Every good societal intention can be perverted for personal gain.

Those in society who feign disability or frailty are leveraging the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to ensure their lives are easier. 

All the while, those with real disabilities long to for a life where it is not necessary. 

When the ADA was signed into law in 1990 by George H.W. Bush, there was purposeful intent to create access to buildings, transportation, and even communication for those members of society who were limited in some physical capacity.  The law (Title 1) prohibited discrimination against people due to their physical limitation and required reasonable accommodations be made to allow people to pursue and/or execute their jobs.  One of these reasonable accommodations is the use of a service animal.  Service animals, most of which are dogs, but also miniature horses, go through a rigorous training program to allow them to perform tasks directly related to a person’s disability (i.e., that of a seeing eye dog for the blind). 

Service animals provide and fill in some of those the physical gaps that a disabled person may not be able to perform on a daily basis; these animals do work.  While there is emotional bond between the person and their service animal, that is not primary purpose. 

Recently there has been a shift, where the accommodation of a service animal has become corrupted by a narcissistic hypersensitive segment of society that seems to think that a service animal and emotional support animal (ESA) are one in the same.  This, of course, is not the case. The American Kennel Club clearly states on their home page the following:

• Emotional support dogs are pets and not service dogs
• Mental health professionals may prescribe ESAs under the law
• Airlines are no longer required to accommodate ESAs

This emotional support culture has birthed a questionable support industry that can provide everything from vests for your ESA to official-looking documents and licenses, all of which convey no authoritative source.

Of course, this trope plays well to the entitled narcissistic segment of society who fail to take the time to understand the law or even try to conform to societal standards. 

Instead, because they “need” support they take their dog, peacock, or emotional support duck into Starbucks or the TSA pre-check line, thereby causing unneeded chaos and collateral damage for unsuspecting patrons who just want to get on with their lives. 

The Starbucks manager or TSA agent then has to tell the person that their ESA is not permitted in the facility but will then quickly retreat in an effort to comfort and accommodate the hysterical individual and quell the situation.  This happens dozens if not hundreds of times a year and each time it erodes societal norms a little bit more.   

To stop this chronic over-accommodation of the hysterical minority, there are a few steps that can be taken. 

The first, but maybe the hardest, in a courteous non-confrontational manner, just say “no” and do not apologize – coffee shops, dormitories, airports, bakeries, and retails stores are not equipped to deal with ESAs that may be undisciplined. These people and their pets need to be removed and/or not permitted entry no matter how hysterical they may become.  

The second, which is more litigious, is to have consistent policy and language when dealing with this issue.  The Fair Housing Act (FHA) runs counter to the ADA, in that it recognizes and allows ESAs to be brought into rental housing even if the landlord does not permit them.  The FHA also does not make a clear distinction between service and emotional support animals, but instead uses the term “assistance animal for purposeful ambiguity.  The ADA also needs a level of clarity added to allow for owner/operators of businesses and those in positions of authority to directly question the validity of the service animal.  Currently under the law you may ask:

• Is the dog a service animal required because of a disability?

• What work or task has the dog been trained to perform?

You are not allowed to:

• Request any documentation that the dog is registered, licensed, or certified as a service animal

• Require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person’s disability.

Because service animals are not required to wear vests, a dog or any other animal that is wearing a vest is not necessarily a service animal.  People who operate on the margins and look to exploit these accommodations know this and outfit their pet with a vest and have rage at the ready if anyone should question it. 

Dogs at the airport is really a modern metaphor for accommodating those of questionable character who exploit virtue for their own gain or pleasure.  The kindness of strangers can only go so far, in that businesses and authorities will reach a point where any/all animals will not be tolerated in any capacity, and the members of society that need to rely on service animals will become the true victims of over-accommodation.