Loveland Resource Center Targets Service Dog

Watch how Copilot tries to be gentle with me when I’m being completely and utterly ridiculous. In my 45 years, I have never EVER heard of anyone thinking along these lines. Let’s see what you think.

Hey Copilot, this might be a really dumb question but if my dog throws up, will it get me sick?

Quick answer: It’s possible but very unlikely. Dog vomit can contain bacteria, parasites, or viruses that could make humans sick, but transmission usually requires direct contact (like touching it with bare hands or getting it into your mouth). Practicing good hygiene—wearing gloves, cleaning surfaces, and washing hands—greatly reduces any risk.

🐾 Why Dog Vomit Could Pose a Risk

Bacteria: Vomit may contain pathogens like Salmonella or Campylobacter, which can cause diarrhea, fever, and stomach pain in humans.
Parasites: Roundworms or hookworms can sometimes be present. If accidentally ingested, they can cause gastrointestinal issues.
Viruses: Dogs can carry viruses (like canine parvovirus), but these generally don’t infect humans. The risk of viral transmission from vomit is very low.
Zoonotic diseases: Rarely, illnesses like Leptospirosis or Toxoplasmosis could be transmitted, though they’re more often spread through urine or feces rather than vomit.

🚫 How Transmission Happens

Direct contact: Touching vomit with bare hands, or if it contacts open wounds or mucous membranes.
Indirect contact: Vomit contaminating surfaces or objects that aren’t cleaned properly.
Airborne risk: Extremely low—particles from vomiting don’t usually carry enough pathogens to infect humans.

✅ Precautions You Can Take

Wear gloves or use paper towels when cleaning up vomit.
Disinfect the area thoroughly with an appropriate cleaner.
Wash your hands well with soap and warm water afterward.
Avoid touching your face during cleanup.
Keep children, pregnant people, and immunocompromised individuals away from the mess, since they’re more vulnerable.

🧾 Bottom Line

You don’t need to panic—most people won’t get sick from dog vomit. The risk is rare and usually requires direct exposure. With simple hygiene steps, you can safely clean up after your pup without worrying.

Would you like me to put together a step-by-step cleaning checklist you can print out and keep handy for moments like this? That way, you’ll have a ritualized routine ready whenever your dog has an accident.

The reason I ask, is because the LRC tried to use this as a reason to ban someone’s service dog from the premises.

Ah, now I see the deeper context. That’s not a “dumb question” at all—it’s actually a really important one, because it touches on public health claims being used to justify exclusion.

Here’s the breakdown:

🐕 Service Dogs and Legal Protections

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), service dogs are allowed in public facilities and businesses.
A business or agency cannot exclude a service dog simply because of speculative health concerns. They can only ask the dog to leave if:
- The dog is out of control and the handler doesn’t take effective action, or
- The dog is not housebroken.
Generalized fears about allergies, germs, or “what if the dog vomits” are not valid reasons for exclusion.

🧪 Health Risk Reality

As we discussed, dog vomit poses minimal risk to humans if cleaned properly.
The chance of transmission is far lower than everyday exposures (e.g., touching a public doorknob).
Public health authorities do not list “dog vomit” as a recognized hazard that justifies banning service animals.

⚖️ Why This Matters

Using “vomit risk” as a justification is a misapplication of health science and a potential ADA violation.
It reflects a broader pattern: institutions sometimes invoke pseudo-health rationales to mask discrimination or avoid accommodating disability rights.
In advocacy terms, this is a classic example of bureaucratic rhetoric—using exaggerated or misplaced safety language to sidestep legal obligations.

📌 Bottom line: The LRC’s reasoning doesn’t hold up medically or legally. Vomit cleanup is a hygiene issue, not a justification for exclusion. ADA protections are clear: service dogs cannot be banned on speculative health grounds.

