McDonalds Lawsuit

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,383451,00.html

Thoughts? I can sympathize, but it seems to me a business doesn't have to accommodate every special need its customers might have. What's next, drive-thru menus have to be in braille for blind passengers?

Maybe it is just something as simple as replacing the speakers/microphone with a better quality set.
If the other McDonald's locations are serving her, what is different between them and the Lincoln one?

Oh is this in Aboite township? LOL, I just figured take a poke at Bman over this.

Bleah... get out of the car and order... How do the people at the drive through know it's her...

I love the last sentence:

"We have attempted to resolve this on many occasions and have unfortunately been unable to resolve this," Mora James said. "So we were forced into litigation."

I think you are really only forced to get out of your car to get your junk food. The article doesnt list what the actual damages are.

Most drive thru's have sign that tell hearing impared patrons to pull up to the window.

Or maybe they could hire Garrett Morris to shout the order back to them.

Can't they just post a sign that says they "reserve the right to refuse service at this window"?

(In my best Charlie Brown's teacher voice)

Wah wah, wah wa wah wa.

Close all drive thru's in the U.S. make people park instead of idling their cars, this will save gas. Walk to the counter, get it to go, then walk to the car to burn off at least 20 calories before you start eating your 1000 + calorie meal.

I taught K-2nd grade children, so I have some experience one on one with deafness, etc.
If this woman cannot hear at the drive thru ordering area, then she needs to go inside. What does she think she is going to accomplish by forcing McD's to let her order like everyone else to then just have to go inside anyway? I chalk it up as a disabled person bitching just to be bitching.

Scooby01_98 wrote:Close all drive thru's in the U.S. make people park instead of idling their cars, this will save gas. Walk to the counter, get it to go, then walk to the car to burn off at least 20 calories before you start eating your 1000 + calorie meal.

Heaven forbid we might want to think this way Scooby. Perish the thought.
This would be a whole new concept to our society.
We want everything in the most convenient manner and immediately available to us.

Canuck wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:Close all drive thru's in the U.S. make people park instead of idling their cars, this will save gas. Walk to the counter, get it to go, then walk to the car to burn off at least 20 calories before you start eating your 1000 + calorie meal.

Heaven forbid we might want to think this way Scooby. Perish the thought.
This would be a whole new concept to our society.
We want everything in the most convenient manner and immediately available to us.

and if we dont get our own way immediately we will whine

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5406333

So why is New York City only worried about counting calories for fast food chain restaurants? Discrimination!

not only the discrimination aspect..but think of the financial aspect--if all those heavyweights start eating healthy half the fast food places and junk food distributors would go out of business! egad it would cause even further ruin to our employment base

Anyone else notice ATM's have braille on them? Seriously? We need this?

This would be another prime example of why I think we need a law banning asinine litigation. The drive thru is a convenience, not a right. Maybe Phil Gramm should have used this as an example of a nation of whiners...

cardinal5150 wrote:Anyone else notice ATM's have braille on them? Seriously? We need this?

This would be another prime example of why I think we need a law banning asinine litigation. The drive thru is a convenience, not a right. Maybe Phil Gramm should have used this as an example of a nation of whiners...

the only thing I can think of why we have that is for passengers in vehicles who are blind and don't want a stranger knowing their pin number, so someone drives them to the ATM machine and takes them to the machine and the blind individual can get their money themselves. Stops inscrupulous people who help the handicap from taking advantage of folks.

Bman wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:Anyone else notice ATM's have braille on them? Seriously? We need this?

This would be another prime example of why I think we need a law banning asinine litigation. The drive thru is a convenience, not a right. Maybe Phil Gramm should have used this as an example of a nation of whiners...

the only thing I can think of why we have that is for passengers in vehicles who are blind and don't want a stranger knowing their pin number, so someone drives them to the ATM machine and takes them to the machine and the blind individual can get their money themselves. Stops inscrupulous people who help the handicap from taking advantage of folks.

Valid reasons not doubt, but where does the line get drawn. Should we be required to have ATM's 2 feet off of the ground so that midgets, dwarfs, little people (whatever they refer to themselves as) can use them? Or maybe reguire a stepladder in front of them. As a designer, I can tell you that some of the ADA requirements are getting very out of hand/unpractical.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fastfood23-2008jul23,0,6631786.story

"Panel OKs one-year ban on new fast-food restaurants in South L.A."

Once again, fast food is deemed the root of all evil when it comes to health. Never mind that the highest calorie items are pretty much all non-fast food restaurants like Outback. But then again, it's California.

Just stupid. Another case of people relying on the gov't to tend to their every whim. People who complain that there aren't enough "healthy places" to go to eat and instead try to blame it on the fast food industry obviously never had to pack a lunch.

You think fast food places would come into an area if there wasn't a market for it?

