Popeyes Apologizes To Customer With Service Dog

Yesterday we brought you the story of a Georgia man who said he was wrongly kicked out of a Popeyes restaurant because of his service dog. And while the restaurant chain is sticking by its side of the story, it has released an official apology to the customer.

“After reviewing all of the facts, I think we could have handled the situation better,” a Popeyes rep tells the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “In an effort to avoid further conflict, the manager attempted to defuse the situation by asking the guest with the service dog to leave. In doing so, we regretfully offended him.”

The restaurant had alleged that the reason the man was asked to leave — and the reason the police were called — was that the customer had gotten into a verbal altercation with other customers whose children were frightened by the dog. The customer has denied this, saying no such argument took place.

Popeyes HQ says it has reviewed surveillance footage from inside the restaurant but declined the AJC request to review it.

“We have contacted the guest to offer our sincere apology and to invite him back to show him we can do better,” continues the Popeyes statement. “We always strive to provide the very best food and service — to ensure that we continue to do so, we are retraining our managers to remind them of their responsibilities and of our excellent service standards.”

Also being looked into are the actions of the local police officer who, according to his own report, told the customer to leave the restaurant because he was on private property. The customer claims the officer refused to review documents regarding his service dog.

Popeyes apologizes to man with service dog [AJC.com]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Bsamm09 says:

    That was a fast apology…Louisiana FAST.

    • That guy. says:

      Haha! I needed that laugh.

    • CommonSense(ಠ_ಠ) says:

      They should not have apologized.
      Diabetes is not a legit reason to cart around the family pet.
      This person needs to get a meter as they are cheap, reliable, and convenient.

      • BrienBear Thinks Stupidity Defies Logic says:

        Dude, give up your argument now. You’ve been disproven.

  2. baineschile says:

    still sticking to the guns that diabetics might not want to eat fast food.

    • Misha says:

      But might NEED to if suffering a hypoglycemic episode.

    • kobresia says:

      In the venn diagram of people who “might not want to eat fast food”, the circle of “diabetics” is fully contained within it, since they are a subset of “everybody”.

      That said, Good Times Burgers & Frozen Custard…mmmm. Why must being bad taste so good?

      • exconsumer says:

        Someone going hypoglycemic needs a nice stiff dose of glucose and/or carbs, right this second. Unhealthy for most people in the long term but the EXACT thing a Type I Diabetic needs to prevent an episode.

    • K-Bo says:

      If your blood sugar drops drastically, you have to eat whatever you can find immediately, or risk coma or death. Of course there are better choices, but if nothing else was close, the important thing was to stop the blood sugar free fall.

    • Coffee says:

      Yeah…as people commented in the thread yesterday, this guy is a Type I diabetic. That means it’s genetic, and he’s had it since childhood. It exists regardless of his weight. When he gets low blood sugar, he needs something like this to bump him up to normal. Would it be better for him to drink half a Snapple? Maybe, but I’m not sure how that’s your business.

      • ChuckECheese says:

        Some carbs and some protein and maybe some fat (a small but complete meal) is usually the best bet for getting that blood sugar back on track. He ordered a sweet tea – a few gulps of that to get out of the danger zone, and then the meal for a longer sugar burn.

      • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

        and that’s even assuming he has time to find a snapple before he has a seizure or passes out!

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          I think that’s the biggest detail here. If he’s having a sugar drop, time is critical and he doesn’t get to be choosy about which restaurat he goes to. The first fast food restaurant he sees he drops it and order something off the menu with what he needs.

        • Jane_Gage says:

          My nephew just got Dxed with type I, he’s five. : ( My boss said, “well at least it’s not cancer.”

          • Coffee says:

            Wow…I guess that’s a silver lining? In the same way “well at least he only raped you in the butt and you won’t get pregnant” is a silver lining.

          • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

            true, cancer doesn’t require nearly as much maintenance and rarely has the possibility to kill you or cause brain damage in a matter of minutes.
            cancer’s still not great but it’s apples and oranges as to the toll they take on your body and your life

      • Not Given says:

        I think ~half of all cases of type 1 are dx in adulthood.

        • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

          i was diagnosed with type 1 at age 31. i think they still consider it juvenile type 1 up until age 24 or somewhere around there. my cousin was diagnosed with type 1 at age 25 but his sister was diagnosed with type 1 at age 8.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      I’m sticking to my guns that your comment comes from ignorance of Type I diabetes and the details of this article.

    • crazydavythe1st says:

      Is there something about fast food tea that makes it different than any other black tea? Popeye’s explicitly advertises their use of cane sugar too – without getting into too much of a debate, it’s possible that’s healthier than a Snapple with HFCS.

    • Not Given says:

      MIght not want to, but during an insulin reaction fast food is better than coma.

      • CommonSense(ಠ_ಠ) says:

        Dont you carry sugar packets or some kind of sugar drink in case this happens??
        Also why did the person need to eat food, they could have just got a pop and left.

    • BrienBear Thinks Stupidity Defies Logic says:

      I love how people proved you incorrect time and time again and yet you still argue.

      What is it with the ignorance in these two threads? Where the hell is South Park Mr Jefferson when we need him…?

      No thats ignorant!

