Pet Free Premise

[Heem 67]

CG, you are correct. My statement about laws was not real intelligent.

[ComputerGuy 3,915]

You are a friend for life.

[Ian Greenwood 105]

 So...”  computer guy , gringal and several others “  the whole crux of your definitive  interpretation of this law is  the  “  Service Area “ Verbatim gringal says..Widely substantiated  ,exact law ,computer guy says , it’s all service area ..R V gringo . Absolute B S of course...as Kellyanne  says alternative facts . When I first came here twelve years ago ...few restaurants mostly mediocre at best .These days ..so many more choices some vastly improved .They all need business..not enough to go around .They can’t afford to be exclusionary every seat in a chair enables them to carry on..keep the doors open ,feed their families. Don’t sweat the small stuff...ignore the odd pooch ,enjoy what time you have left ! ..as one by one we creep to rest . 

[ComputerGuy 3,915]

Look who's spouting alternatives to the facts.

[Xena 2,781]

I will not go to any restaurant that allows men with beards to eat there.

https://abc7.com/5252325/?fbclid=IwAR2qhkCRKHsE8TojLP2NG13UrSx1sqNXlve34cYqZ-H5EVwA_b4S1ut32ZE

[Tiny 677]

18 minutes ago, Xena said:

I will not go to any restaurant that allows men with beards to eat there.

https://abc7.com/5252325/?fbclid=IwAR2qhkCRKHsE8TojLP2NG13UrSx1sqNXlve34cYqZ-H5EVwA_b4S1ut32ZE

Let's clarify. That was "Swiss researchers ".

Isn't that in Europe?

[Xena 2,781]

2 hours ago, Tiny said:

Let's clarify. That was "Swiss researchers ".

Isn't that in Europe?

I am not taking any chances! 

[rafterbr 228]

6 hours ago, Xena said:

I will not go to any restaurant that allows men with beards to eat there.

 

Guess you would not go to lunch with Jesus than.  Ha

[Xena 2,781]

2 hours ago, rafterbr said:

Guess you would not go to lunch with Jesus than.  Ha

Why would I want to go to lunch with Jesus? He’s been dead for a couple of centuries — if he ever actually existed that is. 

 

[lakeside7 634]

2 hours ago, rafterbr said:

Guess you would not go to lunch with Jesus than.  Ha

Who said Jesus was a man?

[Xena 2,781]

1 hour ago, lakeside7 said:

Who said Jesus was a man?

All of Christianity and the world forever. But if you want to argue that point now go right ahead. 

[Tiny 677]

5 hours ago, rafterbr said:

Guess you would not go to lunch with Jesus than.  Ha

I have lunch with him all the time.  He is one of my brother-in-laws.

[slainte39 691]

What´s with all these establishments serving up Swiss enchiladas, trying to capture all the Swiss bearded ones and their germs.

! Proxiamente ¡  Belgian enchiladas in a restaurant that allows dogs and beards. 

Woe is me...…..When will someone put a McD´s franchise Lake Chapala and end all this silliness.

11 hours ago, Tiny said:

Let's clarify. That was "Swiss researchers ".

Isn't that in Europe?

 

[kosika 8]

You have the right to eat or not eat at any establishment you want. If they don't allow dogs then don't bring yours.

The owners have the right to decide if they want to allow pets or not.

Mexican law seems to be interpreted by each establishment as they see fit. 

The dogs are innocent in this conversation.

My question would be are you really that dependent on your dog that you have to drag it everywhere you go?  If it is a service dog that is another matter, but most of these dogs are just pampered pouches. Some bark at the other dogs and some bark at customers and staff. That dog should be left at home. Other people do not necessarily think that your pup is the cutest thing they have ever seen. They don't want your pup under their chair while they eat and they don't want to have to be careful not to trip over your leash when coming or going.

If your dog can sit quietly and is well behaved, has been in the house all day by itself, and is allowed to go where you are eating, then take it. If you have been dragging it around town all day, take it home and let it rest.

I choose to eat anywhere I want even if there are dogs there. I don't care for it if a pet is misbehaving, as it makes dining a less enjoyable experience, but I will not boycott the restaurant just because the owner made a choice I did not agree with.

If you don't want to eat there then don't, but don't go on the web board and bash a poor little mom and pop restaurant that could easily lose business because you disagree with or maybe misunderstood  their policy. These people work hard for us, their customers, and bashing them here is not something we should do over a dog policy. 

And yes I have 2 dogs and no I do not take them with me. Ever. My choice.

