[nagdu] Lawmaker relents on plan to bar service animals from restaurants

[Ginger Kutsch]

Lawmaker relents on plan to bar service animals from restaurants - Your West
Valley

News: Valley & State

Capitol Media Services/Howard Fischer

[From:
http://www.yourwestvalley.com/valleyandstate/article_05476d1e-b87f-11e4-80aa
-c38c4f52535f.html]

Amy Porterfield, Dusty

Amy Porterfield and Dusty wait their turn Thursday to tell members of a
House panel why lawmakers should not let restaurant owners keep out service
animals and, by extension, their owners. (Capitol Media Services photo by
Howard Fischer)

Posted: Thursday, February 19, 2015 2:33 pm  By Howard Fischer Capitol Media
Services  PHOENIX -- Facing a wave of criticism and legal questions, a
Flagstaff Republican lawmaker gave up Thursday -- at least for now -- on his
proposal to let restaurant owners keep out service animals and the people
who need them.

Rep. Bob Thorpe even agreed after extensive testimony in opposition to vote
against his own legislation. HB 2179 died with a unanimous vote in
opposition.

But Thorpe said he still believes there is a problem with those who claim
the right to take Rex or Spot or Fluffy wherever they go. And Thorpe said he
hopes to resurrect the proposal in some form "sometime in the future.''

The only question is whether he can do that without running afoul of federal
law.

"Throughout the state we have bad actors,'' Thorpe said. "These are people
that are pretending to be disabled so they can bring, for example, a family
pet into locations that our health code would normally not allow.''

His solution in HB 2179 was to have state health officials issue permits,
complete with photos of owners and the dog or horse, to service animals
which are trained to assist people with disabilities.

Donald Porterfield of the National Federation for the Blind said Arizona
can't do that. He said the Americans with Disabilities Act says people
cannot be required to certify or disclose the nature of their disabilities.

But the real heartburn -- and the real legal flaw -- in Thorpe's proposal
was language which would have let restaurant owners say they want no animals
at all, no matter what. Larry Wanger, executive director of the Arizona
Statewide Independent Living Council, said there's no basis for that.

"It's not a health issue,'' he said. "There aren't dogs running around in
the back of the restaurant.''

Instead, Wanger said, it opens the door to discrimination.

"It simply allows me as a restaurant owner to say, 'I don't like dogs,' ''
he said.

Chianne Hewer of the Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association said
what it also would do is put restaurant owners at risk of violating the ADA
which says pretty plainly that places of public accommodation -- including
restaurants

-- can't turn

away someone solely because he or she has a service animal.

Amy Porterfield, a guide-dog user for 20 years, testified that the federal
law already gives restaurants legal options.

She said the owner can inquire if the service animal supports a disability
-- though not what the disability is -- and can ask if the animal has been
trained. And she said federal law permits a business to eject an animal if
it behaves badly.

Thorpe continued to insist that it wasn't his intent to interfere with the
rights of the disabled, insisting he was trying to help them by ensuring
those who had been certified would get fewer questions. And he promised that
if the House Government and Higher Education Committee approved this measure
he would make changes as the measure went to the full House.

Foes, however, weren't buying it -- or willing to trust that the measure
would get better.

"While your intent may have been to help this community, that's not what
your words say,'' said Sarah Kader, attorney with the Arizona Center for
Disability Law.

Rep. Randall Friese, D-Tucson, agreed, voting to kill the proposal now.

He called the health risks of a service dog "negligible.'' And Friese said
Thorpe's proposal would cause more harm than good.

"I would much rather tolerate a few bad actors than to impinge upon the
rights of people with disabilities,'' he said.