>If not, legally allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals.

This should change. Especially on the allergy front. Forcing someone to suffer an allergic reaction because a customer has a service dog is immoral.

I am not taking a stance on the law itself, but it is what the current law is. And has been in place for at least a decade in its current form. If it is a serious issue, then people should definitely work to change the law.

But, unless they are the only one available or something, there is nothing in the law saying that specific employee has to keep providing service. The company should make a best effort to remove that employee from contact, without impacting the service of the customer.

Refusing to serve someone because they are blind is also immoral.

I'll let you decide who has the better case.

All 15 of your employees have medically serious dog allergies?

If a small business owner happened to be that unlucky, how would you propose it be dealt with? If I were such a business owner, I would honestly attempt to arrange the customer be handled by a competitor, if it was legit a situation where everyone at my company happened to be seriously allergic to dogs.

I think that business owner should realize by employee 12 or 13 they probably need to diversify a bit in order to stay legally compliant. It is not a complicated or difficult thing to handle.

> Legally an actual service animal must be trained

There's a distinction between trained service animals and emotional support animals. Both are support animals but the latter are largely untrained which is why airlines have moved to ban them. I have no issue whatsoever with trained service animals!

I think there's a conversation to be had about dogs as vicious in nature but I have been laughed out of the room when I mention this to an in-person audience. But many USPS/UPS/FedEx and now Amazon delivery people are aware of this: untrained dogs are a danger