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

[Vette73]

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

I guess you missed this Paul quote...

"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.""

That is Crow law right there. You can shin it all you want its still the same.

 

[Chaotic42]

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":



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.

Yep, it's the law that is flawed. I think the issue is that we have all of these laws that are so unbelivably weird, then judges rule according to them and get called activists. Of course, any mention of changing the ADA would be political suicide.

 

[GeezerMan]

Reminds me of years ago working in a big building downtown. Went to the mensroom to find two plumbers measuring the height of the urinal used by the disabled . They said the ADA required the urinal to be an exact height from the floor, and the building had installed all disabled urinals in the 50 floors incorrectly. They were too low, not too high. Something like an inch off. So, out they came to be reinstalled. Pissed me off...

 

[shortylickens]

When they fire all of the illegals I'll give a shit about whether they follow city ordinances and such.
Until then, fuck 'em.

 

[Zebo]

Gawd I hate this fucking state. I was born and raised here, and left at 17. Now I've I retired back here for the nice weather, but every other damn thing about this shithole sucks

Amused - The Riviera of USA is hard to beat but I GTFO at 26 and never looked back. Just learned new tricks like coats

 

[ebaycj]

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:

Because a 45-degree angle mirror above the prep counter wouldn't do the trick ?

 

[Amused]

I guess you missed this Paul quote...

"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.""

That is Crow law right there. You can shin it all you want its still the same.

An individual decision is NOT law. Jim Crow laws FORCED businesses to provide "separate but equal" (a joke) accommodations based on race.

Paul is CORRECT. If a business owner made the disastrous decision to exclude people based on race, that should be their right. I know I'd never do business there nor would anyone I know. They'd go out of business.

And on this note, WHY would you WANT to do business with someone who hates you based on your race? Wouldn't you rather know, so you can fuck them by not doing business with them? It always amazes me that people support a law that forces racist business owners to take their money. WTF???

Jim Crow laws were BS, but so are the civil rights laws. Businesses are PRIVATE, not public places. If someone wants to be a racist ass, let him. And watch his business die.

 

[ebaycj]

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":



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.

Excellent point.

 

[Zebo]

Because a 45-degree angle mirror above the prep counter wouldn't do the trick ?

Too cheezy.

 

[Zargon]

The court found that Antoninetti had failed to show irreparable injury because he had not revisited either restaurant after Chipotle adopted its written policy and because his "purported desire to return to the [r]estaurants is neither concrete nor sincere or supported by the facts." It also stated that Antoninetti's "history as a plaintiff in accessibility litigation supports this Court's finding that his purported desire to return to the [r]estaurants is not sincere. Since immigrating to the United States in 1991, Plaintiff has sued over twenty business entities for alleged accessibility violations, and, in all (but one) of those cases, he never returned to the establishment he sued after settling the case and obtaining a cash payment."

yeah. he should be deported for being a stooge

 

[Zebo]

An individual decision is NOT law. Jim Crow laws FORCED businesses to provide "separate but equal" (a joke) accommodations based on race.

Paul is CORRECT. If a business owner made the disastrous decision to exclude people based on race, that should be their right. I know I'd never do business there nor would anyone I know. They'd go out of business.

And on this note, WHY would you WANT to do business with someone who hates you based on your race? Wouldn't you rather know, so you can fuck them by not doing business with them? It always amazes me that people support a law that forces racist business owners to take their money. WTF???

Jim Crow laws were BS, but so are the civil rights laws. Businesses are PRIVATE, not public places. If someone wants to be a racist ass, let him. And watch his business die.

I bet there would be plenty. Segregated golf courses were the norm until the 90s and most expensive and packed.

And if bankers don't loan on race? People don't hire on race? Ridiculous. You got the draw the anti discrimination line somewhere and making a counter so cripples can see is about where I draw the line.

 

[Amused]

I bet there would be plenty. Segregated golf courses were the norm until the 90s and most expensive and packed.

And if bankers don't loan on race? People don't hire on race? Ridiculous. You got the draw the anti discrimination line somewhere and making a counter so cripples can see is about where I draw the line.

Private clubs can STILL discriminate and some do. But they are the exception.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Private clubs can STILL discriminate and some do. But they are the exception.

I see that you do appreciate Dr. Paul's error, after all. A private club is allowed to discriminate but any business established as a Public Accommodation cannot.

 

[piasabird]

I could solve this problem with a few custom made wheel chairs that can raise them up higher, Just to make the law suit go away. So I wonder what they do at japanese kolbe and fish restraunts where they have showy food preperation?

 

[Amused]

I see that you do appreciate Dr. Paul's error, after all. A private club is allowed to discriminate but any business established as a Public Accommodation cannot.

How about we make your house a "public accomodation?"

Oh wait, why not? Because it's YOUR house.

A business is PRIVATE.

 

[Double Trouble]

This friendly reminder brought to you by your friends of the 9th circuit court of appeals: "don't forget, common sense is not so common!".

 

[shira]

Yep, it's the law that is flawed. I think the issue is that we have all of these laws that are so unbelivably weird, then judges rule according to them and get called activists. Of course, any mention of changing the ADA would be political suicide.

Fine. Then people should be railing against the ADA. not against the courts which are doing exactly what everyone says they want the courts to do.

In effect, people on this thread are outraged that the court didn't ignore the law and legislate from the bench.

 

[BoberFett]

I guess you missed this Paul quote...

"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.""

That is Crow law right there. You can shin it all you want its still the same.

Idiot. When an individual decides to do something, that's not a law. Do you understand what a law is?

 

[CallMeJoe]

How about we make your house a "public accomodation?"
Oh wait, why not? Because it's YOUR house.
A business is PRIVATE.

Until it invites the general public in to do business, which you do not do with your home.

 

[Greenman]

This is a ruling from the most overturned court in the country, lets hope a real judge gets to look at it.

 

[bamacre]

Until it invites the general public in to do business, which you do not do with your home.

And a bar or club that charges an admission fee? Or decides who can come in based on how they are dressed? Or how "good-looking" they are?

 

[Oceanas]

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":

You are correct that the whole opinion is based on the "Chipotle experience" and whether he received that experience. I don't agree with their interpretation of Chipotle's definition though..

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.

Where exactly in there does it say part of the Chipotle experience is viewing the food prep? Until the entrée is prepped it's just a bunch of ingredients being used to make an entrée, but not a finished product. Once it's done it's an entrée and he can see its appearance all he wants. He can also customize the order via the ingredients list. I don't see anything in that statement that says viewing the ingredients over the counter and watching the food being made is part of the "Chipotle experience"

 

[Vette73]

Idiot. When an individual decides to do something, that's not a law. Do you understand what a law is?

Facepalm. AGAIN try and keep up. This thread is about the ADA and laws that are set to protect people. Without them then people would so what Paul thinks is ok.
Do you understand what rights are?

 

[Red Dawn]

Gawd I hate this fucking state. I was born and raised here, and left at 17. Now I've I retired back here for the nice weather, but every other damn thing about this shithole sucks

Sitting around watching Fox News all day has that effect on people.

 

[ichy]

Send all those disabled freaks to the Soylent Green factory and this won't be an issue!

Just kidding. The ADA is a perfect example of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think it's great that our society has gotten so much better about things like handicapped bathrooms and wheelchair accessibility, but this lawsuit is a perfect example of how plaintiff's lawyers can take a well-intentioned law and turn it into a monster.