  3. az123 says:

    The whole thing about the service dog and the police does not really make sense to me. What was the complaint the restaurant made to the officer as why they wanted the guy to leave. If the manager told the officer that he called because the man was in an altercation with someone then regardless of if it is a service dog or not the officer was probably doing the right thing by having the man leave. ADA would prevent you from booting the guy off your property because he had a service dog… sounds like the guy is taking the tact I have a service dog so I can do whatever I want.

    • Bladerunner says:

      That’s how I read it too.

    • aja175 says:

      You’re probably right. I see that constantly in San Francisco. Entitled chiwawa owners claiming their rats are service dogs, and of course they need 8 of them to go grocery shopping.

      • ChuckECheese says:

        There are new laws regarding service animals, passed about a year ago. The new rules exclude entitled companion chihuahuas, but make it clear that businesses must allow service dogs on the premises with the only exceptions being that the dog is creating a danger or nuisance. Nuisance means the animal is actively disrupting the business and other patrons, not “it’s a nuisance because I don’t like it.”


    • George4478 says:

      To me, the argument is the crux of the matter.

      The guy is saying he is a first-time customer, didn’t talk with anyone, and he was asked to leave because of the dog.

      The restaurant is saying he is a repeat customer, the argument happened, and he was asked to leave because of it.

      The video would be interesting to see.

    • Lyn Torden says:

      Why not have the other man leave instead? And take his children that were disturbing the service dog?

      • Bladerunner says:

        The point here is that there was a heated verbal altercation. If Service Dog Guy was the one who was escalating it, that would be exactly why you wouldn’t make the Kids Guy leave.

    • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

      ¿Se habla, “pretext”?

  4. Nobby says:

    Woulda never happened if the man had a helper monkey instead of a service dog.

    • ChuckECheese says:

      The new ADA service animal rules permit only dogs and in some cases miniature horses. Helper monkeys are no longer protected under the ADA.

    • runswithscissors says:

      Mmmm I can’t wait to eat that monkey!

  5. damicatz says:

    For once, the government police officer was correct. It is private property.

    Regardless of how morally wrong it is to kick someone out because of a service dog, it is still, at the end of the day, private property and thus, cannot justly be considered a legal wrong.

    • Bladerunner says:

      They didn’t kick him out for his service dog. They kicked him out for getting into an altercation. Had they kicked him out for the service dog, it would have been a violation of ADA.

      • rmorin says:

        Even in the case a violation of the ADA, the local police do not enforce that. There is a good reason behind this; it is better to handle issues of discrimination (lack of accommodation is discrimination) in a court with all the facts out on the table than the opinion of one local police officer.

        • Bladerunner says:

          Good point.

        • Bladerunner says:

          I just looked into it a bit, and apparently you’re wrong. In Az, at least, you’re guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor for violations of service animal rules.


          • rmorin says:

            The law you refer to is a state-law separate from the ADA. The local police still do not enforce the ADA.

            • Bladerunner says:

              Fair enough, from a technical standpoint. But, if this were related to service-dog access, and it happened in Az, then the cop could have enforced the state law, which parallels the federal law, so while you’re technically correct that the officer was not enforcing the federal law per se, by the same token, the practical end is that in Az, a cop could enforce a law which is identical to the federal law (well, not identical, but from a practical standpoint the federal law allows service dogs, the Az law allows service dogs, therefore enforcing one is materially the same as enforcing the other, no?)

              • rmorin says:

                It’s a state statue, and as such would be handled in state court, not federal which is the main difference.

                Finally the ADA does NOT include any text on service animals, it is that court precedence have been set. The state law actually explicitly states text about service animals.


                • Bladerunner says:

                  Oh, I agree with all of that. I was just saying that, from a practical standpoint, there are times when a local cop can “enforce” the ADA, by enforcing laws written by states that mirror ideas in the ADA (though you posted upthread that GA has no such law, which seems maybe untrue http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusgast30_4_2.htm , in which a person violating is guilty again of a misdemeanor, of a “high and aggravated nature”). So you’re right that when people talk about the cop enforcing the ADA they’re wrong, I was just trying to get across that, in some jurisdictions, a cop can tell someone to comply with provisions of the ADA, since it’s mirrored in the state law which is what he’d actually be enforcing. (Though, again, you’re right that service animals aren’t explicit in the law, but you get the idea)

                  • rmorin says:

                    Yeah, you are certainly correct that for all intents and purposes it is “enforcing the ADA”. What I am trying to explain to some other people in the thread is that all “laws” are not the same, and have to be addressed in different avenues.

                    And in regards to Georgia law, whether diabetes would even be covered as legitimate reason for protection of a service animal is confusing, and I read it twice.

    • RedOryx says:

      The ADA would disagree with you


      Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), privately owned businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, hotels, retail stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed.

      • rmorin says:

        are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed.

        Local police do not enforce this the ADA. The police officer could not arrest anyone, nor write a ticket for this type of ADA violation. The only one they typically can is Handicap parking spots and that’s because it is explicit with instructions from the RMV/DMV.

        Local police handle the basic requests of the citizens (i.e. get him off my property) not interpretation of discrimination (lack of accommodation is discrimination). There is a good reason behind this; it is better to solve questions of discrimination in a court with all facts present than have one local police officer attempt to make a decision if there is discrimination occurring or not.

