• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is this stoopid or what?? Court: Chipotle restaurant violated disability law

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This is the type of shit Rand Paul was talking about when he was bitching about government forcing things on private businesses.
 
Patranus said:
This is the type of shit Rand Paul was talking about when he was bitching about government forcing things on private businesses.
Click to expand...


Yep the good ole days...

korea-sign.jpg


no_irish.jpg
 
JEDIYoda said:
The unanimous three-judge ruling overturned a trial court decision pointing to Chipotle's willingness to prepare a disabled customer's order elsewhere. The appeals court said that is still unfair.
Click to expand...


Ahem... "SEPARATE IS NEVER EQUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

What a load.
 
Marlin1975 said:
We are talking about FEDERAL LAWS here, ADA. Not the bs Jim Crow laws that Paul and other "states rights" people would like. Back at ya...
Click to expand...

Please point out where Paul as advocated for Jim Crow laws?

Straw man much?

1. Jim Crow was state and local law at the time.

2. If any business on their own tried excluding races, they'd quickly go out of business.

Jim Crow is dead.

Jim Crow has NOTHING to do with this case. It's your attempt to demonize anyone who advocates common sense and the rights of businesses to be PRIVATE.

As your link points out, REASONABLE accommodation was provided for him, but it wasn't enough.

Next the motherfucker is gonna sue a sports team for not hiring him as their star running back.

See, I can go to ridiculous extremes too.
 
Patranus said:
This is the type of shit Rand Paul was talking about when he was bitching about government forcing things on private businesses.
Click to expand...

and if more of his sound bites were disseminated across the wider media, he would long be an afterthought by now.

the guy is a certifiable loony toon.
 
After they lower the counters they will be sued again.

Headline:
BLIND MAN DENIED THE CHIPOTLE EXPERIENCE, COULD NOT VIEW FOOD PREPERATION
 
So now I assume restaurants that prep in front of you like this (Cold Stone/Subway/Chipotle etc) will have to install cameras hooked to an overhead LCD(S) adding more cost. And people wonder why eating out costs so much and only big corps & deeppockets can afford to get in business in the first place.:thumbsdown:
 
Zebo said:
So now I assume restaurants that prep in front of you like this (Cold Stone/Subway/Chipotle etc) will have to install cameras hooked to an overhead LCD(S) adding more cost. And people wonder why eating out costs so much and only big corps & deeppockets can afford to get in business in the first place.:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

And they wonder why the middle class is shrinking and why small businesses get gobbled up by bigger ones.
 
Zebo said:
So now I assume restaurants that prep in front of you like this (Cold Stone/Subway/Chipotle etc) will have to install cameras hooked to an overhead LCD(S) adding more cost. And people wonder why eating out costs so much and only big corps & deeppockets can afford to get in business in the first place.:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

AND.. if any of them have delivery service then I demand to be able to login from my home pc and watch my food cooked/prepared just like everyone else

I demand to have cameras installed in the electricity plant so I can see my electricity being created...
 
Amused said:
Please point out where Paul as advocated for Jim Crow laws?

Straw man much?

1. Jim Crow was state and local law at the time.

2. If any business on their own tried excluding races, they'd quickly go out of business.

Jim Crow is dead.

Jim Crow has NOTHING to do with this case. It's your attempt to demonize anyone who advocates common sense and the rights of businesses to be PRIVATE.

As your link points out, REASONABLE accommodation was provided for him, but it wasn't enough.

Next the motherfucker is gonna sue a sports team for not hiring him as their star running back.

See, I can go to ridiculous extremes too.
Click to expand...

YOU brought up jim crow not me.

Oh and here is Rand Pauls own words....

"Last night Rand Paul, fresh off his primary victory in Kentucky, explained that he didn't support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "I think it's a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant," he said in an interview, "but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership." And if private lunch counter owners want to prevent blacks from eating there, that's their right. "This is the hard part about believing in freedom.""
 
Genx87 said:
What other food establishment allows one to watch food prep? Are you saying this is a safety issue? Or are you saying that since they cant see it isnt legal?
Click to expand...

Well, if NO ONE can see, then everyone's being treated equally, and there's no "failure to accommodate."
 
Marlin1975 said:
YOU brought up jim crow not me.

Oh and here is Rand Pauls own words....

"Last night Rand Paul, fresh off his primary victory in Kentucky, explained that he didn't support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "I think it's a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant," he said in an interview, "but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership." And if private lunch counter owners want to prevent blacks from eating there, that's their right. "This is the hard part about believing in freedom.""
Click to expand...

Your mistake is thinking that he's wrong.

And you're the one who brought up Jim Crow. You posted the images, dunce.
 
Dekasa said:
$20 says if you walk back to the counter and say that they added sour cream when you didn't want it, they'll make you a new burrito, even if the employee is certain you asked for sour cream.
Click to expand...

Of course Chipotle would. But that's still somewhat of a hassle which someone able to watch the food-preparation process probably wouldn't have to deal with.

Frankly, I think judicious placement of mirrors would solve this problem.
 
BoberFett said:
Your mistake is thinking that he's wrong.

And you're the one who brought up Jim Crow. You posted the images, dunce.
Click to expand...


Try again, they were in replay to Patranus who wanted Rand Paul type rules. I already added the Paul quote since you, amused with others can;t seem to keep up.
 
Marlin1975 said:
Try again, they were in replay to Patranus who wanted Rand Paul type rules. I already added the Paul quote since you, amused with others can;t seem to keep up.
Click to expand...

Look, slick, PatrAnus nor Rand Paul said anything about supporting Jim Crow laws. Two, look at the first picture you posted. Closely.
 
This whole thread has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws....

Sorry this thread has a lot to do with common sense and what is right...
 
I find it fascinating that no one has bothered to read the court's opinion in full. It's especially interesting because the right-wingers are particularly adamant that courts simply "interpret the law." Well, if you read the opinion, you'll see that the court did exactly that. It read the relevant portions of the ADA plus the ADA guidelines issued by the U.S. Attorney General. What the court found was that:

1) Chipotle was required by the ADA guidelines to provide a serving area - or an auxiliary serving area -with a height no greater than 36". Chipotle didn't do this.

2) As a substitute for (1), Chipotle was required (by the guidelines) to provide an "equivalent service" - which in this case means allowing the customer to view the full array of choices and see his/her food prepared from those choices. But Chipotle didn't provide this, either. They provided a non-equivalent "substitute" service.

Note: The court quoted Chipotle's own definition of the "Chipotle experience":

a unique experience consisting of the architecture, décor, and music of its restaurants, the aroma of the food, the appearance of a customer's entrée, friendly staff, a tradition of excellent customer service, [the] ability to customize one's entrée, and . . . the taste of the food.
Click to expand...

Because Chipotle didn't satisfy either guideline - didn't provide a means for a disabled customer to get the "Chipotle experience" - the court ruled against Chipotle. The court was just "interpreting the law." If they'd ruled for Chipotle because they thought the "Chipotle experience" wasn't important enough to warrant ADA protection, they'd be MAKING law, not interpreting it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top