It's not, nor should it be, all or nothing. The default state is that you can allow or not allow whoever or whatever you want. However there are a list of classes that protected. Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, and a handful more [1]. Pets are not, and again should not be, a protected class.
Why choice of religion can be protected but choice of companionship can not be? If one can define protected classes, why pet owners can't be protected? In fact, ESA is doing just that - and the only claim of the article is that it's too easy to get into the class. But why should it be hard?
Anything can be protected. It's just a law. Protecting a class restricts the rights of other people. We tend to prefer having more freedom and less restriction. Therefore a law that limits freedom should only be passed after carefully considering if it's worth it or not. Protecting people based on th color of their skin? Worth it. Protecting someone's right to go anywhere they want with their smelly pet? Not worth it.
They can be. They aren't because no US law has been passed to protect them. It hasn't because pets don't belong everywhere nobody wants businesses to not be able to tell someone to leave because their dog won't stop barking.
>But why should it be hard?
Because these people are abusing a law designed to protect disabled people because they can't excersize enough common sense and common curiosity to know what is appropriate and what is not. People who lack such common sense are surely more likely to have misbehaving animals. If everyone made rational choices with their well behaved animals then dogs wouldn't even be banned in the first place.
You want your emotional support animal to be able to go everywhere with you? Fine. I have no problem with that as long as you get the animal (and you) trained as much as ever other disability dog.
Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? Because pets are not people, for one, and protected class refers to a class of people.
Secondly, making something a protected class involves taking some freedom away from another group of people. It is a balancing act.
Most people don't think you have the "right" to bring your misbehaving dog everywhere you go. Everywhere, no matter if it is appropriate or not. If most people did, it is possible pet owners would be made a protected class in US law.
Family status is a protected class for housing. I can't say "I only rent to families without children" but I can ban children from my restaurant. It isn't all or nothing. Probably because kids can misbehave and the type of person who has a misbehaving child probably also is the one taking their child to places inappropriate for children.
I'm well aware of the term as it's used in the United States. I was asking why you think the list of legally protected classes should not include pets.
> Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? Because pets are not people, for one, and protected class refers to a class of people.
Well, what we're talking about is pet ownership by humans as the protected class. I don't think anyone was thinking of forcing employers to not discriminate again non-human animals.
> Most people don't think you have the "right" to bring your misbehaving dog everywhere you go.
Perhaps, but I suspect most people who bring their misbehaving dogs everywhere do think they have the right. If your argument is that anything which the majority of the population believe should be a protected, should indeed be a legally protected class, that's a reasonable proposition, but I think you'd find the list of legally protected classes would be a lot different than it is today.
It's not, nor should it be, all or nothing. The default state is that you can allow or not allow whoever or whatever you want. However there are a list of classes that protected. Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, and a handful more [1]. Pets are not, and again should not be, a protected class.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class