Difference between revisions of "Talk:Board Policy on Animals"
(Created page with "The wording on this policy is overly broad, and states things are illegal when they are not. Regarding this: "If a member brings a service animal into the space, persons may...") |
(discussion about allowed questions) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
The way this is worded, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANIMAL ARE SAID TO BE ILLEGAL. This is ONLY true if the questions are pertaining to whether the animal is, in fact, a service animal. The way this is worded, if a person said "I respect your amazing service dog. Is it a boy or a girl," or "what breed is your beautiful dog" would be considered grounds for removing a member, and called illegal. The wording should be clearer. | The way this is worded, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANIMAL ARE SAID TO BE ILLEGAL. This is ONLY true if the questions are pertaining to whether the animal is, in fact, a service animal. The way this is worded, if a person said "I respect your amazing service dog. Is it a boy or a girl," or "what breed is your beautiful dog" would be considered grounds for removing a member, and called illegal. The wording should be clearer. | ||
--[[User:Davidfell|Davidfell]] ([[User talk:Davidfell|talk]]) 05:32, 27 April 2015 (CDT) | --[[User:Davidfell|Davidfell]] ([[User talk:Davidfell|talk]]) 05:32, 27 April 2015 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I asked not to include the language in the policy because it is confusing, but I did not want to block consensus and didn't object to leaving it in. Originally I was for only stating that we allow service animals as defined by <the list of laws> because the laws will have the details. It got pointed out to me that members might harass someone with a service animal by grilling them on its status. That's a good point. So, maybe the actual policy language could be changed to remove the questions bit, and we have a non policy section on the policy page with advice on how to talk to people with service animals. --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 09:32, 27 April 2015 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:32, 27 April 2015
The wording on this policy is overly broad, and states things are illegal when they are not.
Regarding this: "If a member brings a service animal into the space, persons may only ask the owner the following 2 questions (defined by federal law) about the animal and its service to the owner:
- Is the animal required because of a disability?
- What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?
Questions outside of these two are a breach of federal and state law and will be considered a violation of the Pumping Station: One membership agreement."
The way this is worded, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANIMAL ARE SAID TO BE ILLEGAL. This is ONLY true if the questions are pertaining to whether the animal is, in fact, a service animal. The way this is worded, if a person said "I respect your amazing service dog. Is it a boy or a girl," or "what breed is your beautiful dog" would be considered grounds for removing a member, and called illegal. The wording should be clearer.
--Davidfell (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2015 (CDT)
I asked not to include the language in the policy because it is confusing, but I did not want to block consensus and didn't object to leaving it in. Originally I was for only stating that we allow service animals as defined by <the list of laws> because the laws will have the details. It got pointed out to me that members might harass someone with a service animal by grilling them on its status. That's a good point. So, maybe the actual policy language could be changed to remove the questions bit, and we have a non policy section on the policy page with advice on how to talk to people with service animals. --Skm (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2015 (CDT)