        • Lyn Torden says:

          After the man dies because he can’t get the sugar he needs? Question is, did he get it? If no, then the police officer should have take his money for it and gone inside to get it for him.

          Or better yet, instead of kicking out the man with the dog, kick out the man with the fussy kids!

          • Bladerunner says:

            It seems far more plausible that the Dog Guy was being an asshat than that the guy with kids was. I don’t understand why everyone keeps saying “why not kick out the guy with kids too!”, it seems to me that, if it really were the guy with kids who were being the asshat, they would have.

            • Catmndu says:

              I have to disagree. Having been expected by irresponsible nanny parents to sit and tolerate their screaming children at a restaurant while Mommy and Daddy sit and text with the kids throwing food, jumping up and down, etc with zero intervention from the parents – I think it’s more likely the dog was sitting minding his own business and Mommy and Daddy thought a dog was dirty in a restaurant. There are far worse things than dog hair in Popeye’s food. I’m not saying an altercation didn’t ensure – it certainly might have especially if this guy was suffering from low blood sugar, because that can make anyone really touchy – I speak from experience. I encounter these sorts of people every day. Being at the “dog park” – that’s right I said dog park with my blue eyed dog and had a lady ask me if I could leave because his blue eyes were freaking her kid out. Not kidding. And no I didn’t leave. Sick and tired of these do nothing parents expecting everyone else to accomodate their rotten children instead of teaching their kids some respect and that the world does not revolve around the children.

          • rmorin says:

            You didn’t address the root of the matter and instead just said some hyperbole about how the guy is going to die. Be an adult if you want to discuss the issue.

            Local police do not enforce ADA. There is a very, very good reason for this and that is it is much more fair to have these issues hashed out in court than by one singular local police officer. The business operator can call the police and have anyone, for any reason removed.

            AFTERWARDS then the people or person can claim they were removed by the business operator because of discrimination and a court gets to decide if that is true or not. You can not call your local police if you are being discriminated against, because they can not do anything. They can not write a ticket, nor arrest anyone for discriminating against a protected group (note: hate/bias crimes are very different then discrimination, don’t get them confused).

            • ChuckECheese says:

              The root of the matter is that the police can and do enforce federal rules all the time. We don’t have to use the courts to make determinations about service animals and the ADA. The rules are already plenty clear.

              • rmorin says:

                The root of the matter is that the police can and do enforce federal rules all the time.

                Okay hot shot. How should the local police officer enforce it? Local police can not arrest the business operator. Local police can not levy fines against the business operator. So how? How can a local police officer enforce it with literally no clout behind it?

                “The rules are plenty clear”

                This is the most ignorant statement in this thread. The central tenet of the ADA of “reasonable accommodation” is hashed out literally everyday courts across this country. The ADA is anything BUT clear. I worked for disability services for a large University previously, and I can assure you that what is “reasonable” comes down to the utmost minutia.

                • ChuckECheese says:

                  The police enforce laws without arresting people all the time. In this case, the police officer would have told the business owner, “according to the Americans with Disabilities Act, he has a right to be here with his service animal.” Then he would wish them both a good day, turn around and walk away. So in this case the officer enforces the law by not acceding to the illegal demands of the business representative.

                  I think this is exactly why Popeye’s is already issuing a public apology. They know they are not on the right side of either the law or of the opinion of the disabled public. The ADA is not a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later system. The standards are already in place and if you don’t follow them, you have broken the law – really, just like all other laws.

                  It is on Popeye’s ultimately that their ignorant manager was able to find a police officer willing to enforce his illegal demand that is contrary to laws protecting disabled people. I suspect if the video evidence were clear that the service animal and/or its owner were being disruptive, Popeye’s would not be issuing an apology.

                  • rmorin says:

                    The ADA is not a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later system.

                    Yes it is! Complaints are addressed as they are brought up. There is no governmental agency patrolling the streets attempting to pre-cog ADA violations!

                    Some states have set up STATE laws to address more cut and dry applications of ADA. Georgia has not for this type of application and even in that case, it’s a state law they are enforcing, not the ADA.

                    Popeye’s apologized because they realized that they may be sued by the guy under the ADA. That’s it. I have never once stated one way or the other whether this was a ADA violation, just that local police do not have the jurisdiction to apply it!

                    • ChuckECheese says:

                      Then the police didn’t have jurisdiction to remove the guy from the business. The ADA says explicitly that you (the police or anybody else) cannot remove a person from a business merely because he has a service animal. You’re suggesting that the police have the jurisdiction to break the law, but not to follow it because it came from a federal source. Strange logic there.

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      But he wasn’t removed merely for having a service animal. He was removed by the business owner for allegedly getting into an altercation. Are you being purposefully obtuse? The cop didn’t come in all on his own and say “hey, you can’t have that dog here!”, he came when called by the business to remove someone the business didn’t want on the premises, a perfectly legal thing if the ADA is not in here for debate, and that’s what the poster is saying, that the ADA is not in the purview of the local cop; it isn’t even clear that the service dog was really the issue here, either.

                    • rmorin says:

                      You’re dense. The police officer is responding to a request from a business operator that someone is trespassing (an actual state statue in Georgia). The police officer is fulfilling the request to enforce a criminal statue that is being broken. The police officer has not a thing to do with someone not being accommodated. That is a federal, civil matter between the business operator and the patron and must be addressed within federal court.

