• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blind man claims McDonald’s drive-thru is discriminatory, files lawsuit

Apparently someone got run over, so do you blame them?

The drive-thru isn't fenced off, someone can still get run over. You think refuse to serve someone gives them zero liability for that person getting subsequently run over ?
 
The drive-thru isn't fenced off, someone can still get run over. You think refuse to serve someone gives them zero liability for that person getting subsequently run over ?

It would be difficult to fence off a drive-thru since cars have to pass through it.
 
because our laws allow people who aren't rich white male able bodied people to seek some redress?

What exactly does White have to do with it ? Are there rich Blacks , Latino , Chinese , my God ,what a progressive ! :lamo:lamo
 
They could easily have safely done this for a walk up. in fact they will at their convienence serve car customers in exactly the way this blind man requested to be served. the presence of a second order screen not being utilized for automobiles further shows the weakness of this bogus "safety" position.

in fact I should contact the attorney and ask if he wants to use me as a witness.

actually there is no one to manage the other order screen that is for when they are busy at lunch
hour or something at the drive through.

also that 2nd order screen is in the drive through and they don't serve walk ups to the drive through
because they can get hit by a car.

which this has already happened which is why they have the rule.

yep I should contact mcdonalds and see if they need me as one as well.
 
because our laws allow people who aren't rich white male able bodied people to seek some redress?

appeal to emotion argument. do you actually have a real argument so far
all you are throwing up is fallacies.

it has nothing to do with white or non-white, just like it has nothing to do with being blind.

they didn't serve him because they don't serve anyone that walks up in the drive through.
why?

because it is dangerous not only the person standing there but to the employee
and the car coming around the corner.
 
actually there is no one to manage the other order screen that is for when they are busy at lunch
hour or something at the drive through.

also that 2nd order screen is in the drive through and they don't serve walk ups to the drive through
because they can get hit by a car.

which this has already happened which is why they have the rule.

yep I should contact mcdonalds and see if they need me as one as well.

Both order screens are managed through the same terminal.
 
appeal to emotion argument. do you actually have a real argument so far
all you are throwing up is fallacies.

it has nothing to do with white or non-white, just like it has nothing to do with being blind.

they didn't serve him because they don't serve anyone that walks up in the drive through.
why?

because it is dangerous not only the person standing there but to the employee
and the car coming around the corner.

It's a dangerous situation they engineered and they can engineer a safer one if they so desire. Probably after a judge orders them to
 
It would be difficult to fence off a drive-thru since cars have to pass through it.

I would have to agree with you, but it is not up to me, in isolation, to determine everything about what is or is not negligent. For example, poor lighting and a blind corner could be such an instance of negligent design for which i could imagine such a business to be held liable for any injuries that could be shown to have occurred as a result.

My understanding is that the business is still liable if they make a design where reasonable people naturally do a dangerous thing in response. The difficulty is that we have different ideas of what "reasonable" and "naturally" mean, so we settle these disputes in a court of law. I recognize that this plaintiff has the right to settle this case with our legal system even if i secretly hope he doesn't get any money because it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom