Posted on 02/04/2013 2:34:02 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Kristin Chenoweth says she was the victim of a screaming, angry gate agent who bullied her and embarrassed her when she tried to board an American Airlines flight with her emotional support dog ... and now the airline is begging for her forgiveness.
TMZ has learned, the altercation went down this week as Kristin boarded a flight from Dallas to L.A.. We're told Kristin had her emotional support dog in tow -- as she always does -- when she was confronted by a gate agent supervisor who claimed Kristin didn't have the proper paperwork to bring the dog on board.
(Excerpt) Read more at tmz.com ...
Well, I’ll say airline personell certainly seem to prove that old addage about power corrupting. Having the TSA behind them to throw anyone off a plane (and, of course worse) has turned them largely into a bunch of Nazis. I’ve seen plenty of times where the airline people are clearly LOOKING for a fight, and the passenger simply cannot get them to dissengage. Why should they? Their brother is now the big bully on the block.
Hilarious.
“That is the most insensitive thing I’ve ever heard.”
Until you posted.
If this person had a real life they would not need an emotional support pet!
Those are all informative links, and the programs all look excellent. But they are well-trained dogs who help people with real injuries. I doubt that either of those descriptions apply here.
I think she’s a complete crock too but it’s soulless to lump everybody else in with her.
I guess I expect better from the the theoretically “good” people of FR yet I’m frequently disappointed.
Thank you.
I try.
Before I wrote my first reply here, I googled for “Kristin Chenowyth” and “emotional support dog”. There is precious little on her situation in the history of the internet before this incident, which I would say is why it seems to be little more than one woman’s indulgence. One link on one page shows what many here are thinking:
“For those who have been asking, here is the definition of Emotional Support Dog. An emotional support animal (ESA) is a US legal term for a pet which provides therapeutic benefit to its owner through companionship and affection. Emotional support animals are not specially trained to ameliorate disability as psychiatric service dogs are. They require only as much training as an ordinary pet requires in order to live peacefully among humans without being a nuisance or a danger to others.”
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Maddies-Corner/161720263040
By that definition, which I think is the definition instinctively being used by most of us here, Chenowyth’s situation is not the same as you and your pet.
If you would indulge me (us) for a bit and re-read even the more strident responses, I think you’ll find that the outrage is that Chenowyth wants us all to think that it is.
“Emotional support dog”?
That, all by itself, tells any thinking person all that they need to know.
And as a side note, the bar for celebrity status is amazingly low these days. If no more than 5% of the population knows your name, you are not a celebrity.
She wants to take her purse dog on a plane so she can nanny-nanny-boo-boo everyone who can’t have one and sing her favorite song:
“Look what I have and you don’t, and you don’t, and you don’t...”
I need to smoke my emotional support cigar on the plane.
Oh, yes I do have ‘comprehension’. I was a flight attendant for 25 years and have seen these ‘doctor’s notes’ from people to bring their pets onboard- sometimes it was a ruse to not have to pay a shipping fee for their pets or to have to send them by cargo.
I am betting if the doctor who signed the pig onto the plane was contacted and asked if he was willing to take responsiblility for anything that happened on the plane as a result of him endorsing livestock on the plane - and something DID happen- well, I wonder what he would have said then.
And a victim of molestation, a child who has suffered a loss or someone with PTSD should not be grouped with these movie stars who need Little Fluffie just to get through their pampered life.
I’m perfectly capable of understanding the context of a statement, such as this;
“Sorry, but I think 99% of these “emotional support” PETS are created from selfish gasbags”
While I may consider her [whoever she is] on par with Paris Hilton and her purse pooches, the majority of vitriol was directed at anyone who has a support dog.
[even I question support cats/pigs/parrots/ponies/gerbils/whatever...that was *not* the original intent of the programs]
Some of us didn’t just pick a cute critter and buy it a vest.
It’s a lot of training, hard work and investment, physical and emotional.
FWIW, in 3 years, the dog has never even been used in his appointed role.
He goes nowhere that pets aren’t already welcome.
Though I *could* legally drag him into WalMart, I do not feel that’s really appropriate or needful.
