McDonald's being sued because "Late Night: Drive Thru Only" is Discriminatory...towards the Blind

areusure? wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

Daylight vs. middle of the night makes no difference to blind people

You know blind people can see light and dark right?

Sure but do they really care whether they see a big bright haze or a big dark haze?

Going to McDonald's is its own punishment.

McDonalds should serve that blind guy a Big Mac with sesame seeds arranged as "Fvck you".

HardLoper wrote:

areusure? wrote:

You know blind people can see light and dark right?

Sure but do they really care whether they see a big bright haze or a big dark haze?

There are many levels of severity of blindness also. It's one of the good cheats at the Paralympics.

I don't see a way out of this dilemma.

You Americans "solve" every problem by suing, which unfortunately gets everyone defensive rather than fixing things.

My roommate is visually impaired. He can get around fine on foot or public transit, but he sure as hell can't drive. Why shouldn't he be able to pick up takeout from a takeout establishment during its hours of operation?

McLRC wrote:

But hey, someone sued a long time ago over there not being a "caution: hot" on a coffee and won. See Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

They lost because the coffee was unreasonably hot, they knew there was risk for severe burns, and they didn't care. That's called negligence.

It sounds dumb, but most people side with the woman when they learn the facts.

Blah Blah Blah. wrote:

Not Cool Bro wrote:

The lawsuit is dumb of course, but why won't McDonald's just serve people on foot at the drive through? Who cares? What difference does it make to them?

Because someone in a car won't see the person on foot and run him over.

I don't care about the issue in the least, but this is ridiculous. Cars don't go screaming through drive-thru lanes. You are more likely to get hit by a car in the parking lot trying to get to the front door.

Most? Evidence, please.

jewbacca wrote:

McLRC wrote:

But hey, someone sued a long time ago over there not being a "caution: hot" on a coffee and won. See Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

They lost because the coffee was unreasonably hot, they knew there was risk for severe burns, and they didn't care. That's called negligence.

It sounds dumb, but most people side with the woman when they learn the facts.

65% side with the plaintiff because McDonalds knew that the coffee was dangerously hot but found that they could use lower quality beans if the coffee was so hot that it dulled the customers sense of taste.

Proof? wrote:

Most? Evidence, please.

jewbacca wrote:

They lost because the coffee was unreasonably hot, they knew there was risk for severe burns, and they didn't care. That's called negligence.

It sounds dumb, but most people side with the woman when they learn the facts.

Well I agree with the him, so that makes 2 of us and only 1 of you. If my math is correct, that means 2/3 of people surveyed agree with the woman.

The coffee was like 180-190 degrees F or something outrageous like that. It caused third degree burns on this elderly woman. No reason coffee needs to be 180 degrees!

jewbacca wrote:

McLRC wrote:

But hey, someone sued a long time ago over there not being a "caution: hot" on a coffee and won. See Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

They lost because the coffee was unreasonably hot, they knew there was risk for severe burns, and they didn't care. That's called negligence.

It sounds dumb, but most people side with the woman when they learn the facts.

My coffee always start out at 100C. I don't find that unreasonably hot.

areusure? wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

Daylight vs. middle of the night makes no difference to blind people

You know blind people can see light and dark right?

This depends upon the type of blindness, but there are certainly those who have no light perception at all.

For what it's worth, like several posters above, I've been refused service walking up to a drive in window, so it's not clear to me that this guy has a case.

Stupid lawsuit. Like they were intentionally discriminating against the blind. Might as well say it's discriminatory against people who don't own cars and let them jump in on the class action as well.

On the bright side (oh, sorry for the microaggression blind dude) you can get breakfast all day at Mickeys now. Let's embrace the positives people!

My campus had a similar thing (at least when I was there about a decade ago). Restaurant was on the corner directly across from the freshman dorms and next to one of the popular campus bars. Lobby closed at 11 pm, but after that you would walk thru the drive thru line and order just like anyone else. In a way I can see the philosophy because it cuts down on drunk driving.

Emails @gmail.com... that firm must be a real powerhouse.

Am I the only one who has actually gotten served walking through a drive through at McDonald's? We had four guys and pretended we were in a car. The workers just laughed when they saw what we were doing and served us anyway.