Therapy dogs: stop crafting loopholes to fair, reasonable laws

Legal framework and loopholes

• US ADA rules allow service dogs almost everywhere but provide no official licensing or registry; businesses may only ask two narrow questions.
• Commenters say this invites abuse: many pets in vests or with memorized answers are presented as “service dogs,” especially to avoid hotel fees or housing pet bans.
• Comparison is made to disabled parking placards: these require government authorization and carry penalties for fraud, whereas lying about service animals has little practical consequence.
• Emotional support animals (ESAs) are distinct: under the Fair Housing Act they can override “no pets” housing rules with a broad definition of disability, but they have no public‑access rights—though people often blur this.

Cultural and international context

• Several note that US norms around indoor pets and dog access differ from Europe and elsewhere, where dogs in homes may be rarer but public accommodations can be less accessible overall.
• Immigrants from Europe describe the US as a lower‑trust, more rule‑skirting culture (e.g., license-plate covers, dark tints), with more gaming of accommodations.

Enforcement, trust, and rule-following

• Some are primarily upset about lawbreaking itself: unenforced “no pets” signs at farmers’ markets and parks are seen as eroding respect for all rules.
• Others argue these particular bans are overcautious health-code artifacts and that strict enforcement would be petty.
• Debate over “there are bigger problems” versus the idea that tolerating small antisocial behavior undermines social norms.

Public space, safety, and where dogs belong

• Rough consensus from many: no dogs in grocery stores or indoor restaurants; more tolerance for dogs in hardware stores and on patios.
• Conflicts about “no dogs” trails and parks: one side cites safety, allergies, feces, and ecological impact; the other sees hostility to dogs and over‑sanitization of space.
• Dog parks are split: some report they produce bad behavior and disease; others have overwhelmingly positive local experiences.
• Strong worry about large/powerful breeds near children, especially pit bulls, countered by claims that training and handling matter more than breed.

Identifying real vs fake service animals

• Real service dogs are described as quiet, focused, non‑reactive, and unobtrusive; wandering, begging, or barking in public is treated as a clear red flag.
• Some advocate loudly calling out “fake service dogs”; others warn this risks shaming people with legitimate but invisible disabilities (e.g., PTSD, panic disorders).

Broader societal implications

• A few see ESA/service-dog abuse as part of a “no consequences” culture (also citing speeding, petty theft, “just a prank” defenses).
• Others think focusing moral outrage on dogs is trivial compared to systemic rule‑breaking by institutions and officials, leading to meta‑debates about whataboutism.