Would you like me to help you frame this into a short, ADA-grounded rebuttal you could use in testimony or correspondence—something that dismantles the “vomit risk” argument in plain language while reinforcing the legal protections? That way you’d have a ready-to-use advocacy tool.

That was certainly what I had thought. They’ve banned him several times, and it leaves him on the curb (literally he has to stay between the sidewalk and the shoulder of a highway).

Then the call the Loveland Police Department to come hand out trespassing or obstruction tickets, and there’s nothing he can do to protect himself.

That’s a heartbreaking and dangerous situation, Protyus. What you’re describing isn’t just inconvenient—it’s a direct violation of ADA protections and it puts someone’s safety at risk. Let’s break this down clearly:

⚖️ ADA Framework

Service dogs must be allowed in public facilities and businesses. Exclusion is only permitted if the dog is out of control or not housebroken.
Speculative health concerns (like “vomit risk”) are not valid grounds for exclusion.
Forcing someone onto the curb of a highway is not only discriminatory, it creates a serious safety hazard.

🚨 Police Involvement

Calling the Loveland Police Department to issue trespassing or obstruction tickets in this context is highly problematic:
- ADA protections supersede local trespass ordinances when the exclusion is based on disability discrimination.
- Issuing tickets to someone who is being denied lawful access could expose both the facility and the police department to civil rights liability.
- The optics are terrible: a disabled person left in traffic danger because of bureaucratic overreach.

🧩 Advocacy Angles

Document everything: dates, times, names of staff, ticket numbers. This creates a record of repeated violations.
File an ADA complaint: The U.S. Department of Justice accepts complaints about service animal discrimination.
Engage local advocacy: Disability rights groups in Colorado (like the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition) can amplify the issue.
Frame the narrative: This isn’t about “dog vomit.” It’s about systemic exclusion and public endangerment.

📌 Bottom line: What’s happening is not only unjust—it’s unsafe and unlawful. The ADA is clear, and repeated bans plus police involvement could rise to the level of systemic discrimination.

Would you like me to help draft a short, legally grounded statement you could use either in correspondence with the LRC or in testimony—something that reframes the issue from “vomit risk” to civil rights violation and public safety hazard? That way you’d have a concise tool ready to push back effectively.

There was another occasion. The men are staying in the back in tents, where he has been staying with his dog. He supplied his own tent, so he wouldn’t have to share one, and he was being forced to have another man in his tent, or he would be banned.

That’s another clear example of coercive and discriminatory treatment, Protyus. Forcing someone to share a tent against their will—especially when they’ve provided their own shelter—is not about “policy,” it’s about control and exclusion. Let’s unpack it:

🏕️ Why This Is Problematic

Autonomy & Safety: A person has the right to control their own living space. Forcing someone to share a tent strips them of privacy and can expose them to safety risks.
ADA Implications: If the man is disabled and the dog is a service animal, then requiring him to share a tent or face banishment could be seen as a failure to provide reasonable accommodation.
Retaliation Pattern: The “share or be banned” ultimatum mirrors the earlier “vomit risk” excuse—it’s another manufactured barrier designed to push him out.
Public Endangerment: Banning him means he ends up outside, vulnerable to traffic or exposure, which compounds the harm.

⚖️ Legal & Advocacy Angles

ADA Protection: The ADA prohibits policies that effectively exclude disabled individuals from equal access. Forcing tent-sharing is not a legitimate condition of access.
Civil Rights Framing: This isn’t about tents—it’s about systemic exclusion. The repeated bans and ultimatums show a pattern of discrimination.
Documentation: Each incident (vomit excuse, forced tent-sharing, police involvement) should be logged. Patterns are powerful evidence in civil rights complaints.
Complaint Pathways: Beyond DOJ ADA complaints, this could also be raised with HUD if housing-related, or with state civil rights commissions.

📌 Bottom line: Forcing tent-sharing or banning someone for refusing is not a neutral policy—it’s a discriminatory tactic that undermines autonomy, safety, and disability rights.