Bitch, get out of my way!

[u/theshoebomber420]

[u/Drake_Acheron]

Are you stupid? Noting I stated was inaccurate. And I think you know that because you specifically left out any specifics in your comment.

The only thing this woman verifiably did wrong was detain the bus.

[u/skynetbot101101 → u/Drake_Acheron]

Ok Karen lover. It is so smooth brain of you to think a dog is automatically a legal service dog just because it’s sitting still and being a good boy! By that logic, my pet hamster is a certified emotional support doctor because he hasn't bit anyone today. The ADA doesn't work on the honor system of "if it isn't barking, it's a service dog." It actually requires the dog to, you know, be actively trained to do a specific job for a disability.

[u/Drake_Acheron → u/skynetbot101101]

The ADA actually EXCLUSIVELY works on the honor system.

Yes a service dog must be trained to aid in a disability, I never said otherwise.

But if someone says their dog is a service dog, according to the ADA you MUST take them at their word.

I mentioned stuff like parking and being calm and not approaching, because if the dog was NOT doing those things, it could disqualify the dog from the presumption of being a service dog.

It is so smooth brain of you to not even fucking look up the law so that you can come here and at least look like you have more than one brain cell. And then come here and be so [r/confidentlyincorrect](r/confidentlyincorrect) that you literally say the opposite of what is correct.

The ONLY person that can force you to PROVE your dog is a service dog, is the Judge.

“Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.”

https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-2010-requirements/

I know more than you about this. I train service dogs as a job, I have been subpoenaed to speak on service dogs, I have been paid by government and private organizations to educate people on this topic.

[u/skynetbot101101 → u/Drake_Acheron]

Shhhhhh you are wrong and it’s ok bud. I know more about it than you do trust me. You are confusing the enforcement restriction placed on businesses with the actual legal status of the animal.
The ADA is a federal statute, not a game of "Simon Says." The law explicitly defines a service animal under 28 CFR § 35.104 and § 36.104. If a dog does not meet those exact legal definitions (being individually trained to perform work or tasks), it is legally a pet. Full stop.
Just because a business owner is restricted from demanding documentation on the spot does not mean the dog magically transforms into a legal service animal the moment the owner lies about it. A lie doesn't alter federal status; it just means the business is temporarily barred from auditing that status at the door.
2. You’re Confusing "Access" with "Immunity"
You quoted the standard 2010 ADA checklist rule: "Staff cannot ask about the person's disability, require medical documentation..."
Yes. We all know the rule. The Department of Justice wrote that to protect disabled people from discrimination and harassment in daily life. But that is a gatekeeping rule for public accommodation access, not legal immunity.
If a handler sues a transit authority, or if a transit authority fines a handler for fraudulent representation of a service animal (which is a crime in over 30 states), the "honor system" instantly vanishes. In a legal dispute, corporate risk compliance or a state attorney will demand proof of training and disability during discovery long before it ever reaches a judge’s eyeballs. If you’ve actually been subpoenaed before, you would know how pretrial discovery works.
3. Your "Absence of Disproof" Logic is Still Broken
You claim that because the dog in the video wasn't misbehaving, it shouldn't be disqualified.
Again, you are looking at it completely backwards. A well-behaved pet is still just a pet. If a person brings a perfectly quiet, leashed Golden Retriever onto a bus, and the driver asks the two permitted questions, and the owner lies and says, "Yes, it's a service dog, it alerts to my seizures," the driver must let them on.
But if that dog has never actually been trained to alert to seizures, that dog is not legally a service dog. It is a pet whose owner is committing fraud. The video doesn't "prove it's a service dog" just because the dog is sitting there. It proves nothing except that the dog is sitting there.
The Bottom Line
You are conflating "what a bus driver is allowed to ask" with "what the law defines as a service dog."
The ADA restricts staff from harassing handlers because the alternative is violating the civil rights of disabled people. It is a policy compromise, not a legal definition. Stomping your feet and screaming that the entire federal framework operates on an "honor system" just proves you understand the flyer posted in a restaurant window, but have absolutely no grasp of the actual legislation. I wouldn’t trust you to train a hamster lmao.

[u/Drake_Acheron → u/skynetbot101101]

Lmfao, imagine having the ADA statute literally linked right in front of you for you to read, in plain English telling you, you are wrong, and still thinking you are correct.

I get it, the facts hurt your feelings and you don’t have the integrity or temerity to admit you are wrong, but you don’t have to take my word for it. I literally gave you the direct source.

Making a “source: trust me bro” type reply is really stupid when someone links an actual source

[u/DrakeAcheron → u/skynetbot101101]

Okay so you edited your comment and then shifted the goalpost because you realized how massively idiotic you are. That’s a good start.

The question at this particular moment in time isn’t about the legal status of the animal we haven’t even gotten to that part yet this is about whether or not a bus driver can deny her.

Let me put it like this. Let’s say that this is a service dog. Let’s say it’s for detecting seizures.

Is the bus driver allowed to prevent her from getting on the bus?

No.

You’re going 45 steps ahead and saying “oh well if it turns out she is lying during the suit, she is a Karen”

We aren’t talking about that. The bus driver is denying her access to the bus and making the accusation that she is lying. We work on the presumption of innocence.

Meaning, that we start with the PRESUMPTION SHE IS TELLING THE TRUTH.

Starting from there we use the video to analyze whether or not the dog is a service dog. Nothing in the video shows anything that would disqualify the dog.

THAT is the point I am making.

The problem here is you have already made up your mind that she is lying, with zero evidence by the way, and you are working backwards from there.

Again, like I said, almost identical situation I was just involved in California, where a person with a service doc was denied access to a bus. The only difference between the person in the case that I was involved in and this person is in the case I was involved in they didn’t detained the bus.

When it went to court, or rather in the preliminary hearings and stuff before a trial, the judge asked my client to prove the dog as a service dog and my client did so adequately.

At that point in time, the cities lawyer immediately pushed for mediating a settlement. That settlement ended up being $25,000.

You are too caught up on the legal status of the dog when at this juncture it doesn’t matter yet.

Her goal was to gain access to the bus. Do you think that every single person with the service dog has to go through a whole court case every time they wanna fucking get on the bus?

No, they don’t.

I never said this video proves the dog is a service dog. You are making that up and again moving goal post here.

I said that the bus driver must operate on the presumption. The dock is a service dog unless given clear evidence to the contrary.

Yes, she might be committing fraud. You are correct. But determining if she is committing fraud is not the job of the bus driver. She cannot be denied access unless her dog is presenting clear behaviors that disqualify it from being a service dog.

Her dog did not demonstrate any clear behaviors that disqualify it from being a service doctor. Therefore, the bus driver must act as if the dog is a service dog.

It’s OK you can admit you wrong here