gotta say I was pretty irritated at how this story was played for awwwww cuteness when it's just another case of some entitled douche gaming the system.
This New Yorker article from a couple of years ago is required reading on the subject of service animal overreach. Service alpaca anyone?

machpi said @ 5:31am GMT on 2nd Nov

There was also a support pig on an AA flight a few years ago which ended up running up and down the aisle be-shitting everything.

rylex said @ 6:42am GMT on 2nd Nov

And subsequently, the lady and her pig were rightfully and legally taken off the flight.

kylemcbitch said @ 5:14am GMT on 2nd Nov

Show me some verifiable statistics on the amount of people doing this vs the amount of people in actual need or get out of my face. People can, and have, made similar claims of extremely rare events to justify all manner of loss of liberty or basic rights.

sanepride said @ 5:42am GMT on 2nd Nov

If any douchebag can pay to obtain a bogus 'certification' and vest for their dog, pig, duck, etc I'd think it would be near impossible to find verifiable statistics on how many of them there are. That said, I don't really see any loss of liberty or basic rights issue here. People who feel like they should be able to take their pets wherever they go are granting themselves special 'rights' at the expense and potential endangerment of people who rely on genuine service animals.

kylemcbitch said @ 5:55am GMT on 2nd Nov

The loss of the right to interact in society under your own agency, perhaps? How about the right to be assumed not to be a criminal while performing perfectly legal activity like living your life and going where you need.

This is just "papers, please" present so people can be white knights and feel good about basically assigning a whole class of people to 2nd class status.

eidolon said @ 6:11am GMT on 2nd Nov

No one is losing any rights here. People who need animals should get them. People who don't need to be punished. The current system makes it impossible. Give the real deal a state issued tag like a rabies vaccination tag.

I don't know why you think I am trying to keep the otherly abled from interacting with society. I am trying to keep jerkwads from making that harder with their actions that cast doubt on everyone. Will you please stop being so hostile? I am not here to murder your puppy.

kylemcbitch said @ 6:18am GMT on 2nd Nov

The problem is in the very nature of issue. First, you think you know what needs a service animal or not. That is not a choice that anyone but the people who need one, and their primary care personnel should be allowed to make. Just because someone uninvolved might think for example, it is laughable that someone might get a horse as a service animal there are plenty of valid reasons why that might be. Muslims kinda hate dogs. Anxiety is a thing with very little outward expression, and a dog can certainly help, etc, etc, etc.

Then there is the matter how could you possibly enforce this without then having to treat a handicapped person's life like a controlled substance? No one but the police or agents of the law should be allowed for force someone to justify their presence somewhere when they are not acting outside the law. The suspicion they are is not good enough.

eidolon said @ 6:57am GMT on 2nd Nov

I DON'T THINK I KNOW THAT. I think a doctor and the government regulators should determine who needs a service animal.

In the specific case of that little girl, it sounds like the school provided accomodation. You can disagree. The government will resolve it. My only real issue was that a broad-reaching decision would open the floodgates. Any ruling in her case should pertain ONLY to her case until we figure out how to make this system better and more consistent.

Service dogs need extensive training. Why can't they just get their special service tag when they complete their training? That should not add any substantial burden. They wear the tag on their collar just like all the other tags they're already required to wear (like vaccination and city registration tags) and the problem is solved.

No tag? You get a fine. Have a tag but forgot it? Just send in the number from your tag and fine automatically dismissed.

There are people literally just buying service kits who don't need service animals according to their doctor or any government agency. That is not ok. Those animals aren't real service animals and are untrained and unpredictable. Dog bites are a common injury in the US. Untrained dogs allowed anywhere in public because some jerk paid money for fake papers is a problem.

What the hell is wrong with you??

kylemcbitch said^[1] @ 7:08am GMT on 2nd Nov

Allow me to quote you:

"If this girl were blind, for instance, and the dog were truly fundamental to her ability to function, I wouldn't question the school's choice. But it sounds like they went out of their way to accommodate her and it wasn't good enough for her parents' standards."

-Eidolon

Sure as fuck looks like you are claiming to have knowledge of what is fundamental to her ability to function, since you seem to have already settled on the opinion that agreed with the school. So yes, you in fact are guilty of acting like you know better.

"Broad reaching rulings are usually not in everyone's best interests. Sure, let this kid have the dog she was functioning without, but since no one has any right to determine who actually needs a dog, don't be surprised when suddenly everyone does and you nor I have any right to question it."

