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

[Patranus]

This is the type of shit Rand Paul was talking about when he was bitching about government forcing things on private businesses.

 

[Vette73]

This is the type of shit Rand Paul was talking about when he was bitching about government forcing things on private businesses.

Yep the good ole days...

 

[BogotaBill]

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.

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

What a load.

 

[Amused]

Yep the good ole days...

Jim Crow was the LAW. Back at ya, buddy.

 

[Vette73]

Jim Crow was the LAW. Back at ya, buddy.

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...

 

[OutHouse]

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?

subway, quiznos, blimpy...there are many.

 

[Amused]

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...

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.

 

[zinfamous]

Isn't being in a wheelchair already a denial of "the full experience" of life?

 

[zinfamous]

This is the type of shit Rand Paul was talking about when he was bitching about government forcing things on private businesses.

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.

 

[TruePaige]

After they lower the counters they will be sued again.

Headline:
BLIND MAN DENIED THE CHIPOTLE EXPERIENCE, COULD NOT VIEW FOOD PREPERATION

 

[OutHouse]

After they lower the counters they will be sued again.

Headline:
BLIND MAN DENIED THE CHIPOTLE EXPERIENCE, COULD NOT VIEW FOOD PREPERATION

you just gave the ambulance chasing scumbag lawyers an idea.

 

[Zebo]

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:

 

[bamacre]

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:

And they wonder why the middle class is shrinking and why small businesses get gobbled up by bigger ones.

 

[dahunan]

Do these judges actually get paid money?.. real money Californians work their asses off for?... what a scam

 

[dahunan]

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:

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...

 

[Vette73]

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.

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.""

 

[shira]

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?

Well, if NO ONE can see, then everyone's being treated equally, and there's no "failure to accommodate."

 

[BoberFett]

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.""

Your mistake is thinking that he's wrong.

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

 

[bamacre]

Your mistake is thinking that he's wrong.

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

Don't expect him to actually look at the images he embedded.

 

[shira]

$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.

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.

 

[Vette73]

Your mistake is thinking that he's wrong.

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

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.

 

[bamacre]

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.

Look, slick, PatrAnus nor Rand Paul said anything about supporting Jim Crow laws. Two, look at the first picture you posted. Closely.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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...

 

[shira]

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.

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.

 

[dmcowen674]

How the hell do these idiots become judges?

They are paid off