Daniel2 Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 On 5/30/2018 at 12:58 PM, Amulek said: How so? It seems to me that a human is more than capable of performing any service function that an animal has been trained to do. I mean, the only reason we train service animals in the first place is because it isn't feasible to have people follow them around all the time to help them out. But when you go to the temple, we do have someone who can provide the service you need for the duration of your visit, so I don't see any real harm in having someone leave their service animal at home or in the visitor's lounge or however that gets handled in actual practice. As others have mentioned, while most people only think of seeing-eye dogs when they think of 'service animals,' such working dogs often perform unseen functions which humans are incapable of. Examples would include alerting and protecting a person who has epilepsy who is about to have a seizure, alerting a diabetic when blood sugar reaches high or low levels, or calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack. None of those functions qualify under 'emotional support' categories, and even if a machine could be used to perform some of the functions (such as an insulin regulator), the ADA still considers the dog to be an extension of the person and doesn't allow the law to prescribe a non-service-animal-related treatment over another; it expects public accommodations to respect the choice of the disabled individual in how they handle their disability. I've appreciated learning in this thread that churches are exempt from the requirements of the ADA and are entirely free to set their own boundaries regarding access with service animals... so, the LDS church is entirely within it's right to restrict service animals in temples. As I mentioned before, I just find that unfortunate as I think it displays a lack of understanding and compassion for truly disabled individuals who rely on their service animals for the support they need.
Amulek Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 17 hours ago, Daniel2 said: I've appreciated learning in this thread that churches are exempt from the requirements of the ADA and are entirely free to set their own boundaries regarding access with service animals... so, the LDS church is entirely within it's right to restrict service animals in temples. As I mentioned before, I just find that unfortunate as I think it displays a lack of understanding and compassion for truly disabled individuals who rely on their service animals for the support they need. I have never met (or even heard of) a person who was so dependent on their service animal that it would be impossible for them to spend a couple of hours apart. I'm not trying to be coldhearted or anything, but it seems to me that if you are capable of getting by without something for the time it takes to attend the temple then you ought to do so.
Calm Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Amulek said: I have never met (or even heard of) a person who was so dependent on their service animal that it would be impossible for them to spend a couple of hours apart. I'm not trying to be coldhearted or anything, but it seems to me that if you are capable of getting by without something for the time it takes to attend the temple then you ought to do so. Given the possibility of allergies, I can see it might be a choice of which is easier to deal with as well as numbers affected. Ensuring no animal dander is left is harder than substituting a person for the animal or increasing other forms of monitoring like blood sugar monitors. And there are likely more allergies than those who need service animals. Otoh, have they banned perfume/cologne use in temples? (Don't know) That seems like the most intelligent first step to allergy issues. I think the problem with allowing temple access with service animals would be by only allowing it for a limited number of services, one would have to ask specific questions and leave the decision of whether or not it was necessary with nonprofessional temple workers, not medical personnel...and you run the risk of offending those who believe they should be allowed, but don't pass the rules...as in "is not my having anxiety issues as important as him having seizures or her having low blood sugar"? 'None allowed' rules are less contentious, imo. Edited June 2, 2018 by Calm 1
rongo Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 I'm just gonna leave this link here . . . http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/airlines/When-a-dog-has-puppies-at-the-Tampa-airport-everyone-has-an-opinion_168709888
The Nehor Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 4 hours ago, Calm said: Otoh, have they banned perfume/cologne use in temples? (Don't know) That seems like the most intelligent first step to allergy issues. They need to ban people who have just taken garlic pills. Only happened once but that was......pungent.
Recommended Posts