-Eidolon

Guess what? You don't have the right to question it, not if questioning is asking them to prove it to you. You have no authority to demand someone prove a medical condition to you. You have no authority to unilaterally demand to see someone's ID just because you want to. Even the police can't force me to give them ID.

I could go on for you, but I am fairly sure I proved my point. You should know better. Knock it the fuck off.

As for your other points:

Fuck you, you don't get to force people to be second class citizens and have to prove shit to you, or anyone until such a time as there is reasonable suspicion they are in fact committing a crime. That is the fucking basic right of every free person in the world.

Hanging ID on your car? Fine. Your car is not part of your agency. Your service dog is. You should not fine people for what is not illegal, and should never be illegal. Someone's condition is frankly none of your god damn business. Nor is their treatment and therapy. The law is written as it on purpose, because again... you are no one special, property owners and buisness owners are no one special. They don't have the right to demand you provide them papers for activities that are not illegal or controlled, and by your suggestions you would make the handicapped lives treated like controlled substances, since anyone, anywhere apparently would have the right to demand they prove themselves. Your own government doesn't have the power to do that.

eidolon said @ 10:32am GMT on 2nd Nov

I give up on you. You are wilfully obstinate and are fine with a broken system that ultimately hurts people who need service animals just because you're incapable of admitting you're wrong about fake service animals.

kylemcbitch said @ 10:53am GMT on 2nd Nov

It's not that I am wrong, it's that you are dismissively suggesting we should allow unreasonable searches of people who have committed no crimes, and who's only "suspicious behaviour" is having a service animal.

This is not 1984, you are not encouraged to make citizens arrest. If someone has broken the law, then call the authorities and they can sort it out. That is how it is supposed to be handled. You want to make it so that at any time, any mother fucker can bother someone with a service animal to inspect them. That service animal is not like a fucking car. The person with the animal literally can not function properly without it. You do not get to turn someone elses life into a fucking dystopian nightmare because you have a problem with illegal, fake service animals.

shiftace said^[1] @ 11:21am GMT on 2nd Nov

This is 1984. Private businesses already have the right to treat everyone like criminals. Most night clubs frisk and or use metal detectors on patrons. Disney looks through your bags. Airport's have secret laws. Disabled people should be treated like criminals, just like everyone else.

kylemcbitch said @ 11:37am GMT on 2nd Nov

None of those people are forced to reveal part of their medical treatment and history to a stranger, and none of them are being forced to lose one or more of their senses, or mental stability in order to partake.

That is what I mean by second class citizen. You are forcing these people to be answerable to other people that under the law, do not have the authority to demand documentation from anyone unless it part of a legally controlled activity, like selling smokes, or going to a 21+ club.

I categorically stand against making a situation where there is justification for making legal activity subject to invasive control. No other people are forced to provide ID, documentation, or papers to anyone, except by court order or law that is to be enforced by the actual authorities.

I categorically stand against something that would make an entire class of people walking probable cause.

We should treat disabled people like everyone else, including respecting their basic god damn rights a people and Americans.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

sanepride said @ 12:57pm GMT on 2nd Nov

Thing is under current law legitimate service animal users are not required to show any documentation for accommodation. The people pulling out documents are typically the scofflaws.

kylemcbitch said @ 1:07pm GMT on 2nd Nov

Right, and the point is the suggestion is changing that so that people are required to prove they are allowed to do this because other people are abusing the system. Now you're caught up.

sanepride said @ 1:29pm GMT on 2nd Nov

The suggestion, as I understand it, is for some sort of standardized certification, which already exists in some states. Not to force people to prove their need but to discourage those who have none.

kylemcbitch said @ 1:33pm GMT on 2nd Nov

Yes, if you get certification that still doesn't help the issue. Because the issue is that people do not believe the service dog is real and they want to be able to confirm. That want, however, is the problem. Because that is discriminatory to the people who need the service dogs to function.

It's not about requiring a certificate, it is about requiring them to produce it for people who have no right to be asking for such things.

rylex said @ 6:40am GMT on 2nd Nov

Get this, according to ADA law, you dont have to register a servicr animal or carry any papers to identify it as such. Nor do you have to have the animal professionally trained.

The standards are extremeley loose as is the onus of proof.

kylemcbitch said @ 6:48am GMT on 2nd Nov

FOR GOOD FUCKING REASON. How would you like it if someone made it so any random fucking asshole could require you to prove you are allowed to be you in any given situation.

