2010-04-29, 07:38 AM
Rick Wrote:Who said they denied the dog specifically because it was gay? Perhaps they just denied it because they didn't think it was a guide dog.
*facepalms*
Sometimes internets people are ridiculous. Ceddy linked two different publications of the story in his OP, both of which include enough information for the startling human phenomenon known as inference. They didn't have to explicitly say the blind man was denied for having an alleged "gay" dog, but because the statement from the restaurant's defense in the hearing was
Both articles Wrote:The restaurant's owners said a misunderstanding had arisen between Jolly's female companion and a waiter who understood the woman "to be saying she wanted to bring a gay dog into the restaurant".
"The staff genuinely believed that Nudge was an ordinary pet dog which had been desexed to become a gay dog," a statement from the hearing said.
It can be inferred that the reason given to the public for the barring of the blind man from eating at the establishment was because of a misunderstanding of the sexual orientation of the canine.
I'm not attacking you specifically, Rick, but it just annoys me how presumptuous people try to be on the internet in recent times. It's appropriate to use logical "What If" statements when the information provided is enigmatic and could also feasibly support an alternative theory. However, there are a large number of cases in which adequate information is provided to strongly support one conclusion, yet people still try and pull the "what if" card, blaming the person using basic 8th grade cognitive science for presuming something that every shred of information provided leads to. Hell, had Rick even read the articles he wouldn't have come up with his alternate theory, as they clearly state that not only did the restaurant have an outdoor sign welcoming guide dogs, but when intitially refused entry the blind man produced documentation proving his dog was a registered seeing-eye dog.
lern2read and infer, people.