Granted, if other dogs are barred from the public areas of that restaurant for reasons of hygiene, a guide dog may post the same risks - but there’s a significant difference between being a dog owner who doesn’t care and consider about other people’s comfort or wellbeing and wants to drag their mangy mutt everywhere with them, even though they could go to the restaurant by themselves, and the situtation where a guide dog is of such assistance to its owner that they would have difficulties without it.

So basically, I do think guide dogs are a special case.

I appreciate that guide dogs are a disability aid - and you wouldn’t refuse entry to the same woman had she been using a stick to get around - unless of course that was classed as an offensive weapon, but in my opinion it should also depend on why dogs are banned. If the business in question is a food outlet and the reason given is a hygene one then why should guide dogs be treated differently, or if for instance you have a dog allergy, it makes no difference if the dog at the table beside you is a guide dor or otherwise. Of course in other ways allowances can and rightfully should be made, but a guide dog is still a dog and in some instances they rightfully should be treted the same.

How hard is it to grasp the basics of equality legislation?

C’mon Jack, you must know from dealing with idiots on the forums that large numbers of them are totally oblivious to the legislation and, of those that are aware, a significant proportion don’t care and refuse to make any accommodations whatsoever. I see no reason to think it’s any different in the physical world.

Until Govt start to hammer home the responsibilities and some high profile Court cases get reported by the media, nothing will change.