Some comments from the mall site are also intriguing:
Poster 1: I think we are all missing the real issue here...the little girl's name is Abcde. A-B-C-D-E....I don't care how it is "pronounced. That is seriously the stupidest, laziest thing I have ever seen. Who do these people think they are, celebrities?!
Like · Reply · 10 · December 2 at 4:26pm
Reply 1thru 3 defending famblee.
Reply 4: Yes, they do think they are celebrities. The father was a myspace celebrity named Ed aka rock da mullet.
I've known these people for years and the mother is mental, she loves drama and this story is full of lies and the mall is just trying to make it disappear by doing whatever Kori and Ed say because their PR agent will drag the mall through the mud if they don't.Like · 5 · December 2 at 10:55pm
Reply 5, same person: And abcde is the name they have been telling everyone side the day she was born, so it's not made up for this incident, there have been many incidents with this family all over.
Like · 4 · December 2 at 10:56pm
Anothe poster when someone whined about autism and her neeeeeeding the dog because she is developmentally delayed:
Autism isn't "developmentally delayed", it's just different wiring. I'm autistic and I don't drool on myself, I don't need someone to dress me. I own my own consulting company. It turns out Autism is almost a super power, if you want your power to be getting really interested and excited over insane minutiae.
You're a moron who wants to let parents use the claim that their child is Autistic be a shield for their bad behaviour. And I do mean claim. In the couple of hours I've been aware of this and looking into it, I've never seen an instance where the parents provided any proof that the child is actually Autistic. Most people will recoil and fall over themselves to not look insensitive, when everyone should be asking the parents for proof.
Like · 2 · Yesterday at 1:22am · Edited
The autistic guy speaks again:
The Shops at Mission Viejo are completely wrong in this.
For one, there is zero law or regulation on what actually qualifies as a service dog, and they're not required to be certified or licensed in any way. It's a huge gap in the ADA that doesn't require any of this, but also prevents business owners from asking for proof even if licenses were required. There is also an issue that this would be a companion dog, not a service dog, and there is nothing by any credible organization that says companion or service dogs help autistics in any way.
It's also a flipping pit bull. Santa has a right to be afraid of them, as anyone should be. I am a gun owner and avid shooter, and I get incredibly nervous when I am in places that allow open-carry of firearms.
All you have done is let some really scum-bag parents continue to use their daughter's difference as a do-whatever-you-want card.
Nice knee-jerk reaction, you pricks.
Like · Reply · 9 · December 2 at 11:58pm
It is not the first time Kori Santos does something like this. I'm sure she has her lawyer ready as she is obviously looking for something and it isn't to educate the public on this manner. What a shame to see what you have turned into, and how badly you are exploiting your daughter's disability. Parents usually want peace of mind for their children. I feel sorry for the victims of this woman's rage, people losing their jobs over this is not a victory.
Like · Reply · 9 · Yesterday at 12:12am
Here's a link to the law and the expert excluding emotional support animals as service animals:
". Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA."
http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
Like · 5 hrs
And the coup de grace:
OK, everyone calm down for one minute.
Has anyone stopped to think whether this "Santa's" allergy to dogs was so severe as to qualify as a disabling condition? If so, the company that hires him couldn't refuse to hire him on that basis or they would be discriminating against a disabled person - HIM.
AND if HIS allergy rises to the severity of being disabling, he broke no law denying to allow this dog to approach him.
NONE
(Pause as everyone loses their mind....)
You think being unable to see Santa at that exact moment was traumatic to Abcde? Imagine how traumatic it would have been for all the children in line to see Santa start to hyperventilate, start frantically gasping for breath as his lungs begin to close, turn blue, fall to the floor and flop like a fish until someone came running over to skewer him with an epi-pen.
We wouldn't have just one over dramatic pair of parents and one upset little girl, we'd have dozens of upset parents and dozens of children convinced they just saw Santa die.
Talk about a disaster - try fixing THAT. All because Abcde's parents didn't want to wait an hour for a Santa that wasn't allergic to dogs.
One person's disability does not trump another's. When two disabled people must be in the same room, and there's a conflict, the business (classroom, whatever...) needs to do their best to accommodate both parties.
In the case of a service dog in a classroom with a severely disablingly allergic person also in the room, the ADA suggests keeping the two parties as far apart as possible.
In this case, that couldn't be done. Yes the parents said they'd hold the dog (in their account) but other accounts said they were screaming about discrimination and said they (the mall) must allow the dog to stay with Abcde or they'd be discriminating against her.
(Stop arguing which account is correct. No one here was there. You don't know what really happened unless you were there. So just stop.)
The management suggested they come back in an hour to see Santa after he received his Christmas miracle and was healed of his allergy (the next Santa came on duty). The parents adamantly refused. From accounts, they started cursing - all the while in line with children on their best behavior waiting to see Santa. Charming.
Anyone with a service dog knows that, when it comes to denial of access issues, you need to stay calm or you could legally be asked to leave because of your disruptive behavior - and then any discrimination issue (on the basis of denial of access) will be null and void.
IF the Santa's allergy does rise to the severity to qualify as a disability, the girl (with the dog) and Santa - two equally disabled individuals under the law - couldn't have been accommodated at the same time. So management offered a compromise - and a legally valid one. They couldn't pull another Santa from out of the air, so they asked the parents to bring back Abcde - and her service dog - when another non-dog-allergic Santa was present.
If that's the case, the Santa and mall broke no law. There is no lawsuit.
Sorry, those are the legal facts people.
And here's the Americans with Disabilities Act definition of "disabled"
'An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment."
It's pretty broad. If a few other people simply "perceive" him of being disabled because of his severe allergy to dogs, guess what? He's disabled. He isn't disabled in the sense that he suddenly gets a handicapped parking permit or monthly checks from Social Security Disability, but he is considered disabled and, therefore, protected under the ADA - as equally as Abcde and her service dog.
And if that's the case, this case just evaporated.
Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs · Edited
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From a bottle cap message on a Magic Hat #9 beer: Condoms Prevent Minivans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to pick up a bus full of unruly kids and feed them gummi bears and crack, then turn them loose in Hobby Lobby to ransack the place. They will all be wearing T shirts that say "You Could Have Prevented This."