[ComputerGuy 3,915]

That's a remarkably long-winded way to restate what several others already have, ad nauseam: "Flout the law if you want to".

[AngusMactavish 2,095]

4 minutes ago, ComputerGuy said:

"Flout the law if you want to".

Those stop signs are for you, not me.

[gringohombre 315]

On 4/13/2019 at 11:09 PM, Ian Greenwood said:

I believ the Mexican law indicates ..that dogs are not allowed in service areas...  After dealing with every aspect of planning , building ,and renovating over thirty restaurants  in the last forty years  l can assure  you 100 %  whether you like it or not ..” Service areas according to the FDA and many other state and federal  licensing entities are areas within a restaurant where food is prepared  , stored  and received ,  including but not limited too , dish washing  areas , laundry storage , liquor and wine  storage , back bar areas and waiter preparation areas “ These areas must  have adequate drainage , approved wall and flooring coverage...... it goes on and on as you can imagine ,  however the  telling line is how it finishes....these areas should  have some form of separation from the dining and public access areas ....

I left a post earlier here but have ignored this thread since, for all the usual reasons...stupidity, ignorance and those who think they know all the answers. This poster (Ian) has all the facts, as did I in my post. Most here obviously do not know what they are talking about (except Rony and a few others). Here Ian outlines the law...the service area is NOT the dining area. The law is clear.. it says dogs are not allowed in the SERVICE areas. If it was as many here would like, would it not say "dogs are not allowed in restaurants"...period, full stop, punto? I have no dog in this fight (pun intended) but those "citing the law" do not know what they are talking about. Just make a list of the restaurants you like that do not allow dogs and avoid the rest. Simple...please, this is no big deal...5 pages of mostly nonsense...get over it! 

[ComputerGuy 3,915]

Welcome back, you amazingly self-aggrandizing, insulting person.

It was one of your own posts some weeks back that precipitated someone posting a link to the actual law, which you apparently still feel free to "interpret".

And thanks for telling us, yet again, to "get over it", something you are clearly incapable of doing yourself.

[slainte39 691]

7 hours ago, AngusMactavish said:

Those stop signs are for you, not me.

 

"Mexican law seems to be interpreted by each person as they see fit"  or some quote like that.

A pretty low opinion of the country you are a citizen of, or living in...…..sad

[AngusMactavish 2,095]

 

 

 

7 hours ago, slainte39 said:

A pretty low opinion of the country you are a citizen of, or living in...…..sad

Ya, it's going to the dogs. My home country is run by them.

[ComputerGuy 3,915]

8 hours ago, slainte39 said:

 

"Mexican law seems to be interpreted by each person as they see fit"  or some quote like that.

A pretty low opinion of the country you are a citizen of, or living in...…..sad

Pretty sure Kiltman was being facetious...

[AngusMactavish 2,095]

20 minutes ago, ComputerGuy said:

Pretty sure Kiltman was being facetious...

[gringohombre 315]

17 hours ago, ComputerGuy said:

Welcome back, you amazingly self-aggrandizing, insulting person.

It was one of your own posts some weeks back that precipitated someone posting a link to the actual law, which you apparently still feel free to "interpret".

And thanks for telling us, yet again, to "get over it", something you are clearly incapable of doing yourself.

I did not "interpret" the law...it is quite clear. You are free to state your opinions, but the facts are the facts, and no matter how hard you, and others, try to change them, as i say "Get over It!" 

[ComputerGuy 3,915]

17 hours ago, ComputerGuy said:

Welcome back, you amazingly self-aggrandizing, insulting person.

It was one of your own posts some weeks back that precipitated someone posting a link to the actual law, which you apparently still feel free to "interpret".

And thanks for telling us, yet again, and again, to "get over it", something you are clearly incapable of doing yourself.

You really think by trying to use that old bilge-water " you can't have your own facts" on us is going to do you any good? Oh, my.

[ComputerGuy 3,915]

17 hours ago, ComputerGuy said:

Welcome back, you amazingly self-aggrandizing, insulting person. It was one of your own posts some weeks back that precipitated someone posting a link to the actual law, which you apparently still feel free to "interpret". And thanks for telling us, yet again, and again, to "get over it", something you are clearly incapable of doing yourself.

7 minutes ago, gringohombre said:

I did not "interpret" the law...it is quite clear. You are free to state your opinions, but the facts are the facts, and no matter how hard you, and others, try to change them, as i say "Get over It!" 

You really think by trying to use that old bilge-water adage " you can't make up your own facts" on us is going to do you any good? Oh, my.