Post Reply
Page 7 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Restaurant Sued for Serving Meat
3 years ago  ::  Jul 22, 2011 - 2:52PM #61
NATAS
Posts: 844

One thing I like about hanging out in Bnet is that I learn new things about other religions and more importantly about what what other humans belief about not only their religion but about the religions of others.  


My curiosity was piqued about "purification rituals" so I went to wikipedia and found:


www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/edison...


I also went to the Hindusim forum to ask them what they thought about the subject of this thread:


community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/5...


As for Pilrimages: 


 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrimage

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 22, 2011 - 3:51PM #62
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:17PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:09PM, Ken wrote:

However, pilgrimages aren't mandatory in Hinduism.



That's a non-issue.


They're not mandatory in Christianity either.


If a pilgrimage to the Ganges isn't mandatory, then the people who ate the naughty samosas aren't obliged to go there and the restaurant isn't obliged to send them there.


(May I take your non-answer to my Q about your being in a country other than the US--and therefore having references to a different legal system--as an implied yes?)



No, you may not.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 22, 2011 - 4:17PM #63
Wanderingal
Posts: 5,504

Jul 22, 2011 -- 3:51PM, Ken wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:17PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:09PM, Ken wrote:

However, pilgrimages aren't mandatory in Hinduism.



That's a non-issue.


They're not mandatory in Christianity either.


If a pilgrimage to the Ganges isn't mandatory, then the people who ate the naughty samosas aren't obliged to go there and the restaurant isn't obliged to send them there.


 





Whether it is "mandatory" or not is not-applicable in the instant case since the theory of the instant case reference harm and with the apportioning of damages is null concerning the concept of "mandatory."

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 22, 2011 - 5:04PM #64
farragut
Posts: 3,982

I'm sure that they can produce no convincing evidence that they were harmed. And, further, no rational diety would judge that they had sinned, since they did not voluntarily choose to eat the forbidden food.


The vendor owes them the cost of the feast that they apparently enjoyed too well to ask about until they had devoured it.


I have no patience for this religious foolishness.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 22, 2011 - 5:19PM #65
Wanderingal
Posts: 5,504

Jul 22, 2011 -- 5:04PM, farragut wrote:


I'm sure that they can produce no convincing evidence that they were harmed.


You might want to look at lines of cases that involve religious beliefs.
That's what experts are for.....


 And, further, no rational diety would judge that they had sinned, since they did not voluntarily choose to eat the forbidden food


The concept of "rational deities" has no bearing in the.LEGAL issues and theories involved in this kind of harm.


 


The vendor owes them the cost of the feast that they apparently enjoyed too well to ask about until they had devoured it.


You're complegtely ignoring the legal issues concerning harm.


I have no patience for this religious foolishness.





In other words the legal concepts mean nothing and your personal ideas about religion are paramount.


Thank goodness that isn't the way our legal system works in the US.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 22, 2011 - 5:38PM #66
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833
However, Farragut, the story doesn't say that they ate all the samosas and then complained they contained meat.

Instead, some of the group had eaten at least a portion of theirs when others noticed that the samosas contained meat.

It's not unreasonable to be upset that the restaurant had assured them these were vegetarian samosas.

The case may hinge upon whether serving them meat-filled samosas was deliberate, a misunderstanding of what they wanted or simply an unfortunate error.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 22, 2011 - 5:38PM #67
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jul 22, 2011 -- 4:17PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 3:51PM, Ken wrote:

If a pilgrimage to the Ganges isn't mandatory, then the people who ate the naughty samosas aren't obliged to go there and the restaurant isn't obliged to send them there.




Whether it is "mandatory" or not is not-applicable in the instant case since the theory of the instant case reference harm and with the apportioning of damages is null concerning the concept of "mandatory."



If it's not mandatory it means that they don't have to go to India to be purified and nobody has to pay for them to go. And the next time you respond to me, please have the courtesy to do so in English, not in some sort of puke-making legalese. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 22, 2011 - 6:00PM #68
Wanderingal
Posts: 5,504

From the cure they're requesting it sounds as though the plaintiffs are praying for relief in Equity Court.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 22, 2011 - 6:05PM #69
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833
Oh, I'd say the plaintiffs are doing what most such do--asking for the moon in hopes of getting some settlement they consider acceptable.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 22, 2011 - 8:17PM #70
farragut
Posts: 3,982

Thank the Founding Fathers our legal system is not yet beholden to religious foolishness.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook