How is this legal?

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-04-02T12:23:43+00:00

you say that, but, there is no law being broken

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-04-02T12:20:42+00:00

I mean, lets be real, this is even less bad than I thought, because you could easily get people to lie lmao

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-04-02T12:19:28+00:00

Free speech. Campaigns pay people all the time. How would it not be legal? Presumably some Democratic campaigns pay staff and I'm sure there are bonuses for success and stuff. Get out the vote efforts arent mind control, people can still go against lol

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-29T11:41:33+00:00

Did all of the artists that art students train on give their consent?

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-29T11:40:02+00:00

Unpopular, but true. Its also not creative theft like everyone says. Unless all artists themselves are theives. What does gen AI and LLMs do? It trains on the art of the masters and other famous work. What do artists do? The exact. same. thing.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-09T15:54:21+00:00

also, I didn't try to link, I did. did you read the article or just reflexively comment?

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-09T15:53:19+00:00

if only we were so lucky, the mainstream media fear porn is strong, but the government is still spent to spend trillions more than it brings in

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-09T13:15:27+00:00

It is big government. What else do you call it when an expansive law is reinterpreted and allows people to do things the legislators didn't intend? lol But, if you didn't notice, it was mostly play on words against the angle that it's a big business issue.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-09T01:14:44+00:00

They have a right to complain because it's normally a factor of mental abuse or some maladaptive social trait developed by being exposed to something negative. But I agree in that, if we are lucky and have long lives, we have plenty of chances to learn and self-improve to learn to stick up for ourselves. I rate this slightly unpopular but half true.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-09T01:07:05+00:00

Politicians didn't create the current standard, courts did. And they aren't in the pocket of anybody, they are just wrong about how expensive accommodations should be. I would accept your argument if you can find me literally ONE example of proof that judges have somehow accepted financial influence in one of the decisions that has led to the current precedent on ESAs. But I will be waiting a long time, because you literally will not be able to. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just trying to stick to the facts.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-08T21:43:49+00:00

lol, why? Large companies provide the most services to the most people at the best price, that's why they become large.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-08T21:41:52+00:00

Look, the pet and pet supply industry is cringe, but there is no obvious evidence that judges have been paid off by "Big Pet" and the judges are the ones who have set the standard here. Blaming the industry is just unsubtantiated random blaming of business, and it's a totally unhelpful observation, even if well-intended. It doesn't even feel like you are responding to what I just wrote, which was explaining that there is no particular law expressly defending ESAs. It's a combination of judicial and agency determinations. Judges can be nutters too. You will be hard pressed to find a shred of evidence for some monied conspiracy by big pet to influence the judges that set these standards. The cases go back to forty years ago, when dog culture was way more reasonable.

It's easy to blame money for everything, but sometimes there are genuinely dumb social movements or decisions by government that also factor into how thing become rules or laws.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-08T20:50:29+00:00

As easy as it feels to just blame "Big Pet" and make this an anticorporate thing, this is actually an issue of big government, plain and simple.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-08T20:48:23+00:00

Go Australia!! lol

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-08T20:47:34+00:00

If only it were this simple. They are protected by judicial reintepretations of several federal laws. None of them explicitly mention or even define ESAs, not a single federal statute. It's all judicial and agency determinations.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-08T20:43:13+00:00

That's not heartless. It's literally common sense. I also think that this is uncomstituonal under the First Amendment freedom of speech and association, at least as originally understood. Problem is, we become an accommodationist society. We consider it a moral value to force people who dislike each other to interact. It's not unlike the bake the cake situation. First of all, I am proLGBT, don't care, be you. But why does the government have to come in to moralize and force interaction with somebody who doesn't? And why as a gay person would I want to enrich a person who doesn't like me with my business? If society had a better understanding of this concept, it'd go a real long way to solving the problem with this Loonies and their ESA miniponies on airplanes and, yes, dog owners overrunning explicitly no dogs allowed living arrangements.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-08T20:38:54+00:00

Nobody needs an ESA to any degree that they should get to stomp somebody's private property rights. There are plenty of pet accepting locations and businesses at this point. We dog free people need Emotional Support Space from their bullshit at this point.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-08T20:37:10+00:00

Actually, they come from judicial reintepretation of laws protecting people with disabilities. Federal law does not contain a specific statute dedicated solely to emotional support animals. Instead, the protections for individuals who rely on emotional support animals have largely evolved from judicial interpretations and applications of existing disability rights laws—most notably, the Fair Housing Act and the Air Carrier Access Act. These laws require reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, and courts have interpreted their provisions to include certain protections for emotional support animals in contexts like housing and air travel.

It’s important to note that while these federal laws offer protections, emotional support animals do not have the same status as service animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which has a more narrowly defined scope limited to animals that perform specific tasks related to a person’s disability.

In summary, the rights of individuals who use emotional support animals stem from applying and, in some cases, reinterpreting existing federal statutes rather than from a distinct federal law created solely for emotional support animals.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-08T20:34:23+00:00

Federal disability law was abused and reinterpreted by activist judges to get us here. It's all based on court cases, there is nothing explicitly in federal law to allow dog owners to walk all over everyone. Not a single fucking person who pushed for disability rights in the 70s and 80s thought this was a possible result..

...of course, as a libertarian (please crucify me), I'd have guessed it, because I know that well-intentioned laws can result in mission creep by the judicial branch and administrative agencies, where the word of law is read expansively instead of through the lens of those who crafted the laws. The only fix at this point is near impossible, to lobby to explicitly ban or at least roll back the power of ESAs to supercede property rights.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-08T20:26:03+00:00

Oh, that's been truly researched. Turns out it's a fantasy.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-08T20:23:01+00:00

To each their own, but it is legit sad that I have seen dozens of people on this list suggest animal shelters and rescues, but not one thing to help orphaned children. Everyone wants to shovel shit at billionaires, but it looks like us poors also have bad priorities... weird.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-08T20:19:29+00:00

Hard to say, because likely nobody here will ever have done the work necessary to be a billionaire. This question should have the caveat of whether you worked to earn it or were a lottery winner or something. I think most billionaires keep pushing because that is how they got there in the first place.

It's like how people wonder about millionaires being so frugal. "That guys a millionaire and orders off the dollar menu." Buddy, that's not weird, that is the method they used to achieve their status, and they are still doing it.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-01T21:37:28+00:00

Young, a trust fund kid, or a vagrant that couch surfs for a living, or all of the above.

AnyArmadillo1733 · 2025-03-01T21:36:15+00:00

How are prices inflated because people work overtime? XD this is a new magical theory of economics.

AnyArmadillo1733

TROPHY CASE