I read the story, watched the story, and I'm still kinda split. There's no doubt that Mr. Bryant has poor taste. In today's day and age, it is an abomination that one human would act harshly towards another with a condition like cerebral palsy. But looking at the facts of what happened and the Americans with Disabilities Act, I believe Mr. Bryant acted within his own legal powers as a store owner. The child is a dependent of her mother, not the guide dog. The government recognizes this (I wonder what the dog filed on his W-2), and hopefully, we should recognize it too. If it had been a twenty-something-year-old person with a condition such as cerebral palsy and they were denied service, then yes, I would see a huge problem. In that case, the person IS dependent on the guide-dog. In this instance, though, I can't help but think that legally the mom is responsible for her child being able to navigate around the store, not the dog. I feel horrible for the mother who had to go through this ordeal, I know it is not easy for her to have to be there for her child 24/7, and it only makes it worse that she can't even rely on her child's guard dog once in a while because there are people out there who are so ignorant. For that, I am truly sorry. But in the end, you have to accept the fact that there ARE ignorant people in the world. If the mother does indeed bring forth a lawsuit, I feel like she will be wasting time and money on a person who is not going to change, as well as hurting Mr. Bryant's business. If Mr. Bryant's business is going to shut down, then let him do it by his own disillusionment that customers will continue to come to his shop after what happened, not by taking him to court like every other American who can't accept the fact that sometimes life is s*****.
More information about formatting options