ordered would not cause a fundamental alteration of the services provided by the california center we believe that determination as a matter of law is in error we believe that the americans with disabilities would fundamentally alter the nature of the live artistic performances presented in the concert hall the reasons for that are fairly straightforward and that is that that the he says are unlike other and certainly we now find ourselves and we think that this records determination puts us in that position in the future in order under the district court's determination in order for us to exclude a service animal that has made noise previously we would have to somehow determine that the noise was not made for proper purpose was not made to communicate something for the benefit of the disabled owner or was not a noise that if made by a human would be acceptable now how do we make that determination i couldn't tell the court i think that would require as a practical matter an investigation that certainly nonprofit arts organizations would be loath to undertake because of the costs involved and because of the probability that they could easily end up in court just as we have through today that's part of the reason we believe the fast unseated by the just record is simply unworkable as a practical matter as well as being contrary to the law the second concern we during the concert you know that if somebody had a coughing fit or some sort of medical emergency that that created a big disturbance you would want to help that person out of the concert so that that concert could go on and what's the difference with with a service dog that for some reason might make it an unusual and distracting amount of noise when you simply handle it the same way is significant as mr haines testified audiences now live performances as well as performers have certain expectations about the nature of the experience part of that is that i think over the course of  noises and it doesn't that performers and audiences have come to expect haase we may hear but don't necessarily register in the same way but of dogs barking with register that's the concern expressed by mr haynes that a dog barks is an unexpected noise that because of the nature of the audience has a very different impact than you or i might have if we cough even in a loud way but taken to its logical conclusion your policy would exclude all service animals from the concert itself close to her which presumably is one of the purposes of the service dog to protect the area around ms leontine but you your person alvin took that as evidence that the dog would create a disturbance during the concert and that's the problem i'm having with the logical conclusion to your argument which would lead to complete of all service dogs from performance i think the way that i could and we think that's the key error that the district court made by focusing on the question of the reasonable doubt as the dog's normal was it necessary to communicate something important that's that's  circumstances where a service animals noise might not be disruptive or inappropriate outdoor concerts outdoor athletic advanced a different type of service animal perhaps a seizure alert dog but here we're concerned about a very particular d specific occasion a very particular type of performance in which the noise has an unusual in fact where this a rolling stones concert wouldn't have quite the concern or the noise of your policy if i were blind and i showed up with eye black labrador retriever would you allow me into your concert hall with my dog so that i could listen to the music you know because of the fact that i had a dog that might bark would you exclude and me he answer would be yes your honor you would be allowed to command we are talking about a god is the god doesn't have a prior is that correct right here in this case that's the situation ok but does it matter that that my dog only barks at intermission when people think that as a matter of logic is simply impossible to hold in both individually libel if we believe that mr corbett he was acting at the direction of his supervisor mr holmes i thought recommendations of another supervisory number two in terms of well how do you respond to the court's factual finding that the true motivation for your individual employees behavior was that they simply didn't believe that jazz was a service they're going to have to think what's even more reliable was his testimony which was it needed from the police officers who were called to the scene that night who trusted by the way corbin told them at that time on the night of the incident when they asked him why do you want to remove the