            • ChuckECheese says:

              This isn’t about vague and difficult to define “discrimination” as you say. It’s about not complying with the ADA. The ADA is a set of rules, like health codes or no-smoking laws. They are very clear and easy to understand and follow. They are created to maximize the disabled public’s access to public businesses. Public businesses are public because they are licensed by public entities (aka governments) and benefit from myriad public support systems like police, fire, etc.

              Among those ADA rules is that you cannot bar a person with a service animal from your place of business unless the animal or the animal’s handler pose a real threat (not a potential or imagined one) to others in the business. The reason these rules were created is because too many businesses find it enjoyable to exclude the disabled. I’ve posted links to those rules and a discussion of them on this and other threads.

              There are penalties to businesses and governments for not enforcing the ADA’s rules. The police officer isn’t personally liable for his inability to support disabled people, but his employing jurisdiction is. These laws were created with enforcement provisions because it is already understood that historically, businesses try to avoid complying with laws protecting disabled people.

              Finally, you teabaggers need a reality check: You are not an island. Your business exists because of a strong stable economy and country, created by the cooperative efforts of many people and systems. You would not be able to have your business without an underlying set of principles which support the system and ALL the people of said society.

              Teabaggers are most definitely guilty of selective choosing of which laws and which people they want to support. This is really an adolescent thought pattern and a basic type of lawlessness, akin to tribal systems. And we know that tribal systems are working out real well for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, amirite?

              • damicatz says:

                Yeah, you’ve never actually read the ADA have you?

                Nothing that shysters come up with is simple. It’s in the professional interests of lawyers to keep everything as convoluted as possible.

                This is what the ADA does :

                This bottom-feeding pond scum has filed thousands upon thousands of lawsuits. His entire “living” is made by extorting money from businesses for violations of the sundry buried and arcane rules of the ADA.

                This is not an isolated incident. These bottom feeders are all over the country. They have no interest in “improving access to the disabled” because otherwise they wouldn’t be willing to settle (I.E. pay us this money and we won’t sue you).

              • rmorin says:

                The ADA is a set of rules, like health codes or no-smoking laws. They are very clear and easy to understand and follow.

                I’m not going to respond to any more of your posts if you keep stating this. This is completely, 100%, incorrect. The ADA is incredibly nebulous and it is interpreted in court around the country literally everyday. Local police do not have the ability to enforce the ADA. These are facts, not opinions. Disagreeing with anything in this paragraph shows an incredible ignorance around the ADA and basic government.

                States can make laws regarding the enforcement of their interpretation of the ADA if they so choose. Down thread someone cited an AZ law which makes it a misdemeanor to deny a service animal. Georgia (where this occurred) has no such law. Thus this individual would have to address the complaint in Federal court if he claimed a violation of a federal civil law, because there is no local, or state statue against it.

                Finally I have not said one political thing so why the hell are you referring to me as a “Teabagger”? I have said NOTHING political. Nothing. I have not even stated an opinion about the situation, just that the police officer has no jurisdiction to enforce federal civil rights laws, which is basic understanding of U.S. government. Save your bizarre, incorrect judgement, for I don’t know, maybe the actual wackos in this thread??

    • JennQPublic says:

      Especially since the manager said he asked him to leave not because of the animal, but because he had an altercation with another customer. Don’t know if that’s true, but if it is, the manager had every right to ask him to leave. Having a service animal doesn’t give you carte blanche to act however you want.

      • damicatz says:

        Wait until a shyster is threatening to sue your business for BS under the ADA.

        You can :

        1.Pay hundreds of thousands or even millions to litigate it in court and then face the possibility of loosing because jurors are idiots and will happily award defendant millions in ridiculous amounts of damage.

        2.Pay their settlement amount to make the shyster go away.

        Most businesses choose number 2 because even if the case is absolute nonsense, it is so costly to litigate that it’s cheaper to just pay the extortion.

      • Mark702 says:

        If the argument was because he was defending his right to have a service dog per the ADA, then he can’t be thrown out for disputing his rights.

        • JennQPublic says:

          That depends on how he was disputing those rights. If he was yelling at or threatening other customers, no matter how correct his ‘position’ might be, the business has every right to ask him to leave based on his behavior. In fact, if the service animal was being a nuisance (barking at customers, etc.), he could legitimately be asked to remove it from the premises.

          I don’t know what happened here (someone is definitely lying, and there’s no telling who without more evidence), but I can certainly imagine a scenario where a fellow customer gives someone a hard time about their service animal, they argue about it, and the owner of the animal (knowing they are in the right per the ADA) gets loud and disruptive trying to defend their ‘rights’. And/or the dog starts acting up based on the tension from the altercation. At that point, the restaurant should absolutely kick them out.

    • Misha says:

      The ADA isn’t a suggestion; it’s the law. If someone is kicked out purely because they have a service animal, it actually is, and can justly be called, a legal wrong.

      • damicatz says:

        Government passes a lot of laws. Just because something is a law does not mean that it is just. It is immoral and unjust to use violence and coercion to force someone to make their property (as in, not yours) accessible to YOU. YOU do not own the property.

