Facebookers Applaud Store’s Ban of Emotional Support Animals

A story about a grocery chain refusing to allow emotional support animals inside their stores seemed to get almost unanimous praise.

When it comes to service and emotional support animals, people can get very fired up. A recent story about a grocery store refusing to allow a woman to bring in a emotional support dog serves as a good exmaple.

Publix is certainly no stranger to the controversy about emotional support animals. Last year, the chain displayed signs at their stores reminding people that pets are not allowed inside. The signs cited a section of the FDA Food Code, an extensive document that establishes safety protocols for businesses. Chapter 6, Section 501.115 does prohibit live animals on the premises of a food establishment. 

Are grocery stores really “food establishments”? These days, many grocery stores have deli departments that prepare hot food. So, yes, that qualifies, whether we pet owners like it or not.

The store does allow “service animals,” but that doesn’t mean you can bring in your dog just because you want to.

When Publix posted the signs, there were plenty of people who balked about it. But there were also those who apparently became fed up with seeing Fido in the aisles!

Service animals vs. emotional support animals: What’s the difference?

The Americans with Disabilities Act says there’s a big difference between the two. Its official website defines a service animal as “any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.”

But it notes that not all of the animals people with certain disabilities depend on meet that definition.

It cites the definition of an emotional support animal from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:

…an emotional support animal is any animal that provides emotional support alleviating one or more symptoms or effects of a person’s disability. Emotional support animals provide companionship, relieve loneliness, and sometimes help with depression, anxiety, and certain phobias, but do not have special training to perform tasks that assist people with disabilities. Emotional support animals are not limited to dogs.

The issue is that people want the two to be considered the same thing. But wanting something to happen doesn’t automatically make it happen.

It’s not about hating animals

The Americans With Disabilities Act is designed to help people who have certain disabilities navigate life. But as with all things, there has to be a limit to how far something can go.

If the FDA feels — and rightly so — that there needs to be a limit as to the kind of animal that can be present where food is being prepared, we have to live with that.

I love animals. I’ve had dogs all my life. My parents brought home my first dog a month after I turned a year old. There have only been brief periods of my life when I was without a dog. Some people are just as passionate about cats. I don’t dislike cats at all. In fact, we had a cat when I was a kid that was the sweetest cat you’d ever find.

But for me, there’s nothing quite like the bond between the human and the canine creature.

Some people feel that way about iguanas. And ferrets. And even turtles. Emotional support animals, as you read above, are not limited to dogs. Some small horses are considered emotional support animals.

But if you try walking a horse into a grocery store, you should expect to be turned away.

Emotional support animals don’t perform specific tasks

I’m not knocking emotional support animals. They definitely serve a purpose. But that purpose seems to be making people feel more at ease.

A service animal, meanwhile, is highly trained to help a person with visual disabilities safely cross streets and steer clear of hazards. A friend of mine we lost several years ago had a service dog that could detect when his blood sugar was too high and alert him that he needed to check his insulin pump.

There’s a big difference.

Public reaction over the policy seems to have shifted

When Publix reminded the public of its policy last year, there were more critics on Facebook. (At least, there were more critics on the posts I saw.) The critics didn’t outnumber the supporters, to be sure.

But the critics didn’t seem shy about expressing their displeasure.

That was then.

This time around, when the story shifted from the store reminding people of an existing policy to actually declining a customer’s request to enter with an emotional support dog, the reaction shifted right along with it.

Many on Facebook posted responses like, “Good for Publix” and messages like “this has gotten out of hand” as they applauded the policy.

“Not everyone with a dog has a service dog,” one person wrote.

“Publix made the right decision. if you have PTSD apply for a PTSD service dog like I had to apply for my Guide Dog,” someone who identified herself as a service dog handler wrote.

A few did point out that those with emotional episodes could be “triggered” at any time. But that didn’t seem to elicit much sympathy.

“If you cannot shop without emotional support, order off the app, use delivery services, or pickup services such as Walmart offers,” another suggested.

At my workplace, a previous boss didn’t allow anyone to bring animals into the office. During hurricanes, they set up a single room where animals could be kenneled during an evacuation. But the animals could not leave that room except for a bathroom break outside. The reasoning? Some people have severe allergies to pet dander. It wasn’t anti-dog or anti-cat. It was pro-others.

Yes, there has to be a line drawn in this kind of controversy.

In this case, it appears more people side with the store.

How do you feel about emotional support animals being allowed everywhere? Should they be?