2 votes

Virginia restaurant refuses service to wounded vet with service dog

The wife of a wounded war veteran says she and her husband was kicked out of a Virginia restaurant for bringing in his service dog.

Patty Horan told WUSA9.com that she and her husband, Pat, were asked to leave the Village Café in Centreville by the owner's wife after walking in with the dog, Wilson.

"I tried to explain to her that this isn't just a regular pet, this is a service dog. My husband is disabled. She really didn't want to listen to any of it. She just wanted us to leave the restaurant," she told the station.

Patty said she and her husband were given the option to sit outside but there were no tables or chairs set up, according to the report.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They can be sued for violating the Civil Rights Act

I don't know whether Virginia has an "exemption for service dogs" but they will after the federal government gets through with them.

Wounded Vet?

Do you mean "VETerinarian?

None of your tax money from the "vet" being spent in that restaurant!

The tax-eater couldn't eat? So?

SO ?

Who owns the restaurant ?
She can serve or reject whomever she pleases (even those who served the empire).


They should be able to refuse service to anyone, regardless of reason.

Now the restaurant has bad press for it, which acts as retaliation. Seems fair to me. Maybe the owners will consider a better solution, maybe they wont. That is their risk to take.

Should they also be able to sell you contaminated food?

Once you use private property in commerce the rules change and that is the way it should be.

Agree completely. There has

Agree completely. There has to be a reasonable amount of regulation. Balance is key, not ideological extremes. The day the liberty movement wraps their collective (yes, collective) heads around this concept, they will become a dominant force.

Everyone likes freedom and liberty. The movement,however, likes to pretend that an internet connection is the equivalent of having multiple Ph.D. s in physics, chemistry and biology, and carrying a mobile laboratory in your back pocket.

You can't check or research everything with any degree of efficiency or accuracy. The govt. thus regulates things and frees up our minds so we can put them to other matters, more important matters. The goal should be to ensure that the govt. discharges these duties properly rather than salivating over the prospect of an economic collapse and the ensuing anarchy.

False equivalency

The Americans with Disabilities Act isn't about protecting the public from dangerous food, it's about forcing common rules on vendors, distorting the free market. There are still states which don't prohibit smoking in restaurants. I don't go to the restaurants which permit smoking. For customer preference, it should be OK to ban smoking and service animals, or not to.

Government regulations should be limited to protecting us from hidden hazards, that is, hidden hazards.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

I had moved off topic, was

I had moved off topic, was just responding to Bob's post.

You are against it because you feel that govt. shouldn't legislate morality. I simply don't believe such a blanket ban is enough for complex societies.

For example isn't murder an immoral act? You will come at it from the point of view that it is a 'natural right' or something, but that supposed right is also a human creation and its something we give great importance too.

We all want to live in a polite society so prohibiting patently discriminatory activities and practices is definitely not the biggest problem we face today.

Yes, they should be able to sell you contaminated food

if they have identified it as such and you made an informed decision to purchase.

If they sell you contaminated food and have represented it as safe, they have committed a fraud and would be subject to tort actions for damages.

I suggest the Vet get proactive,

the Americans with Disabilities Act has teeth. Any place open to the public cannot refuse service to a person with a service animal. Do some research on the settlement with Walmart. Walmart was sued under the ADA:

Service Animal Policy


Now Walmart will not quest animals being admitted in some stores

Dogs are allowed to run free in my Walmart store and the animal owners don't clean up after them when they pee,poop or vomit. Had a puppy vomit down two isles including the main one and the owner didn't even alert anyone...I young girl slipped in the vomit and was luckily not hurt bad but inconsolable when she found out what it was she slipped into. Service animals that are trained act better than people. the owner is ignorant and probably paranoid of germs.

How very libertarian of you

The ADA imposes obligations on private individuals and the use of their private property. While you and I may agree that a person using a service animal may deserve an exception to the 'no dogs allowed' rule that exists in most establishments, that is not the preference of the restaurant owner. We need to respect that, even if we condemn her for being close minded and cruel. It is her property...and she doesn't deserve this young couple's money.

Protection of property will lead to protection of the most vulnerable by getting the government out of the business of imposing itself on peaceful private persons.

You will have the moral

You will have the moral authority to preach like this the day you refuse to pay income tax.

As long as the law exists you can't or at least shouldn't disregard it. The vet should definitely sue the bastards.

Lighten up on the Romans 13

I reject unjust laws and enjoy breaking them whenever it is rational to do so.

I'm sure the vet will invoke the "I fought for your freedoms" mantra. When he does, he should be reminded of the freedom of association.

If you want to live in a free country, then you must accept that peaceful people will do things you disagree with.

Exactly what I said. A

Exactly what I said. A militant libertarian until your self-interest is at stake =)

I'm not religious. Simply saying that it is rational to act within the law for your own well being. And if the law holds provisions to right a wrong that has been done to you-use it.

I was puzzled when I saw newscasters treating libertarians as a joke. Now things are becoming clearer. They undoubtedly have good ideas but for the most part are too divorced from reality to make a difference in the real world.

Can you imagine a libertarian going on the pulpit and mouthing off about aliens, reptilians, 9/11 conspiracies, anti-vaccine rhetoric that are such a staple diet of the daily Paul? No wonder they laughed. Ron Paul is unfortunate to be associated with such people.

Paging Mr Bumble

"As long as the [Fugitive Slave Act] exists you can't ... disregard it."

Because if it's THE LAW it is sacred and we MUST obey. See slaves or jews trying to escape, then turn them in. The law is the law, and no moral exceptions exist. You will only have the moral authority to criticise any law when you are defying all of them.

I'm beginning to get a handle on archist thinking. Thanks for the enlightenement.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

Criticize the law, but not

Criticize the law, but not the person following it.

Some people will be very quick to advocate ideological purity for others while they will beg and scrounge as soon as their self-interest is involved.

Such a person is an ideologue as well as a hypocrite.

Something bad happened to the vet. He has every right to bring down the letter of the law on the restaurant.

You've got the wrong equation

It isn't two wrongs that make a right, but three lefts.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america