5 ms·

This is pretty egregious for vegans and other with protected religious beliefs that prohibits consumption of meat/beef. what is the legal recourse?

by ptah 7y ago

duxup 7y ago
What would the legal basis be for having any recourse?
- adrianmonk 7y ago
  IANAL, but it seems possible that intentionally or negligently selling someone a product that definitely isn't what they thought they were buying could constitute something like fraud or misrepresentation. They might be liable for the cost of the hamburger, at least, because you did not get what you paid for. I also wonder if there might be punitive damages. Here's a random example of a case where there were punitive damages for a business-to-business negligent misrepresentation case: http://www.obrlaw.com/commercial-litigation.php?Third-Circuit-Affirms-5-Million-Punitive-Damages-Award-in-Negligent-Misrepresentation-Case-12 http://www.obrlaw.com/commercial-litigation.php?Third-Circui... And I'd also wonder if there could be something like pain and suffering or emotional distress. I doubt it would work to demonstrate actual harm (health effects, etc.) in unwittingly/unwillingly eating meat, but I think it'd be pretty easy to argue that someone might feel a lot of distress from being forced to experience something they have deeply-held beliefs against.
millzlane 7y ago
From what I understand. If you unknowingly ate it your religion doesn't count that as bad. On the topic of legal recourse...I once knew a person who got a piece of a glove with blood on it on their burger and the bun from a Burger King. A lot of lawyers refused to help her citing "the fear of contracting a disease isn't enough for compensation."
- ptah 7y ago
  Not for vegans as the harm to the animal will still weigh on one's conscience. It's about the spirit of the rule that you are voluntarily submitting to.
  - Mikeb85 7y ago
    So why are they eating in a restaurant that contributes to that harm? Their dollars pay the bills of restaurants that serve meat.
    - ptah 7y ago
      they are tolerant of others choices not intolerant. are you opposed to tolerance
      - Mikeb85 7y ago
        That's quite the jump you made...
      - ptah 7y ago
        not a jump, as you are implying that establishments that are not purely kosher/halaal/vegan but have options should be shunned by practitioners. this is intolerant and a form of pressuring others to conform to one's personal beliefs
    - ptah 7y ago
      by your logic kosher and halaal people should not share restaurants or tables with non-kosher and halaal people
      - duxup 7y ago
        If you're giving money to a restaurant that serves meat is is hard avoid the idea that you're funding a restaurant that contributes to "harm".
      - Mikeb85 7y ago
        Religious Jews and Muslims don't eat in non kosher/halal restaurants because of the lack of properly prepared and sourced meats. There's a specific set of rules surrounding kosher/halal meats, it's not just abstention from pork... I personally don't care where anyone eats, but if a Jew/Muslim eats in a non-kosher/halal restaurant, they're already compromising...
Mikeb85 7y ago
Why would there be a legal recourse? If someone has a strong religious aversion to a product, why are they eating in a restaurant that serves that product? Furthermore, their religion dictates they only eat meats blessed by a cleric of their religion, last I checked non-halal or kosher restaurants aren't sourcing halal/kosher meats. And vegans aren't a protected religious group.
- ptah 7y ago
  because the restaurant advertises that is has options for them
- ptah 7y ago
  vegans are protected in the UK
  - thoughtstheseus 7y ago
    Protected from what?
    - elbrian 7y ago
      I took 20 seconds to Google "vegans protected UK" and find this article for you: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vegans-discrimination-equality-act-case-tribunal-jordi-casamitjana-a8664551.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vegans-discr...
      - duxup 7y ago
        Your 20 seconds of googling got an article that talks about "may get" and doesn't really explain how that would apply to this situation. Just being protected and getting the wrong food at a restaurant doesn't necessarily follow that you've got legal recourse to do anything.
        elbrian 7y ago
        > Your 20 seconds of googling got an article that talks about "may get" and doesn't really explain how that would apply to this situation. That wasn't part of your question. Do you typically rely on others to read your mind, while asking questions?
dawnerd 7y ago
Could be considered an undeclared ingredient. There’s plenty of recalls from that every year, although most have to do with unlabeled ingredients being allergens. This is kind of what I feared would happen when you take something that’s so similar to real meat and let fast food workers try to sort it out.
zaphirplane 7y ago
What are you trying to get out of the legal recourse Get rich ? Financial Punishment? It’s not going to put a dent in their revenue Name and shame ? It’s happened