This isn't the Third Reich people, stop it.

sanepride said @ 1:08pm GMT on 2nd Nov

You're barking up the wrong tree here so to speak. No one is asking for or requiring documentation. People who feel compelled to produce it are typically fakers. Basically this is just about trying to discourage entitled assholes from bringing their ill-behaved pampered pets wherever they go, potentially delegitamizing and endangering legitimate service dog users. Why would you have a problem with this?
Full disclosure: my wife is a legitimate service dog user. I do know something about this subject.

kylemcbitch said @ 1:31pm GMT on 2nd Nov

That's just it, actually. People are.

Here, let me explain:

Above, you can see someone suggesting several 4th amendment breaking ideas. Give it a read. This is a continuation of another conversation from a similar post.

But here, let me put it to you as basically as I can:

How can you enforce a law that targets people using fake service animals, that still respects the people who have service animal's right not to be unduly harassed or unreasonably searched?

Keep in mind, that at the heart of this is the fact that a service dog is basically a question about someone's health which guess what... none of anyone's business, by law. How can we create a law that targets the fakers, while respecting the right of the person with a service animal not to divulge their medical information?

The issue is, that you can not. The only way to do it is basically to make service dogs walking probable cause. That isn't going to fly.

Now, if you need me to explain why this is an impossible set of tasks:

A) By having to give documentation to someone about your service animal, you are being force to divulge the fact you have a condition that needs one. Even if you do not have to name the specific condition. No one has the right to know this but your doctors and the people you feel like sharing it with, especially strangers.

B) The 4th Amendment guarantees that there will be no unreasonable search or seizure of people persons, things, papers, property, etc. The dog in this case, is acting as a necessary part of someone living functionally. They could easily be argued to be part of the "person." Regardless, they are certainly property under most law. This is why the police can not arrest you for not providing ID (unless you were doing something controlled by law that requires it, such as driving.)

C) The animals in question are not like cars, or drinking, or buying cigarettes. They are how people that need them navigate the world. They can not be made to be controlled activity, because then you are in a fucking awful situation where you are forcing people to reveal sensitive information to people who have no right to even be requiring it without probable cause. If you make "claiming to have a service dog" probable cause, then those people are ALWAYS going to have probable cause to be questioned and searched, because they always need the dog.

So again, I ask you to offer something that will allow you to do what you would like with respect to points above and lets see if you can come up with something that wont render these people to second class citizen.

sanepride said @ 8:39pm GMT on 2nd Nov

Seriously dude, previous conversations not withstanding, you're getting way too worked up about this.
Once again, the idea is not to require anybody to provide documentation. But requiring some standardization of training and certification at least establishes a baseline for determining legitimacy. Will solve the problem of selfish idiots trying to pass off their pampered pooches (or turtles, turkeys, tarantulas etc) as 'service animals'? Of course not, but some might be deterred by the establishment of a codified standard.

kylemcbitch said @ 9:06pm GMT on 2nd Nov

Yeah, I am worked up about this because you casually suggesting that people in this situation need to sacrifice rights. You would NOT wish to subject yourself to this sort of treatment, so you should not casually be suggesting we subject others.

Again, the issue is not require the dogs be certified. That's fine. The issue is requiring people provide proof of that certification without just cause. You, me, and everyone else in the world are not welcome to demand someone's medical information, or any of their legal documentation except under very specific circumstances which CAN NOT apply here, since it would be legally controlling the everyday life of someone. Every time they stepped into any business or public space they would be required to do something no one else is, and the very nature of the request is illegal.

So yeah, again: please tell me how you play to enforce this considering the actual issues at play and what is legally allowed. Thanks.

sanepride said @ 9:33pm GMT on 2nd Nov

Look we agree on the principle here. No one should have to provide certification, right?
No actual rights are sacrificed.
Yes, enforcement is obviously problematic, that's why I say it won't completely solve the problem. The idea is you hope that with actual law in place at least some people will be deterred just because they know there's a law.

kylemcbitch said @ 10:03pm GMT on 2nd Nov

Well, I can support that, though as you already acquiesced it would be entirely useless since no one should be allowed to require you prove you have that certificate except the law. So you are still in the same position you are now. But at least, that much isn't blatantly against the law.

The ADA is not vague by accident. These are the considerations that went into it, and reason why people can exploit this is the same reason you can't close the exploit: basic human and American rights.

1	ScoobySnacks
2	HoZay
3	Paracetamol
4	cb361
5	mechavolt