Post by High Priestess on Jun 19, 2019 14:55:50 GMT
It should be pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a few moments: all pets are emotional support animals. That is why we have them. We have an emotional connection to them, and this supports us.
Hence, the term "emotional support animal" as something distinct from a pet and entitled to special privileges that the ordinary pet is not entitled to, such as being allowed into various "no pets" areas, is idiotic.
Extending the term "emotional support animal" to pretend it's a "service animal" that takes care of someone with a serious disability, is even worse than idiotic -- it is fraud, and it's offensive. And increasingly, this kind of abuse of the term "service animal" is harming those who are really disabled and really need service animals.
So it's good that states are cracking down on this kind of problem
www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/us/emotional-support-animal.html
Now Airbnb also needs to crack down on the problem and stop lumping in emotional support animals with service animals. Airbnb should not require hosts to accept any "emotional service animal" because these are nothing but pets.
Airbnb policy stated here: www.airbnb.com/help/article/1405/airbnb-s-nondiscrimination-policy--our-commitment-to-inclusion-and-respect
Reading the New York Times article, it becomes clear that it was a big mistake for any court or lawmaker to create the "emotional support animal" category in the first place, as something that a person ostensbly has more need for, than others who just have a "pet." The argument is made that people whose depression or anxiety is helped by an animal, must be allowed to have that animal, keep it in a no-pets apartment, bring it with them wherever they go, they are given more rights than those who simply have pets.
This was where the law went badly astray. How great someone's emotional need is, to break the law or no-pets policy, can never be a valid argument. Obviously there is no reliable external, objective measure of such emotional need or one's emotional state. THis is completely different from someone having a physical medical disability such as being blind, which could create a need for a true service animal.
Hence, the term "emotional support animal" as something distinct from a pet and entitled to special privileges that the ordinary pet is not entitled to, such as being allowed into various "no pets" areas, is idiotic.
Extending the term "emotional support animal" to pretend it's a "service animal" that takes care of someone with a serious disability, is even worse than idiotic -- it is fraud, and it's offensive. And increasingly, this kind of abuse of the term "service animal" is harming those who are really disabled and really need service animals.
So it's good that states are cracking down on this kind of problem
www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/us/emotional-support-animal.html
Now Airbnb also needs to crack down on the problem and stop lumping in emotional support animals with service animals. Airbnb should not require hosts to accept any "emotional service animal" because these are nothing but pets.
Airbnb policy stated here: www.airbnb.com/help/article/1405/airbnb-s-nondiscrimination-policy--our-commitment-to-inclusion-and-respect
Reading the New York Times article, it becomes clear that it was a big mistake for any court or lawmaker to create the "emotional support animal" category in the first place, as something that a person ostensbly has more need for, than others who just have a "pet." The argument is made that people whose depression or anxiety is helped by an animal, must be allowed to have that animal, keep it in a no-pets apartment, bring it with them wherever they go, they are given more rights than those who simply have pets.
This was where the law went badly astray. How great someone's emotional need is, to break the law or no-pets policy, can never be a valid argument. Obviously there is no reliable external, objective measure of such emotional need or one's emotional state. THis is completely different from someone having a physical medical disability such as being blind, which could create a need for a true service animal.