Now, in this society, many dogs are very spoiled by their own dogs, even as human beings.
Some people also call their dogs “sons” “babys” and so on, and make them sound like chickens.
What needs to be understood is that a dog is a dog. It's different from a man.
In public, in particular, dogs are treated as human beings, and even fed to dogs at the table, and dogs and people eat together, which is unsanitary and makes jokes that are offensive.
Women feed dogs at the table.
A woman fed a dog at a table, which made the surroundings uncomfortable, especially in public, and even more disgusting.
It appears from the picture that the woman brought her pet dog to the hotel for dinner and that she was very sweet and dressed her dog.
Women and dogs sit face-to-face during meals, and dogs are very taboo when entering hotels and sitting on chairs.
Even more surprising is the fact that women eat with dogs while they eat, and dogs lick their tongues on their dishes, which is disgusting.
Such a move was a disgrace to the people around, even the owner of the hotel, and no one thought that a woman would do such an absurd thing.
It wasn't stopped in time.
Women can be said to be responsible for such actions.
In general, hotels, which are heavily staffed and highly healthy, should not bring pets in.
The woman not only brought the pets in, but also put them on the chair and finally let them eat in the bowl.
This process does not happen at once; it does. There was ample time to stop the process, but apparently the hotel owner did not.
It may be fear of losing a customer, or of causing an argument, that the hotel will tolerate it, but it now appears that the connivance of the hotel is due to a small loss because, although a female customer was recruited, a large number of customers were lost.
I'm not going to this store anymore.
Seeing this situation, many netizens are saying that such stores will never go again.
Some netizens say, "In women's eyes, it's her own child, it's precious, but in others, it's animals, eating with animals, it's disgusting."
And the netizens said, "Never come back into this store again."
There are also netizens who say, "If I was eating, I wouldn't be paying for my food when I saw it."
Another netizens said, "Oh, my God, you lost your plate. Next time you don't eat at your house, you're afraid to use the dog."
As a result, it is difficult for most Internet users to accept such behaviour, and the resulting aversion to the hotel will inevitably affect the future business of the hotel.
It's no fault of the Internet. Who wants to eat at this hotel after all? It's disgusting to think.
Finally:
First, the behaviour of women is incorrect, lacking a sense of health and safety and a sense of public decency, and deserves criticism.
For the owner of the hotel, he must have made the mistake of failing to put an end to this practice, and it would have had a huge negative impact on his subsequent operation, which would have been in vain.
However, the owner of the hotel can claim compensation from the woman, but most of this behaviour is ethical and it is difficult to make much substantial reparation. For the hotel, at least to throw away all the dishes, it is, of course, hard to salvage the reputation, and it is easier to repair the damage, and everyone will mind.
Secondly, there is a need for legislation that clearly prohibits the entry of any pet into the premises, including food, sanitary requirements, penalties for those involved and for those who condone it, and for social oversight reports to protect public health and food safety.
Thirdly, there is a need for open and transparent means of catering to be destroyed, fully cleaned and disinfected, and to avoid the use of harmful devices again, not only to reassure the public, but also to enable restaurants to regain the trust of their customers. There is nothing to be afraid of inconvenientness and transparency, and some things are always hidden and can only exacerbate public concern.