        The ADA is nothing but welfare for bottom-feeding trial lawyers. I’ve watched small mom-and-pop stores get extorted for millions of dollars because their aisles were .5 inches too narrow or they didn’t build a ramp or some other such nonsense even though they existed long before the ADA was in place.

        It is blatantly unconstitutional as well. There is nothing in the constitution that states that the federal government has the power to dictate to a property owner how they must construct their property unless that property happens to cross state lines.

        • Bladerunner says:

          Without even addressing everything, do you really think that the average mom-and-pop store has a policy against doing business with anyone from out of state?

          • damicatz says:

            Last time I checked, if it’s a store, customers walk into that store and therefore the entire transaction is done within the confines of one state.

            The federal government and the robed tyrants of the supreme court have managed to pervert the commerce clause to the point where (under their intrepretation) the fedgov could make it a crime to run a stop sign because either :

            A.The car was manufactured in another state (They actually do this with murders and carjackings. If it occurred in a “car that was manufactured in interstate commerce”, they can now claim jurisdiction).

            B.The stop sign was manufactured in another state

            C.The pavement/asphalt was manufactured in another state

            • Bladerunner says:

              So, therefore by your definition of “interstate”, then, there’s no such thing? A person from out of state goes to a business, they cross state lines to do so, and they enter that business to purchase an item. That’s pretty much the definition of “interstate”, wouldn’t you say? What circumstances would be interstate by your definition? Any individual aspect of a transaction will only ever occur in one state, barring a business that straddles state lines and makes it a point to do all transactions literally on that line.

              • damicatz says:

                Do the goods cross lines as PART of the *transaction*? If not, then it is not an interstate commerce issue.

                If the store ships goods ACROSS state lines, then it is interstate commerce. If someone comes into the state from out of state, completes the exchange of goods within the confines of that one state and then proceeds to transport them out of the state AFTER the transaction, sua sponte, then it is intrastate commerce.

                • Bladerunner says:

                  No, I’m pretty sure you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                  “The term commerce as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.” (emphasis mine, reference from the http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/interstate+commerce)

                  • damicatz says:

                    I don’t subscribe to the Wickard v. Filburn line of twisted thinking.

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      And you’re welcome to have that opinion, if you’d like, but don’t act like it’s a fact.

    • The Cosmic Avenger says:

      I suggest you look up the meaning of the legal phrase “public accommodation” before you try ignorantly spouting off again about “private property”.

      • damicatz says:

        “Public accommodation” is a leftist legal fiction which the government uses as an excuse to invade private property. Like all “positive rights”, there is no basis for it in natural law.

        You are on private property and you are their at the pleasure of the private property owner. If you don’t like the way their property is laid out or the policies they set on their property, you can leave. You can protest. You can write letters to the media. But you do not have the right to use violence and force to force the private property owner to accede to your wants and needs.

        • Kuri says:

          So, if a person in a wheel chair wishes to do business in an establishment, but can’t because they can’t even get in the front door, meaning their money is no good there, they should be SOL because it’s private property.

          • damicatz says:

            Well, it’s the business’s loss then. The person in the wheel chair has the right to protest, to picket, to start a boycott or a letter writing campaign.

            They do not have the right, however, to use violence to force someone else to change their property solely so they can access it.

            • Kuri says:

              And how exactly would they get violent?

              • Bladerunner says:

                He’s simplifying government rules as “forced at gunpoint” because that’s the reduction.
                Taxes are money “taken at gunpoint” because, if you refuse to pay them, you’re arrested. Refuse to be arrested, and guns are pointed at you. That’s the argument as I’ve heard it, anyway.

            • darcmosch says:

              Well, since without a government, it would be hard to run a business without a safe and stable environment, so they do owe society and the gov’t a little leeway when it comes to accommodating people whose lives are already difficult.

              BTW what is your problem with the supreme court? Did a judge touch you in a special place? Would you like to show me?

              / Don’t worry, you’re going to get through this.

              • damicatz says:

                My problem with the supreme court is that they rule the country by fiat. They have dropped all pretense of even following the “laws” that they claim to uphold.

                This is the organization that said that a “compelling state interest” can override the 4th amendment (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz) allowing the states to conduct random medical probes on people.

                • Bladerunner says:

                  No, they did not say that anything would “override the 4th amendment”.

                  They said “By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that these checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of “reasonable search and seizure.””


                  You can feel free to disagree with their assessement, but don’t lie.

                  The medical probes, btw, weren’t random. The questioning was done at checkpoints (granted, surprise checkpoints, but still), and was brief, it was only if during those questionings the officer had reasonable suspicion that further tests were initiated. So the constitutionality was not the “medical probes”, but whether checkpoints can be legal.

                  They found “the brief questioning to gain “reasonable suspicion” similarly had a negligible impact on the drivers’ Fourth Amendment right from unreasonable search (implying that any more detailed or invasive searches would be treated differently). Applying a balancing test, then, the Court found that the Constitutionality of the search tilted in favor of the government.”

                  That’s how they would phrase their response to ANY search, because they must explain how the search is reasonable or not.

                  • damicatz says:

                    And they are “reasonable” according to SCOTUS because of “compelling state interest”.

                    Ergo, compelling state interest is now an exception to the fourth amendment because the state gets to decide what is in it’s own best interest. Now everything is a “compelling state interest” and therefore “reasonable” and not subject to the Supreme Court.

