I was a client NOT served, in fact. My boyfriend and I were looking at a wonderful dog to adopt, and after 2 weeks of trying to get in contact with this shelter through emailing the Adoption Coordinator and calling and leaving voicemails to the general line, we finally received an email saying that the dog was available and that we could go see her in Dallas. We could not because of bad communication on her end about when we could drive all 4-5 hours over. We are from Austin. A week later, our application was approved, and the lady was going to come up to Austin and have the dog meet ours on a Sunday. Until the day before, there was silence all week (emails, texts, phone calls) regarding when she would arrive in Austin and if she even could make it. That day before (today as I am writing this), she responded and we emailed back and forth finally about a time for Sunday's meeting and it was all going to work out. She asked a few more questions (instead of reading through the application for answers) and we said something about how our we and our roommates are very careful about our current dog not running out the door of our apartment, as this was a valid concern of hers. What is an invalid move is the fact that she sent a single-worded email back saying "roomates?" When we explained that yes, we have 2 roommates and that we said so on our application, she said she talked to her other board members and they agreed that this was not a good situation and that she didn't know we had roommates. We sent a PDF of our application to her in the beginning stating that we had roommates, and it is not our fault that she carelessly overlooked this. She then proceeded in the following emails to say that there were other "not major concerns" of us not being married and some other things. But in the end of the email she said "there are too many red flags." This is contradictory, not to mention the contradictory fact that the application was already approved and now being rejected based on the same facts that they were already forewarned of. Also, not giving a dog to a home that is not joined by marriage is DISCRIMINATION. It is not about the fact that married couples are more likely to not separate and thus will not leave a dog in a shelter again, because in fact more than 50% of American marriages end in divorce. This shelter cares not for their dogs' futures. They would rather spend their time doing other things instead of responding to interested prospective parents of a dog. They would rather blame everyone else for careless overlooking of applications.