This is pretty egregious for vegans and other with protected religious beliefs that prohibits consumption of meat/beef. what is the legal recourse?

by ptah 7y ago

This is pretty egregious for vegans and other with protected religious beliefs that prohibits consumption of meat/beef. what is the legal recourse?

duxup 7y ago

What would the legal basis be for having any recourse?

adrianmonk 7y ago
IANAL, but it seems possible that intentionally or negligently selling someone a product that definitely isn't what they thought they were buying could constitute something like fraud or misrepresentation. They might be liable for the cost of the hamburger, at least, because you did not get what you paid for. I also wonder if there might be punitive damages. Here's a random example of a case where there were punitive damages for a business-to-business negligent misrepresentation case: http://www.obrlaw.com/commercial-litigation.php?Third-Circuit-Affirms-5-Million-Punitive-Damages-Award-in-Negligent-Misrepresentation-Case-12 http://www.obrlaw.com/commercial-litigation.php?Third-Circui... And I'd also wonder if there could be something like pain and suffering or emotional distress. I doubt it would work to demonstrate actual harm (health effects, etc.) in unwittingly/unwillingly eating meat, but I think it'd be pretty easy to argue that someone might feel a lot of distress from being forced to experience something they have deeply-held beliefs against.

millzlane 7y ago

From what I understand. If you unknowingly ate it your religion doesn't count that as bad. On the topic of legal recourse...I once knew a person who got a piece of a glove with blood on it on their burger and the bun from a Burger King. A lot of lawyers refused to help her citing "the fear of contracting a disease isn't enough for compensation."

ptah 7y ago
Not for vegans as the harm to the animal will still weigh on one's conscience. It's about the spirit of the rule that you are voluntarily submitting to.
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  So why are they eating in a restaurant that contributes to that harm? Their dollars pay the bills of restaurants that serve meat.
  - ptah 7y ago
    they are tolerant of others choices not intolerant. are you opposed to tolerance
    - Mikeb85 7y ago
      That's quite the jump you made...
    - ptah 7y ago
      not a jump, as you are implying that establishments that are not purely kosher/halaal/vegan but have options should be shunned by practitioners. this is intolerant and a form of pressuring others to conform to one's personal beliefs
  - ptah 7y ago
    by your logic kosher and halaal people should not share restaurants or tables with non-kosher and halaal people
    - duxup 7y ago
      If you're giving money to a restaurant that serves meat is is hard avoid the idea that you're funding a restaurant that contributes to "harm".
    - Mikeb85 7y ago
      Religious Jews and Muslims don't eat in non kosher/halal restaurants because of the lack of properly prepared and sourced meats. There's a specific set of rules surrounding kosher/halal meats, it's not just abstention from pork... I personally don't care where anyone eats, but if a Jew/Muslim eats in a non-kosher/halal restaurant, they're already compromising...

Mikeb85 7y ago

Why would there be a legal recourse? If someone has a strong religious aversion to a product, why are they eating in a restaurant that serves that product? Furthermore, their religion dictates they only eat meats blessed by a cleric of their religion, last I checked non-halal or kosher restaurants aren't sourcing halal/kosher meats. And vegans aren't a protected religious group.

ptah 7y ago
because the restaurant advertises that is has options for them
ptah 7y ago
vegans are protected in the UK
- thoughtstheseus 7y ago
  Protected from what?
  - elbrian 7y ago
    I took 20 seconds to Google "vegans protected UK" and find this article for you: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vegans-discrimination-equality-act-case-tribunal-jordi-casamitjana-a8664551.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vegans-discr...
    - duxup 7y ago
      Your 20 seconds of googling got an article that talks about "may get" and doesn't really explain how that would apply to this situation. Just being protected and getting the wrong food at a restaurant doesn't necessarily follow that you've got legal recourse to do anything.
      - elbrian 7y ago
        > Your 20 seconds of googling got an article that talks about "may get" and doesn't really explain how that would apply to this situation. That wasn't part of your question. Do you typically rely on others to read your mind, while asking questions?

dawnerd 7y ago

Could be considered an undeclared ingredient. There’s plenty of recalls from that every year, although most have to do with unlabeled ingredients being allergens. This is kind of what I feared would happen when you take something that’s so similar to real meat and let fast food workers try to sort it out.

zaphirplane 7y ago

What are you trying to get out of the legal recourse Get rich ? Financial Punishment? It’s not going to put a dent in their revenue Name and shame ? It’s happened