IMO the difficulty in drawing the line suggests that the existing laws aren't quite there yet and some refinement is probably needed. I'm sure that sounds like a really boring, milquetoast opinion to a lot of people but that makes a lot more sense to me than using ambiguous or annoying ESA laws as Exhibit A for why the government shouldn't be allowed to force businesses to accommodate the disabled.
Are you really disagreeing with me? I simply read an article, and noted that the real issue was the government intervention, not private businesses inability to make good judgments, or individuals lack of restraint in assholish behavior. I didn't list this as "Exhibit A" I just noted that if we're talking about this article, this is the main issue.
The problem with a "screw the government intervention" mindset is that wheelchair bound people make up a significant minority, so I won't say no one, but a vanishingly small number of businesses would care if they moved to a non-ADA compliant building. To be a bit flip, playhouses and theaters with their generally elderly patrons, and wheelchair stores are the only ones I can think of. So yes, this is a place that government intervention is necessary. Specifically, if you look at many old buildings built pre-ADA (1990) you'll find a disturbing lack of accessibility.
It's worth discussing whether the government should ban dogs from businesses that serve food. And it's worth discussing whether the regulations which essentially prevent businesses from validating a service animals papers (so to speak) should be relaxed. However, it seems that it's really a lack of understanding of the law when it comes to the difference between a trained service animal and a companion animal, not horrible government intervention.
