Having observed my roomies trying to sort out ordering stuff off these delivery companies' apps, talking about things listed in the menu the restaurant doesn't actually do and all that, I have a hard time believing that this is for certain a mistake by the restaurant.
I suspect it may have been that Burger King corporate added the product and expected franchisees to remove it or hide it until they had the product on hand and this particular franchisee had difficulties doing that, such as it was not noticed by the people with access to do that in the delivery app, or access was difficult to get.
This sort of thing is to be expected when we push simple applications into complicated environments (which the franchise fast food restaurant is a complicated environment that seems simple at first glance) and expect it to be easy.
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."
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.
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
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...
if an establishment wants to cater to both jews/muslims/vegans and non , they should do it properly. there are many that do this already. it is not considered a compromise by the tolerant ones as what others do is not a concern, just personal observance
Vegans are opposed to eating meat because of animal cruelty, so it is hypocritical for them to eat at a place where 99% of the menu is meat-based.
Kosher/halaal is just a specific requirement for preparing meat for consumption. There is nothing hypocritical about Jews/Muslims eating at a restaurant that also serves non-kosher/halaal meat because those restrictions don't apply to people of other religions.
I wouldn't say that's hypocritical. A vegan doesn't eat meat, that's still a good contribution to the cause of animal welfare without the need of isolating oneself from the human community. It's simply preposterous to ask people who have ethical convictions to apply them to the (usually very unpleasant) extreme or being branded incoherent or hypocritical.
On the other hand, I don't think it should be a big issue to eat some meat once in a while by mistake. The impact on the general cause is negligible.
How is it hypocritical to eat the vegan options there and show that there is demand for the vegan options? Is it also hypocritical to hire non-vegan employees, or get an Uber from non-vegans? Is it hypocritical to pay taxes which will go towards defense spending (I know that Israel has vegan options for military uniforms and diet, but I'm not sure about the US). It's about practicality.
(I can't remember if the impossible burger is vegan or not, but I remember that they don't cater to vegans)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I feel like if you're eating someplace and something on the menu is absolutely not acceptable to you... you're always taking some risk. Everyone has had their orders mixed up in various ways here or there.
That's not fair, but it is just a very real thing that could happen.
Everything else aside, this is a horrible way for a business to handle the situation.
When you receive an order for something you know you definitely can't deliver, you don't plow forward and try to fob off some substitute thing on them. You either contact them and get their approval first, or you cancel the order.
On top of that, relying on the driver to inform them is another problem. Drivers aren't going to be 100% reliable at that (it's not their primary responsibility, they're in a hurry, they may fail to understand the situation, etc.), so that's a terrible plan, and you're just asking for the situation to go bad.
30 comments
[ 6.7 ms ] story [ 78.3 ms ] threadI suspect it may have been that Burger King corporate added the product and expected franchisees to remove it or hide it until they had the product on hand and this particular franchisee had difficulties doing that, such as it was not noticed by the people with access to do that in the delivery app, or access was difficult to get.
This sort of thing is to be expected when we push simple applications into complicated environments (which the franchise fast food restaurant is a complicated environment that seems simple at first glance) and expect it to be easy.
I personally don't care where anyone eats, but if a Jew/Muslim eats in a non-kosher/halal restaurant, they're already compromising...
Vegans are opposed to eating meat because of animal cruelty, so it is hypocritical for them to eat at a place where 99% of the menu is meat-based.
Kosher/halaal is just a specific requirement for preparing meat for consumption. There is nothing hypocritical about Jews/Muslims eating at a restaurant that also serves non-kosher/halaal meat because those restrictions don't apply to people of other religions.
On the other hand, I don't think it should be a big issue to eat some meat once in a while by mistake. The impact on the general cause is negligible.
(I can't remember if the impossible burger is vegan or not, but I remember that they don't cater to vegans)
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.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vegans-discr...
Just being protected and getting the wrong food at a restaurant doesn't necessarily follow that you've got legal recourse to do anything.
That wasn't part of your question.
Do you typically rely on others to read your mind, while asking questions?
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-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.
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.
Get rich ?
Financial Punishment? It’s not going to put a dent in their revenue
Name and shame ? It’s happened
That's not fair, but it is just a very real thing that could happen.
https://youtu.be/-PgfLysQua0
“I know what you’re the king of - getting my fucking order wrong.”
Everything else aside, this is a horrible way for a business to handle the situation.
When you receive an order for something you know you definitely can't deliver, you don't plow forward and try to fob off some substitute thing on them. You either contact them and get their approval first, or you cancel the order.
On top of that, relying on the driver to inform them is another problem. Drivers aren't going to be 100% reliable at that (it's not their primary responsibility, they're in a hurry, they may fail to understand the situation, etc.), so that's a terrible plan, and you're just asking for the situation to go bad.