quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:

I do not think any competent attorney, had they been consulted before the restaurant acted as it did, would advise the restaurant to tell the kid he couldn't eat his sandwich alongside his classmates. No, a competent attorney would not be thinking about the current composition of the Supreme Court or anything like that.

A competent attorney would tell the restaurant that what the kid is proposing is a reasonable accommodation. A competent attorney might also add that it is *WAY* better that the kid brings his own food than if we prepare something and he gets sick -- then we really may have some exposure.

quote:

Originally posted by piqaboo:
Did one of those class trips w the historical experience, meals etc.
The place does these for schools every week all year long. We had a kid w peanut allergies along. There was no special meal w his name on it, the teachers ask, the staff said the entire meal was peanut free. His reaction started within 15 min of the meal and he went off in an ambulance because even w an epipen on hand, that is district policy.


So, yeah, I think the restaurant could have reasonably accommodated that one kid. I cant read the actual article so I dont know how blatant the kid was about waving his food around. Is it his RIGHT ? No. Would it have been sensible to allow it? Oh yeah

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Quirt - I don’t think Bernard is arguing the law. More like his judgement of the relative douchbaggery of the parties involved.

Exactly. But the SC arguments will be different if it comes to that.

At issue here is the God-Given right of a restaurant owner to wring every single nickel of profit out of every individual who occupies space in his restaurant. Never mind the fact the kid went out of his way not to inconvenience the kitchen.

Gorsuch is gonna eat this up.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
If I read this right, the kid actually paid for a meal but didn’t eat it. Instead he ate the sandwich he brought.

If I pay for a meal in a restaurant am I obliged to eat it?

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:

I do not think any competent attorney, had they been consulted before the restaurant acted as it did, would advise the restaurant to tell the kid he couldn't eat his sandwich alongside his classmates. No, a competent attorney would not be thinking about the current composition of the Supreme Court or anything like that.

A competent attorney would tell the restaurant that what the kid is proposing is a reasonable accommodation. A competent attorney might also add that it is *WAY* better that the kid brings his own food than if we prepare something and he gets sick -- then we really may have some exposure.

You're so wrong.

A competent attorney would tell the restaurant that they're probably right that cooking for the kid is a reasonable accommodation, and that they'd probably win.

But that same competent attorney would say the following: there's a risk you'll lose, and, if the kid decides to make a federal case of it, it'll be expensive and result in bad publicity with knee-jerk liberals. Is it really worth the risk, the legal expense, and the bad publicity not to let him eat a chicken sandwich? You can be right and it's still a bad idea.

That is what a competent attorney would say. A competent attorney who believed you were right on the law (which I most certainly do not), would say, there's a chance you'd win, but I think it's more likely you'd lose, and you'd still incur the legal expenses and the bad publicity.

And yes, a competent attorney also points out that, if the restaurant cooks for the kid, they are assuming a big risk of liability if he gets sick, or if he feigns getting sick, or if he gets sick from the anxiety of worrying about whether he'll get sick (because no one is going to be able to prove one way or the other whether he actually had a celiac reaction to what they cooked, and because nobody's going to conduct a lab test before the plates and cookware are washed).

But your hypothetical about legal advice is ludicrous, and the point you are missing is quite a simple one. When the kid walks in and asks to eat his chicken sandwich, there is not a restaurant in America that says, "hang on, let me call my lawyer." They just don't. The manager makes a judgment on the spot, and things spiral out of control (or not) from there.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:

I do not think any competent attorney, had they been consulted before the restaurant acted as it did, would advise the restaurant to tell the kid he couldn't eat his sandwich alongside his classmates. No, a competent attorney would not be thinking about the current composition of the Supreme Court or anything like that.

A competent attorney would tell the restaurant that what the kid is proposing is a reasonable accommodation. A competent attorney might also add that it is *WAY* better that the kid brings his own food than if we prepare something and he gets sick -- then we really may have some exposure.

You're so wrong.

A competent attorney would tell the restaurant that they're probably right that cooking for the kid is a reasonable accommodation, and that they'd probably win.

But that same competent attorney would say the following: there's a risk you'll lose, and, if the kid decides to make a federal case of it, it'll be expensive and result in bad publicity with knee-jerk liberals. Is it really worth the risk, the legal expense, and the bad publicity not to let him eat a chicken sandwich? You can be right and it's still a bad idea.

That is what a competent attorney would say. A competent attorney who believed you were right on the law (which I most certainly do not), would say, there's a chance you'd win, but I think it's more likely you'd lose, and you'd still incur the legal expenses and the bad publicity.

And yes, a competent attorney also points out that, if the restaurant cooks for the kid, they are assuming a big risk of liability if he gets sick, or if he feigns getting sick, or if he gets sick from the anxiety of worrying about whether he'll get sick (because no one is going to be able to prove one way or the other whether he actually had a celiac reaction to what they cooked, and because nobody's going to conduct a lab test before the plates and cookware are washed).

But your hypothetical about legal advice is ludicrous, and the point you are missing is quite a simple one. When the kid walks in and asks to eat his chicken sandwich, there is not a restaurant in America that says, "hang on, let me call my lawyer." They just don't. The manager makes a judgment on the spot, and things spiral out of control (or not) from there.

Boy, I hope there aren’t any clients actually coming to you for legal advise. ‘Cause they are gonna get some hefty bills for a whole lot of hot air.

quote:

Originally posted by Amanda:
Wait! He paid for the meal included in the field trip and they're STILL giving him a hard time? Could they argue his 21st century sandwich spoiled the atmosphere or what?