S.A. veteran says service dog was kicked out of store, harassed

[tkmorris]

81. That's not really accurate

A few of them, myself included, said they would not have voted to hide it. I cannot speak for anyone but myself but I DO find some things wrong with the post, just not anything that rises to the level of needing to be hidden. I freely admit that my standards with regard to what makes a post rise to the level of needing to be hidden are different than some others. "Things I disagree with" is not one of them.

Furthermore whenever I am faced with a post that seems somewhat questionable if there is any possibility that it is the result of a misunderstanding I always assume that is the case rather than leap to assuming some nefarious intent on the part of the poster. In this case it seemed as if the poster was of the belief that the service animal was not a service animal at all but rather just the shoppers pet. I do not know how he arrived at that conclusion as the article offered no information on this point. HOWEVER, given that for whatever reason the poster seemed to have reached that conclusion, his post seemed more reasonable. Thus my opinion that I would not have voted to hide it in spite of the fact that I believed he drew the wrong conclusion about the role of the animal in question and perhaps the nature of the man's disability.

We really are all on the same side you know.