FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's

Dave[_2_]

John Wesley wrote:
> In article .com>,
> says...
> > idiot "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered:
> > > S. Maizlich wrote:
> > > > Beach Runner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I agree she suffered no real damage and every veggie should ask before
> > > > >> ordering. (I do)
> > > > >> About the allergy thing, I was saying they should sue based on what I
> > > > >> know of allergies. I am an allergy sufferer as well as a vegetarian
> > > > >> and I ask a barrage of questions before chowing down. However things
> > > > >> can get cross contaminated and a reaction can occur. If they didn't
> > > > >> have anti-histamines or epi pens handy, and the allergy is full blown
> > > > >> they could die. If the case is that they went to the hospital and
> > > > >> nearly died, I can see the law suit having some solid ground.
> > > > >>
> > > > > This ignores that fact that McDonalds was being purposely dishonest.
> > > >
> > > > How were they? Did they say their fries contain no
> > > > wheat or dairy? You don't know that. You don't know
> > > > *any* of the facts of the case.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If they didn't say anything that would be one matter but being purposely
> > > > > dishonest is another.
> > > >
> > > > Prove they were being "purposely dishonest".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And if Vegan is a spiritual or moral code for someone, clearly McDonalds
> > > > > violated that trust and should be liable.
> > > >
> > > > The "vegan" has no case. You can hold whatever
> > > > ****witted "spiritual code" you want; it is not
> > > > "violated" by McDonald's including dairy in its
> > > > products. You do not have a "right" to have your
> > > > so-called "spiritual code" respected.
> > >
> > > If you enquire whether a product is vegan and you are told
> > > that it is then you are morally entitled to expect it to be vegan.
> > > Making false claims about the products you sell is unethical
> > > and, quite rightly, illegal. Whether or not that was what
> > > happened I don't know. If the vegan simply assumed the fries
> > > were vegan without actually being told so then she has no
> > > case. Exactly the same applies to the hypochondriacs.
> >
> > The "vegan" has no case. She suffered no damages.
> >
> The vegan should be thankful to be able to eat such tasty fries!

Do you think individuals should have the right to decide what they
do or do not eat, John?