                    The checkpoints were unconstitutional to begin with. No founding father would have ever held it as reasonable that a cop can stop you for any reason before they even have probable cause you’ve done anything wrong.

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      What are you babbling about? Part of the reasonableness of ANY search is whether the state has a “compelling interest”.

                      In other words, you can get a search warrant for a murder case, but not to find out if someone’s cheating on their wife, because the state has a compelling interest in a murder case, but not in marital fidelity.

                      By your logic, I question whether ANY search is EVER “reasonable”. Even in the event of an actual crime, if you remove “compelling state interest” from the equation, either no search is reasonable, or any search for any reason is. It’s always a balancing act, and compelling state interest is not the sole reason they used, it was simply one thing that gave the checkpoints legitimacy.

                      For example, if they were checkpoints for, say illegal immigrants, the “compelling interest” wouldn’t be there, because there’s no safety issue (of course, there are checkpoints for that in the “border zone”, which I personally find awful because I don’t think 100 miles should constitute a border zone, but that’s not the point here), therefore such checkpoints would be bad. However, because drunk drivers are an active threat to safety, there is a compelling itnerest to find them on the roads. It’s the same logic that allows for officers to frisk people; safety. Generally, they aren’t allowed a thorough search, because that goes beyond “reasonable”, but a quick safety check is allowed. Same logic here; a checkpoint near where they know drunk drivers to be, to see if someone is obviously impaired. The court found there was a good reason to check for it, that it wasn’t an undue burden, and that the technique in question was reasonable to achieve the safety goal.

                      Again, you can disagree if you like, but do so with all the facts.

      • rmorin says:

        Whether this is a violation of ADA or not, local police do not enforce this the ADA. The police officer could not arrest anyone, nor write a ticket for this type of ADA violation. The only one they typically can is Handicap parking spots and that’s because it is explicit with instructions from the RMV/DMV.

        Local police handle the basic requests of the citizens (i.e. get him off my property) not interpretation of discrimination (lack of accommodation is discrimination). There is a good reason behind this; it is better to solve questions of discrimination in a court with all facts present than have one local police officer attempt to make a decision if there is discrimination occurring or not.

        • ChuckECheese says:

          Your idea of “let the courts decide it” isn’t practical. It is expensive, time-consuming, and could be abused by business owners to exclude disabled people by using the courts as a delaying tactic. By the way, the police jurisdiction (the town) is on the hook for its officer refusing to enforce the ADA. This isn’t an optional law.

          • rmorin says:

            Good thing it is not “my idea” and instead how to ADA works. Seriously, read up on the topic before you state that “my idea” is not practical, because that is how we as a country deal with this issue.

            By the way, the police jurisdiction (the town) is on the hook for its officer refusing to enforce the ADA. This isn’t an optional law.

            No they are not. I don’t think you understand. How can you enforce a law to which there are no penalties the police officer can levy? The business operator can not be arrested by the officer. The business operator can not be fined by the police officer. So how do you think a police officer can enforce this law? We do not allow local police officers to ability to decide if there is discrimination or not because it is too great of a responsibility and these things need to be carefully considered.

            • ChuckECheese says:

              Yes they are on the hook. This from the DoJ website:

              “Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 … The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability. (42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 794). These laws protect all people with disabilities in the United States. An individual is considered to have a “disability” if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.

              The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all State and local government programs, services, and activities regardless of whether they receive DOJ financial assistance; it also protects people who are discriminated against because of their association with a person with a disability. Section 504 prohibits discrimination by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ. Section 504 also prohibits discrimination in programs and activities conducted by Federal agencies, including law enforcement agencies.

              These laws prohibit discriminatory treatment, including misconduct, on the basis of disability in virtually all law enforcement services and activities. These activities include, among others, interrogating witnesses, providing emergency services, enforcing laws, addressing citizen complaints, and arresting, booking, and holding suspects. These laws also prohibit retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation. What remedies are available under these laws? If appropriate, DOJ may seek individual relief for the victim(s), in addition to changes in the policies and procedures of the law enforcement agency. Individuals have a private right of action under both the ADA and Section 504; you may file a private lawsuit for violations of these statutes. There is no requirement that you exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ first.”


              The article makes the point that virtually all law enforcement agencies, including local ones, are subject to these rules because they receive some sort of Federal assistance.

              The other odd piece of your claim is that the police officer has a selective duty to uphold the manager’s right to kick out a disabled person over the disabled person’s right to be served by the business, because one is a local rule and the other is Federal; and because local police don’t enforce Federal rules, including the ADA. This is false and the article above and others on the same site address your delusions. Police are sworn

              • rmorin says:

                AHAHA you didn’t read that article too well did you? It does not prove any of your points. All it is saying is that police entities can’t discriminate themselves. It says NOTHING about them enforcing accommodation by third parties.

                Reading fail.

                • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                  “These laws prohibit discriminatory treatment, including misconduct, on the basis of disability in virtually all law enforcement services and activities. These activities include, among others, interrogating witnesses, providing emergency services, enforcing laws, addressing citizen complaints, and arresting, booking, and holding suspects. “

                  Enforcing Laws. Addressing citizen complaints. I think that covers it pretty solidly.

                  The officer in this case was enforcing the laws of private property, but in doing so violated the ADA directive to not discriminate.

