I look at this from a slightly different perspective... Why shouldn't animals (mainly dogs, really) be allowed in many of these places, assuming they are well behaved?
When I lived in the UK, you would often see a dog or two in pubs or outside areas of restaurants. Even occasionally in the grocery store (they were smaller ones, though, and always in a cart). There was never any commotion over them.
In Norway, dogs aren't even allowed in the outdoor area of restaurants unless the waiters are willing to look the other way. The same goes for pharmacies and grocery stores (some grocery stores look the other way if you are carrying the dog). The explanation is always that the Norwegian food authority (which also has jurisdiction over pets, for some odd reason) bans them because people might have allergies.
I think Norway is an example of taking things way too far. Why not allow the shop owners to decide for themselves whether they are more interested in catering to dog owners or people who might be allergic? People with allergies have to worry no matter what, because a service dog is still allowed in, so they have no guarantee of not encountering a dog, and if they have a severe allergy, the dog hair on my clothes could be enough to set off an allergy attack (if it isn't, my dog probably won't cause the person any problems unless she jumps on them, which I always do my best to prevent).
In the end, people need to stop abusing the system, but the system needs to be relaxed to allow more flexibility.
Unfortunately it seems that, especially in US, most problems end up an "us vs them" problem. People pick sides and do whatever it takes to win battles.
For example I'm baffled to know that in US, some "pet forbidden" apartment buildings exist. Come on, people not allowed to have pets at their own house??
Here in the UK, in general (I don't know about the US), renting a property allows you the right to just about live there, grudgingly, and it is definitely NOT your house or home.
This is true more of the lower end of the market than the higher.
Although a lot of listings say "no pets allowed" in the UK, many will let you have a pet if you ask (if it's a large pet they're likely to ask for a higher deposit fee, but that seems fair enough).
>For example I'm baffled to know that in US, some "pet forbidden" apartment buildings exist. Come on, people not allowed to have pets at their own house??
I don't think it is us vs them.
A few bad apples ruin the bunch.
There are people who just let their pets destroy their apartment because they can't be bothered to train them or even clean up after them. Landlords take the stance of that being an unnecessary risk to deal with potential propery destruction so they just say no pets because they perceive it as the less risky route.
In Germany landlords are allowed to forbid pets, but they can't do anything about "small animals" such as cats or rodents unless they cause trouble (e.g. via excessive smell or noise).
Interesting, but at the end of the article they clarify that this is only about small dogs (which makes sense as the original term for the kind of pets that can't be forbidden was "Kleintiere", i.e. small animals).
When I lived in the UK, you would often see a dog or two in pubs or outside areas of restaurants. Even occasionally in the grocery store (they were smaller ones, though, and always in a cart). There was never any commotion over them.
In Norway, dogs aren't even allowed in the outdoor area of restaurants unless the waiters are willing to look the other way. The same goes for pharmacies and grocery stores (some grocery stores look the other way if you are carrying the dog). The explanation is always that the Norwegian food authority (which also has jurisdiction over pets, for some odd reason) bans them because people might have allergies.
I think Norway is an example of taking things way too far. Why not allow the shop owners to decide for themselves whether they are more interested in catering to dog owners or people who might be allergic? People with allergies have to worry no matter what, because a service dog is still allowed in, so they have no guarantee of not encountering a dog, and if they have a severe allergy, the dog hair on my clothes could be enough to set off an allergy attack (if it isn't, my dog probably won't cause the person any problems unless she jumps on them, which I always do my best to prevent).
In the end, people need to stop abusing the system, but the system needs to be relaxed to allow more flexibility.