Dapper Andy
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 913
- Reaction score
- 310
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
But that's not what happened here. McDonald's falsely advertised their products as halal. They weren't forced to do anything, and they certainly weren't forced to lie about their products.
I think generalized irrational pronouncement towards ethic groups is lowest form of ignorance.
If you decide to ignore the definitions posted by removing them from my quote, that is entirely up to you. You are not free to then say "you have never heard it" that way.
They should not have to proclaim their condemnation on a daily basis. Sorry if I was less than clear.
It is false advertising...I mean that's a big deal.
Yeah but $700,000.00 because a guy thought his McChicken Sandwich was prepared in a way it wasn't is pretty steep.
I guess half the country, especially those in a place like Detroit, hate corporations so much that the corporation had to make a ridiculous settlement to avoid what would have been an even more punitive judgement.
Facepalm.there isn't a shared form of "holidays, food language, and custom" among muslims".
^secret jihadist^
Yeah but $700,000.00 because a guy thought his McChicken Sandwich was prepared in a way it wasn't is pretty steep.
I guess half the country, especially those in a place like Detroit, hate corporations so much that the corporation had to make a ridiculous settlement to avoid what would have been an even more punitive judgement.
Facepalm.
I don't know, it seems fair to me.
You've gotta remember that this was a class action. It wasn't, legally speaking, a guy claiming that his sandwich was prepared in a manner inconsistent with the way McDonald's had advertised, it was everyone (ostensibly) who ever bougt a sandwich from that McDonald's making the claim.
When you consider that something like half of Dearborne's population is Arab, and most of those are prolly Muslim, and that this false advertising thing had been going on for years, it stands to reason that Muslims have been duped into spending well more than $700K on McD's food.
Either that or McDonalds was afraid that if this thing went to trial they would have stood to lose far more than what they settled for.
Straw and reducto, it was not an argument that all are the same ethnicity, but that:An indian muslims and one from Saudi Arabia don't even practice the same holidays (the saudi man wouldn't observe Diwali). They might have religious holidays that overlap, like Eid, but that doesn't make them the same ethnicity. No more than me sharing the observance of Christmas with Coptic Christians make me a part of their ethnicity.
Straw and reducto, it was not an argument that all are the same ethnicity, but that
He posted against an ethnic group, ie "Muslims".
Ethnicity, or ethnic identity, refers to membership in a particular cultural group. It is defined by shared cultural practises, including but not limited to holidays, food, language, and customs.
Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes
UK had the same problem. Due to islamist movement, the meat companies were forced to do halal meat and commercialize it... and they didn't put a label on the product saying that: This meat was prepared according to halal.
Why?
because its a brutal, stupid, barbaric ritual and the merchants knew that if they put the label HALAL MEAT on their meat, decent people wouldn't buy it because they wouldn't support the barbarism.
How is it "having that problem" when the two situations, as you describe it, are nothing at all alike. In the situation here, McDonalds decided to advertise something they apparently where not providing, got busted for it, or at least did not expect a jury to buy their story, so settled the lawsuit. That is not even remotely like the situation you describe.
Um, it is the key point, that racism includes discrimination against a person based on their religion.what does this have to do with you claiming "muslim" as an ethnicity?
UK had the same problem. Due to islamist movement, the meat companies were forced to do halal meat and commercialize it... and they didn't put a label on the product saying that: This meat was prepared according to halal.
Why?
because its a brutal, stupid, barbaric ritual and the merchants knew that if they put the label HALAL MEAT on their meat, decent people wouldn't buy it because they wouldn't support the barbarism.
$700K because sandwiches were not prepared as advertised just seems excessive to me regardless of how many people ate them.
Plus, I just don't believe many kept halal so thoroughly as to make this a real offense.
Um, it is the key point, that racism includes discrimination against a person based on their religion.
Kind of strange. McDonald's has very strict food preparation methods and does not allow any of the franchisees to deviate at all from the central food preparation standards. That's why McDonald's food tastes the same no matter where you are.
Yet this particular McDonald's is sued for not property preparing tasty Muslim snacks?
because they apparently advertised it as Halal
maybe you need to read the link againKind of strange. McDonald's has very strict food preparation methods and does not allow any of the franchisees to deviate at all from the central food preparation standards. That's why McDonald's food tastes the same no matter where you are.
Yet this particular McDonald's is sued for not property preparing tasty Muslim snacks?
When I said (above) that this settlement "sounded fair" to me I meant in relation to other false advertising settlements/judegements.
Just as a single example, Sketchers (the shoe company) settled for $45 million dollars because their "Shape Up" sandals didn't live up to the advertising claim that wearers would lose weight "without stepping foot in the gym".
You might find that excessive too, and I guess as far as it goes there's really nothing wrong with that, it's just your opinion after all so no big deal.
But I think we have a pretty clear standard in this country that if you market a product, and in doing so make claims that the product does not live up to, you're going to be held accountable for that (or at least, the potential exists that you will).
I simply think that $700K when we're talking about a relatively small population suing over a relatively inexpensive product is "fair" in comparison to a larger class suing over a more expensive product and getting $45 million.
McDonald's market research had to have told them that advertising the food as halal was advisable otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
Whether or not people actually kept halal, or whether they simply told the folks running the focus group, polls, and surveys that they kept halal because it made them feel good about themselves is kinda immaterial.
Once McDonalds made that promise to consumers (that their food was halal), regardless of how they came to make the decision, they were obligated to live up to it.
McDonald's has very strict food preparation methods and does not allow any of the franchisees to deviate at all from the central food preparation standards.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?