That’s why I have a husband.
Nor do I want to take advantage of the system unless absolutely necessary.
“And a victim of molestation, a child who has suffered a loss or someone with PTSD should not be grouped with these movie stars ...”
or anyone else.
“and have seen these ‘doctor’s notes’ from people”
And there’s the dead giveaway that the animal was not acquired with the standard protocol.
The ADA is adamant that no one present ‘papers’ to anyone who asks because it is not legally required to do so.
[which they would have known had they legitimately been working within the system]
If asked, you are to refuse and if pressured, you are to ask for a policeman and call the 800 number on the card the ADA provides.
The whole flying pig thing just baffles me.
There are people working with miniature horse as seeing eye animals quite successfully due to the much longer lifespan of the horse and their superior vision.
It’s a great idea but as much as I love horses, I don’t think I want one in my living room.
This is why I fight about this.
It was supposed to be a good thing but as usual, the scammers found another angle.
One day, it will all go to hell because of them.
The therapeutic use of dogs or other pets isn’t disputed....what I object to is the ABUSE of medical and mental tools.
Some people live in buildings that don’t allow pets, so they pay doctors to write letters certifying their animals are needed.
Frankly, there is growing abuse of a legitimate practice. I have seen it firsthand.
In these situations, the dogs do a great service to folks who really need them. I think the comment upthread was poking fun at the celebutard who needs an "emotional support" pet. What in the hell has she been through that she needs the emotional support of some pampered pet?
Dogs are required to be caged on commercial airplanes unless they are service dogs. They either present to the carrier a doctor’s note or other documentation certifying it is a service dog.
http://www.iaadp.org/usdot-may2008-airline-guidance.html#guid
So do I and yes, there is.
I saw a woman walking around the grocery department with what looked like a “support ferret” in her coat sleeve.
WTH?
I like ferrets...but not near my food.
I’ve owned ferrets and can’t fathom ‘emotional support’ from them...mine were more like 24/7 crazy-critter emotional stress.
I only got my dog certified when hubby was going in for a triple bypass and I had no idea if he was going to survive it.
For 20 years, he’s been here to help out when I have bad spells and suddenly I was faced with the prospect of losing him *and* having existing problems.
Thank God, I have something I don’t really need now but will have for the future, God forbid that I ever do.
Some other article under that one mentioned a back injury.
Not sure what that has to do with a little pocket dog, though.
Here is the definition that jiggyboy posted for “emotional support animals:”
“For those who have been asking, here is the definition of Emotional Support Dog. An emotional support animal (ESA) is a US legal term for a pet which provides therapeutic benefit to its owner through companionship and affection. Emotional support animals are not specially trained to ameliorate disability as psychiatric service dogs are. They require only as much training as an ordinary pet requires in order to live peacefully among humans without being a nuisance or a danger to others.”
I think that under this definition, another valid term for “emotional support animal” is “house pet.”
Now, you claim to have invested long, arduous hours in training your animal. I've trained my own dogs into marvelous, well-behaved house pets, and it is not a long, arduous task. So, the reader may conclude either that you're doing something very different than what is described above, or that it just took you a long time with great difficulty to train a house pet. In fact, you mention that your own service animal helps you with balance while you stand and walk, which suggests the animal has been trained a good ways beyond a regular pet, and is more akin to a traditional service animal than an "emotional support animal."
I don't think anyone would begrudge someone bringing along a dog who helps keep him/her upright has he/she walks. I think that most of us would regard such an animal as a traditional service dog, even if the dog's owner was able to train the dog on his/her own, resulting in significant cost savings.
Which brings us to the final question: Should folks generally be permitted to bring their house pets aboard passenger flights? I've never given it much thought. I imagine there are probably good reasons for avoiding cabins full of dogs (and cats? are cats included?), and thus, no, folks generally should not be permitted to bring their house pets aboard passenger flights.
Thus, the conclusion is, if most “emotional support animals” fall under the rubric provided above, then, no, folks shouldn't be permitted to take them places where ordinary folks may not take their house pets.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.