Stathol wrote:
None of the above really matters either way, though. They were explicitly told that the meal did not contain meat:
Except I think they are using the fact that they are Hindu Veggies to get a free trip home for a scrub down...
| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Wait...What? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6772 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | FarSky [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Wait...What? |
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/2 ... &hpt=hp_c2 Quote: Hindu customers said the restaurant served them meat samosas, harming them emotionally and spirituality. A state appellate court ruled Wednesday that they can sue for the cost of travel to India to purify their souls.
|
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
being able to sue isn't the same as winning. Also if they said something is meet free and it wasn't, that is deceptive. The fact that people find their legalism stupid is beside the point. |
|
| Author: | Uncle Fester [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
you are entitled to the cost of the meal back, sorry, here is a free one on the house. I find it absurd for a court to start ruling on spiritual damage...who can measure that. |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Uncle Fester wrote: I find it absurd for a court to start ruling on spiritual damage...who can measure that. I don't have the actual ruling to read, but I doubt that's exactly what the court is saying. More likely, the ruling is that emotional distress is emotional distress, regardless of whether it stems from a spiritual belief or something else. Emotional distress is not measurable either, but you may still be able to seek damages for it. Provided that these 16 people aren't being afforded any more or less opportunity than anyone else to sue for such things (I don't know enough about the situation or the specific judicial standards involved to say), then the ruling was correct. The ability to sue for emotional distress in general may itself be absurd (for the sake of argument), but even so, two wrongs don't make a right. Equal protection demands equal access to the judicial system, however ridiculous that system might be. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It should be noted, along with Stathol's observations, that it appears that any vegetarian could claim this emotional distress. |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I wonder where vegetarians have to travel in order to have their souls cleansed. The Amazon Rainforest? |
|
| Author: | Numbuk [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
FarSky wrote: I wonder where vegetarians have to travel in order to have their souls cleansed. The Amazon Rainforest? Burning Man. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
When I was a vegetarian for several years, I picked apart everything before I ate it, looking for hidden meat and even smelling it, haha...especially in things like spring rolls and casseroles and such. I find it hard to believe that they would just eat something served to them without checking it first. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The story suggests they went to an Indian restaurant, where presumably they were under the impression that the Indian proprietors were familiar with Hindu dietary restrictions. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
LadyKate wrote: When I was a vegetarian for several years, I picked apart everything before I ate it, looking for hidden meat and even smelling it, haha...especially in things like spring rolls and casseroles and such. I find it hard to believe that they would just eat something served to them without checking it first. It's also quite possible for 'meat' products to be used in things that is not visible or even obviously smell or tasteable. Just ask McDonald's (they got sued for adding a small amount of 'meat' flavoring to the vegetable oil they use to cook their fries. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Corolinth wrote: The story suggests they went to an Indian restaurant, where presumably they were under the impression that the Indian proprietors were familiar with Hindu dietary restrictions. As I understand it, though, strict vegetarians amount to as little as 14% of Hindus, or something, though. Also, did the article say the proprietors were Indian? |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: The Mughal Express customers who sued thought it otherwise. An Indian restaurant should have been more sensitive to this issue, they argued. That quote gave me the impression that the proprietors were Indian. I could be wrong. It could be non-Indians who own and operate an Indian restaurant, though I rather doubt it. It is noteworthy that there is some Hindu support for the restaurant in this case, as if there are many Hindu who feel that a trip to India is excessive. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Did it hurt their ancestors spiritually as well, since they almost certainly ate meat? Or are they one of the first generations in their lineage to not be spiritually damaged? |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
FarSky wrote: I wonder where vegetarians have to travel in order to have their souls cleansed. The Amazon Rainforest? Whole Foods |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Corolinth wrote: The story suggests they went to an Indian restaurant, where presumably they were under the impression that the Indian proprietors were familiar with Hindu dietary restrictions. As I understand it, though, strict vegetarians amount to as little as 14% of Hindus, or something, though. Also, did the article say the proprietors were Indian? None of the above really matters either way, though. They were explicitly told that the meal did not contain meat: Quote: Gupta said a restaurant employee assured them that it did not make meat samosas, according to court documents. A half-hour later, the two men picked up a tray labeled "VEG samosas."
|
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Stathol wrote: None of the above really matters either way, though. They were explicitly told that the meal did not contain meat: Except I think they are using the fact that they are Hindu Veggies to get a free trip home for a scrub down...
|
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
That may very well be, but it doesn't change the fact that they have a valid complaint. They were given a product that contained meat after being explicitly told otherwise. That's a form of false advertising, which is grounds for legal action. It isn't that they don't have valid grounds for a lawsuit, but rather the damages they're asking for are excessive. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Corolinth wrote: It isn't that they don't have valid grounds for a lawsuit, but rather the damages they're asking for are excessive. Indeed, on both counts. I'll be truly amused if they win, though, setting a precedent for high monetary value of such cases, and restaurants, faced with this kind of penalty anytime there's a mistake in serving vegetarian food to anybody claiming to be a vegetarian, simply find it more practical and safe to no longer offer vegetarian food. |
|
| Author: | Timmit [ Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: I'll be truly amused if they win, though, setting a precedent for high monetary value of such cases, and restaurants, faced with this kind of penalty anytime there's a mistake in serving vegetarian food to anybody claiming to be a vegetarian, simply find it more practical and safe to no longer offer vegetarian food. Or have a disclaimer on the door that says something like "Warning: Vegetarian food my contain meat or meat-related products". |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I thought about posting that Timmit, but it would sorta defeat the purpose of calling something vegetarian if there 'could be' meat in it... The only people ordering it would be carnivores... |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I thought about posting that Timmit, but it would sorta defeat the purpose of calling something vegetarian if there 'could be' meat in it... The only people ordering it would be carnivores... |
|
| Author: | shuyung [ Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
And how many times did you think about it? |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
once? |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
FarSky wrote: I wonder where vegetarians have to travel in order to have their souls cleansed. The Amazon Rainforest? No, false assumption. Vegetarians have no souls. Souls are built, over time, from the accumulation of the souls of the animals you eat. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Uncle Fester wrote: you are entitled to the cost of the meal back, sorry, here is a free one on the house. I find it absurd for a court to start ruling on spiritual damage...who can measure that. I wasn't going for "spiritual damage" If I were king and I ruled that they were indeed willfully deceptive, I'd fine them the actual cost of the plane ticket. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|