Injustices

A number of incidents have been reported over the past few weeks which fall into the category of: How-could-this-have-happened, in-this-enlightened-age? Two occurred in the local area, while the other was international in scope.
-- A young man, who is visually impaired, was denied entry to a job-search facility, because he had a dog guide.

Here in Nova Scotia, legislation states that dog guides cannot be barred from any public area. The receptionist/clerk, employed by the "Y," was not convinced when this fact was pointed out to her, and she did not allow the prospective client to enter. In addition, he was not permitted to use the facility's job-search computer software. (Photo: http://www.labretriever.net)
-- Later that same week, a young woman was not allowed to board a “Metro Transit” bus, because of her dog, which is trained to alert her when she is about to have an epileptic seizure. A supervisor was called, the woman was asked to supply a medical certificate; the letter from her doctor which she was asked for -- and produced -- was not deemed sufficient, so she was packed up and sent home. (Her dog was not registered as a “helping” dog, even though she has tried, with the efforts of her doctor, without success.)
My question is: What is going on here?
Perhaps I am too naïve in thinking that individuals who serve the public get training in dealing with dog guides. While incidents as described above are rare, they have taken place from time to time, particularly with “Metro Transit,” who do not seem to cover this topic in, “Driver Training 101.”
There seems to be a great need for continued public education, so-called “sensitivity training,” or even reviews by the human rights commission.
-- The third incident had been brewing for more than a decade. The American cyclist, Lance Armstrong, was stripped of his SEVEN Tour de France titles and all trophies and winnings (including an Olympic medal) dating back to 1998 by the American Anti-Doping Agency. A couple of weeks ago, Armstrong decided that, “enough is enough,” and that he was no longer going to defend himself against persistent doping allegations.

In a bizarre form of reasoning, the AADA took that statement to be an admission of guilt. He continues to pursue the great work of his "LiveStrong" anti-cancer foundation, and has received statements of support from millions of individuals -- cycling fans or not -- from around the world. It is interesting to note that since his statement, the rate of financial contributions to his foundation has more than trebled.
(Photo: http://www.dosomething.org)
My question this time is: Where is the often-quoted American presumption of innocence?
Perhaps we haven't seen the final chapter of the story; please stay tuned.