                  • Bladerunner says:

                    That is a purposeful misinterpretation.

                    First off, whether the business was discriminating is still very much debatable.

                    Second, the police officer was not being discriminatory. Even if the business did want him ejected for his dog, the business has the right to have someone ejected. The officer did not make any decision based on the guy’s disability, he showed no discrimination.

                    Think of it this way: if an employee is fired for an illegal reason (for being a woman or something), they still have to leave. They can sue, and will win if they have evidence of that, and may even ultimately get their job back, but in the meantime, they have been fired, and the police will eject them if they refuse to leave. Just saying “but nooo, they’re firing me for an illegal reason” is not enough to somehow say the police are wrong for ejecting you.

                  • rmorin says:

                    See Blade Runner’s explanation below, and I guess you have poor reading comprehension as well Loias.

              • rmorin says:

                Also From “Service Dog Central”

                Be familiar with both federal laws and state or provencial laws. In the U.S., your state laws may give you additional protections not offered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Remember that the ADA is a civil law. That means it can only be enforced through the courts. The police are not empowered to enforce it, so calling them about discrimination under the ADA will accomplish nothing.


                It hurts to be wrong huh?

          • crazydavythe1st says:

            There is a difference between civil and criminal law. By definition, if you have a civil claim, you either settle the issue with the other party yourself or you go to court. So no, the police are NOT on the hook for enforcing the ADA.

          • damicatz says:

            It’s the democrat trial lawyers that are abusing the ADA. It is the small businesses that have no recourse to defend themselves from roving gangs of shysters who pay handicapped people to go into businesses solely so they have standing to sue.

        • crazydavythe1st says:


          IANAL, but ADA violations are violations of civil law. Any dispute between the business owner and the person claiming discrimination are considered civil matters and as such police shouldn’t be called to enforce the ADA.

          On the other hand, police should be involved in cases of trespass. If you’re asked to leave a private business, you need to leave. You can seek relief later if appropriate.

    • jebarringer says:

      Just as an FYI, you may have some good points, but your use of “robed tyrants of the supreme court” and “leftist legal fiction” really hurts whatever credibility you may have.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      ADA trumps private property laws in this case. ADA protects those with disabilities and must be followed by retails establishments (businesses that serve the public).

      They can refuse service, yes, but not because someone has a disability. ADA applies in this case.

      • damicatz says:

        Private property rights cannot be trumped. Really, it’s not a difficult concept. I’m sure in Kindergarten, you were taught that stealing is wrong. Taking over someone else’s property for your own use is wrong, whether directly or by proxy (government).

        • Bladerunner says:

          Don’t confuse private property rights with rights of businesses.

          For example, a business could commit fraud on their “private property” based on your logic, because it’s their property, leave if you don’t like it. Obviously, that is not allowed, nor should it.

          Private property isn’t forced to accommodate ADA, but businesses are in order to legally operate.

          • damicatz says:

            Fraud is an actual infringement of rights. Fraud is theft. It is a crime of coercion against property.

            Not building a ramp on private property does not involve the use of coercion. It is not a crime or assault against person or property.

            • Bladerunner says:

              But you do see how there are regulations on the operations of businesses, correct?

              How about, if you don’t like fraud, safety regulations? The point I was trying to make was just that this is not a property rights issue, it is a business rights issue.

    • Kuri says:

      The ADA does get abused, but fact is, since many businesses, especially bigger ones, would rather do what’s cheap than that’s right, things like the ADA are at least somewhat necessary.

  6. deathbecomesme says:

    Makes them look guilty when they won’t let us see the video. If it would help prove their side of the story then why not release it?

    • axhandler1 says:

      I was wondering about that as well. They’ve reviewed the video of the incident, are not changing their story, but won’t let us see it and issued the guy an apology. Hmmmm.

    • RedOryx says:

      Agreed. That combined with the “Uh, we’re still sticking to our story but we’re gonna issue a public apology anyway” doesn’t look good.

    • Lucky225 says:

      Agreed, nothing but PR non-sense, they know that customer’s never coming back and it’s a meaningless apology. Even if there was video, chances are there isn’t audio to prove one way or the other anyways

  7. Diabolos needs more socks says:

    The headline could also read that Popeyes apologizes to the customer by giving them a service dog.

    • Coffee says:

      Then people would be complaining about pronoun ambiguity and/or verb/indirect object agreement.

  8. Chuck U Farley says:

    none of you got this right. The man was eating with a service dog. The family wanted to enter the resturant but they have children who are afraid of any big dog. This trained labrador was seated with the man near the entrance. The adult(s) in the family immediately start asking/demanding the diner move the dog or leave to accommodate their children. They start insisting he has no right to have a “filthy animal” in the business and they start hysterics with the man and the shop owner.

    what you have is an ignorant family who refuse or are unwilling to accept the rights of others in America. No where is it mentioned that the dog was aggressive, menacing or aggressive towards the children. It was merely the children being frightened of a trained and docile service animal and the disgust of the ignorant parents regarding an animal in the dining area.

    • Bladerunner says:

      Where do you get this: “The adult(s) in the family immediately start asking/demanding the diner move the dog or leave to accommodate their children. They start insisting he has no right to have a “filthy animal” in the business and they start hysterics with the man and the shop owner.” ?