Markwes wrote:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fastfood23-2008jul23,0,6631786.story

"Panel OKs one-year ban on new fast-food restaurants in South L.A."

Once again, fast food is deemed the root of all evil when it comes to health. Never mind that the highest calorie items are pretty much all non-fast food restaurants like Outback. But then again, it's California.

Follow-up. It was approved by city council.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN2935235720080730

Ha ha! This will force those kids to slim down, because we all know they only go to new fast food restaurants. Seriously, who in their right mind thinks this will accomplish anything, never mind the fact that it completely goes against the concept of capitalism?

Markwes wrote:

Markwes wrote:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fastfood23-2008jul23,0,6631786.story

"Panel OKs one-year ban on new fast-food restaurants in South L.A."

Once again, fast food is deemed the root of all evil when it comes to health. Never mind that the highest calorie items are pretty much all non-fast food restaurants like Outback. But then again, it's California.

Follow-up. It was approved by city council.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN2935235720080730

Ha ha! This will force those kids to slim down, because we all know they only go to new fast food restaurants. Seriously, who in their right mind thinks this will accomplish anything, never mind the fact that it completely goes against the concept of capitalism?

Which is king, capitalism or democracy? The city council has decided that, for a time, they would not approve new construction for Fast Food restaurants. This is entirely their prerogative as representatives of that city. WTF do you care? Why does it feel like you're suggesting anti-capitalist motivations instead of environmental concerns or simply the fact that they don't feel the city needs 30 more fast food restaurants this year?

Go stick your capitalist implement in some anatomically unpleasant place.

meta4 wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Markwes wrote:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fastfood23-2008jul23,0,6631786.story

"Panel OKs one-year ban on new fast-food restaurants in South L.A."

Once again, fast food is deemed the root of all evil when it comes to health. Never mind that the highest calorie items are pretty much all non-fast food restaurants like Outback. But then again, it's California.

Follow-up. It was approved by city council.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN2935235720080730

Ha ha! This will force those kids to slim down, because we all know they only go to new fast food restaurants. Seriously, who in their right mind thinks this will accomplish anything, never mind the fact that it completely goes against the concept of capitalism?

Which is king, capitalism or democracy? The city council has decided that, for a time, they would not approve new construction for Fast Food restaurants. This is entirely their prerogative as representatives of that city. WTF do you care? Why does it feel like you're suggesting anti-capitalist motivations instead of environmental concerns or simply the fact that they don't feel the city needs 30 more fast food restaurants this year?

Go stick your capitalist implement in some anatomically unpleasant place.

Did you miss the 'never mind' part of my post in reference to the anti-capitalism aspect of it?

The article doesn't say anything about environmental concerns. It appears to be strictly about trying to legislate healthy eating. So, you decided to ignore my question about how this will accomplish anything?

Markwes wrote:
Did you miss the 'never mind' part of my post in reference to the anti-capitalism aspect of it?

The article doesn't say anything about environmental concerns. It appears to be strictly about trying to legislate healthy eating. So, you decided to ignore my question about how this will accomplish anything?

I didn't mean to come out - guns a blazin' as much as I wanted to take the opportunity to jab your anti-capitalist comment. Not sure what you see the significance of "never mind the" to mean, but to me it suggests that your adding that aspect to the argument.

I added environmental concerns... I read the article and my point remains the same... WTF? It's their city, let them run it how they want! Take care of your house and if the virtue of true Americanism still appears to be eroding next year, issue a call to arms and war against the offending city council!

We'll see next year what this accomplishes. I'm not sure but apparently it sounds as if you just want me to agree with you or admit that the ban on fat foods is rediculous... which of course it is!

How did that feel?

Yes, I feel much better now. Thank you.

Obviously the city council hasn't seen the calorie count of some of those sit down restaraunts. Bloomin Onion anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blooming_onion

guess when i read about the ruling, i was thinking maybe it will make people spend their money on local fruits and veggies and actually do a little food prep at home, the result being obviously better diet=healthier, less sluggish from all the carbs and fats and calories. isnt most fast food consumed under the guise of convenience (too lazy to plan and prepare and too in-the-habit to care)? it is shameful only because they arent cutting back new ones built in all areas instead of just the poorer.

calorie counts at fast food places...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/flash/health/caloriecounter/caloriecounter.html

floridafun wrote:guess when i read about the ruling, i was thinking maybe it will make people spend their money on local fruits and veggies and actually do a little food prep at home

Okay, so let's say there are 10 fast food restaurants in a 3 mile radius. The parents currently don't have time or want to bother with meals, so they take the kids to Mickey D's. The ruling goes into effect. No new restaurants are built for a year, but you still have 10 that are open. Nothing has changed. So what about this ruling is going to all of a sudden make parents buy fruits and vegetables?