I think smoking (which I hate) falls into the exact same category...RESTAURANTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE THEMSELVES!
Just as I don't really like to eat where people are smoking, as is still allowed here until next year I think. If somewhere is hideously smokey I just don't go in. I think the same could apply to anything, dogs, topless waitresses, whatever. LOL In fact the smoking thing is probably harder to solve because of risk to employees at the establishment etc. Still, I know plenty of people who don't mind working in smokey environments and know the risks.
In UK it is not allowed or dogs to go into restaurants (that I know of) but last night we had a meal in a gastropub (pubs are allowed to admit dogs or not into the bar area as they see fit). We had a great meal, despite the pair of labradors asleep by the bar where there owners were having a drink and bar snack. The dogs were about 7 yards away I guess and completely not interested, I suppose they are well used to lying quietly by bars. Most local pubs in my area that don't allow dogs have a bar dog who doesn't tolerate other dogs, so that is a reason for a ban. The bar dogs usually mope or wander ignoring people unless called over for a stroke. It makes a lovely atmosphere if you like dogs.
I think that if a restaurant decided it suited it to allow dogs in and the food became contaminated regularly people would soon stop going. Neither would they pass health and safety tests. Obviously the simple answer is to not do it in restaurants with trendy open kitchens, and to not allow waiting staff to go beyond the serving point in closed kitchens.
I stand my my originl point. I enjoy eating in a restaurant with well behaved dogs. I find it relaxing. I would take a well behaved dog with me if allowed and appropriate but I understand it is not always viable. I can't see what is wrong with allowing establishments to do what suits them and there custumers, and still lets them pass health and safety.