  9. PhillipSC says:

    http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm the way i read it, you cannot eject a service dog from your private business …. but you could eject the person? is that right?

  10. Chuck U Farley says:

    I am also disgusted with the Popeye’s “apology”. The apologise for offending a customer? That’s just backhanded. Their franchisee may have broken a federal law because they handled this situation like a typical business amateur. They’re trying to spin that this was about the customer and not his animal but the initial complaint and attack is because of his service animal.

    what really happened is that the dad or mom of the family immediately responded with something akin to “i don’t give a fuck what rights you think you have that animal doesnt belong here and is scaring my precious snowflakes”. This is what escalated the argument. They attacked the disabled individual and tried to impede his rights. Just like when people give grief to someone parking in handicapped spot who isnt visibly crippled.

    • Bladerunner says:

      You know what they say when you make an ASSumption…

      If you want to say the altercation was the Guy w/ Kids’ fault, you should give reasons. I think it was the Dog Guy’s fault because:

      Hypoglycemia CAN cause a response much like drunkeness, including the kind of assholery that drunkeness can cause (someone jumped on me in the previous thread because they thought I thought it was a guarantee…it’s not a guarantee, but it’s a known possibility).

      The DG’s story doesn’t even include the altercation at all which, if there was one that wasn’t his fault, you’d think he’d mention it. His saying there wasn’t one at all means that it’s entirely possible he doesn’t remember it (since I think it’s unlikely the manager made it up out of whole cloth…it would be stupid, easy to discover, and if he did I find no reason for the call to the cops).

      We have basically no info about the family.

      Combine all those together, and I figure it’s likely he IS one of those diabetics who becomes essentially a mean drunk. He was picking a fight with a family who dared to talk to him about his dog (we don’t know what they said, it could have been as simple as “hey, your dog keeps coming over to my kids, can you keep it over by you), the manager called the cops because he was being a belligerent asshat, by the time the cops arrived he was more lucid (the sugar having brought him closer to normal), but still a little confused, and now he assumes it must be discrimination based on his service dog. That’s what I find most likely based on the facts we have. Why do you feel your scenario is more likely; upon what do you base it?

      • Chuck U Farley says:

        it’s all based on speculation and filling in the gaps. Diabetic doesnt think there was a confrontation because it was one sided. other customer is complaining and he’s being ignored so it’s escalated with manager etc.

        also this “”hey, your dog keeps coming over to my kids, can you keep it over by you” shows that you know nothing about legitimate prescribed service animals (which this guy has).

        these are $20k and up highly trained animals and specific breeds are used because of their ability to perform. No legitimate service dog would just walk away from an owner without some serious issue…and it wouldnt be to play with kids unless the owner allowed it.

        you should read all the articles again. My speculation is much more accurate and related to reported facts. Yours is just made up hooey.

        “the statement reads. “It appears that on his most recent visit, a family came in with small children who were frightened by the dog as the guest and the dog were seated directly by the entrance. The parents were concerned for their children and apparently confronted the guest. The two parties engaged in a heated conversation, which quickly escalated, requiring the manager on duty to contact the police to intervene.””

        • Bladerunner says:

          Except, again, he claims he’s never been there before and that “no such argument took place.”

          So, again, what’s more likely, that he’s the asshole and doesn’t remember it, or that he’s lying, or that the manager is lying in a way that will be found out in a stupidly short period of time?

          And “which quickly escalated” doesn’t say who escalated it. Even if they were being idiots, if he escalated it, guess what, he goes.

          I know quite a lot about service animals, actually. Enough to know that they are almost always well-behaved. But not always: http://www.newschannel5.com/story/16645526/dog-trainers-say-even-medical-service-dogs-can-attack

          So, again, your story doesn’t make sense. Getting angry about it doesn’t make it make more sense.

          Now, if he said “yeah, these folks got in my face, next thing I know, cops are there, and I’m the one being made to leave”, I’d find your story more plausible. But he didn’t. So…

          And also, how do you know for sure this was, in fact, a “legitimate prescribed service animals (which this guy has)” that was “$20k and up”? Some service animals are trained by their owners. (http://www.guidehorse.org/news_ot_dogs_kills.htm , from a very quick google search.)

          Remember, there are NO training laws or requirements, nor could the restaurant have asked to see them. Of course, by that same token, there’s no testimony introduced that the dog was behaving inappropriately, just that the man was right inside the door (which, btw, it’s perfectly appropriate to ask him to move to another booth so that other patrons aren’t forced to be surprised by a dog, but then I don’t know the layout of the restaurant)

  11. Shine-runner says:

    I had a problem once with a manager, told me to leave the drive thru after I paid. He refused to give me my food or my money. Then threatened me with the police. I being said” nah I will call them” they was fast. They ended up getting my money back. I sent Popeyes a nice thank you note, they sent me a dollar coupon. I figured man they must be broke to only send a one dollar coupon. It wasn’t six months later, both location in town went out of business. Karma? I love Popeyes, but I will never eat there again. Just like the officer said”they have a right to refuse service to anyone even if the guy was an ass” I said” Yep and I have a right never to give them my money”

  12. Peri Duncan says:

    Ya know, a lot of the accommodations for people with disabilities seem like annoyances and unfair. Until someone you love becomes disabled.