Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 3 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Restaurant Sued for Serving Meat
6 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2011 - 3:12PM #21
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 19,045

The decision merely allows them to go forward with the suit, in which they have specific demands for damages.  No biggy

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2011 - 8:51PM #22
solfeggio
Posts: 10,753

Erey -


Your posts are very sensible. 


Strict vegetarians do not eat in restaurants that serve meat.  Period.  Also, strict vegetarians could certainly tell, if not by the smell of the food being served, but after even one small taste, that the food contained flesh.


If you can't find a restaurant that doesn't serve meat, then you don't eat out.  Period.


The restaurant employees were negligent, of course (although one wonders if their carelessness didn't stem from their feeling that strict vegetarians were nutbars who wouldn't know a samosa with lamb from one without it.)


And having to make a trip to India to be 'purified'?  That's ridiculous, and it only weakens the diners' case.


BTW:  As you say, not all vegetarians are crazy, just as not all meat eaters are crazy. 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2011 - 11:54AM #23
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,839
I'm not so sure you could tell by the taste of a samosa that it had meat in it. Those I've had contained such small bits of chopped veggies proportionally that one might easily eat more than one without being able to detect immediately that they contained bits of meat.

And Indian restaurants I've patronized are accustomed to dealing with the specific dietary needs of their Hindu customers.

Sounds to me like this one was seriously negligent, but I can't say whether or not a trip to India is necessary or justified.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a great example of the patently ridiculous food restrictions imposed by some religions. Just my unhallowed opinion that I'm quite sure others will regard as shameful. Any deity that can be offended by what people eat isn't worth their veneration as I see it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2011 - 12:14PM #24
TemplarS
Posts: 7,522

Jul 21, 2011 -- 11:54AM, DotNotInOz wrote:


As far as I'm concerned, it's a great example of the patently ridiculous food restrictions imposed by some religions. Just my unhallowed opinion that I'm quite sure others will regard as shameful. Any deity that can be offended by what people eat isn't worth their veneration as I see it.





Jesus:  "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean,
but what comes out of his mouth"

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2011 - 12:30PM #25
NATAS
Posts: 1,085

Jul 20, 2011 -- 1:17PM, BDboy wrote:


Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:42PM, Christianlib wrote:


Not too many months ago, people were wanting to sue Taco Bell for NOT serving enough meat in their "meat."




 


>>>>>>> If they do not like Taco Bell, they can go to other Taco places. Why need to sue the Taco Bell?


Bunch of cry babies!!



If I recall correctly the issue about Taco Bell was not that there was not "enough" meat but that the meat that was being used was mixed with "fillers".   


The suit that was filled did not seek monetary damages.  It was a "truth in advertising"  lawsuit.


www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/25/wheres...


 

Jul 20, 2011 -- 1:17PM, BDboy wrote:


>>>>>>> I agree with Peter Kothari.


 


Going to the river Ganges is ONE way to purify for sure but NOT the only way. There are cheaper ways to atone for unintentional mistakes. 



I would also agree with Peter Kothari but those who did eat the meat would disagree.   I suspect that if you asked Hindus some would agree and some would disagree.   


I am curious to know how would a Muslim "purify" himself if the accidently ate pork? 





Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2011 - 12:49PM #26
arielg
Posts: 9,116

They obviously  have been in the country long enough to embrace the "sue them, they have money" routine. Or maybe have a lawyer in the family.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2011 - 3:41PM #27
Christianlib
Posts: 21,847

Jul 21, 2011 -- 12:49PM, arielg wrote:


They obviously  have been in the country long enough to embrace the "sue them, they have money" routine. Or maybe have a lawyer in the family.




Where was/is Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church.  Sounds like their MO.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2011 - 3:42PM #28
Christianlib
Posts: 21,847

Jul 21, 2011 -- 12:30PM, NATAS wrote:


Jul 20, 2011 -- 1:17PM, BDboy wrote:


Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:42PM, Christianlib wrote:


Not too many months ago, people were wanting to sue Taco Bell for NOT serving enough meat in their "meat."




 


>>>>>>> If they do not like Taco Bell, they can go to other Taco places. Why need to sue the Taco Bell?


Bunch of cry babies!!



If I recall correctly the issue about Taco Bell was not that there was not "enough" meat but that the meat that was being used was mixed with "fillers".   


The suit that was filled did not seek monetary damages.  It was a "truth in advertising"  lawsuit.


www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/25/wheres...




Ahhh, NATAS, don't let specificity get in the way of a good joke.  You didn't REALLY think I was serious in making that comparison, did you?

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2011 - 3:52PM #29
Wanderingal
Posts: 5,504

Jul 20, 2011 -- 8:57AM, TemplarS wrote:

Okay, this is a curious item from my area:


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


A group of Hindu residents can sue an Edison restaurant for money to travel to India, where they say they must purify their souls after eating meat, a state appellate court panel ruled Monday.


I think it's clear there was negligence and possibily emotional damage done, but- a trip to India as a remedy?





Equitable remedies are great!


This cure makes perfect sense in the situation--so much better than cash awards for damages in this Implied Contract case..

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2011 - 3:56PM #30
Wanderingal
Posts: 5,504

Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:22PM, Ken wrote:


Jul 20, 2011 -- 11:22AM, Erey wrote:

How can they be sure eating vegetarian dishes off of plates that serve meat dishes does not give them polluting residue? 



They probably assume that the plates have been washed. If you find a residue of meat sticking to your plate, you're certainly allowed to make a fuss about it - not because you were in danger of eating meat, but because the restaurant is dirty.




Many restaurants perform the equivalent of 'keeping kosher' by having separate dishes/washing etc for their meat versus non-meat servings.




Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook