Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,535,277 times
Reputation: 24780

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT View Post
And you thought your chicken sandwich was being prepared according to Islamic law? Think again - sue the b__s! (... as long as McDonald's is paying, not the taxpayers).

'A judge on Wednesday finalized a $700,000 settlement between McDonald's Corp. and members of Michigan's Muslim community over claims a suburban Detroit restaurant falsely advertised its food as prepared according to Islamic law.

Ahmed Ahmed, the Dearborn Heights man who represents plaintiffs in the class-action suit, claims he bought a chicken sandwich in September 2011 at the restaurant but found it wasn't halal.

Islam forbids consumption of pork, and God's name must be invoked before an animal providing meat for consumption is slaughtered.'

Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's
From your link:

DETROIT (AP) -- A judge on Wednesday finalized a $700,000 settlement between McDonald's Corp. and members of Michigan's Muslim community over claims a suburban Detroit restaurant falsely advertised its food as prepared according to Islamic law.

So, it's REALLY about falsely advertising to a largely Muslim community in order to increase sales. And it came back to bite them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
1,165 posts, read 1,514,833 times
Reputation: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Absolutely, my very first response was that McDonalds was wrong.. I simply questioned the "reason" for the settlement. More than likely it was to make the whole thing disappear..
I would imagine that McDonald's did not feel like fighting a case due to the irresponsible nature of a single franchise owner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:38 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,391,755 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnote11 View Post
It was just a single franchise underneath the corporation. This hardly represents the corporation as a whole.
Regardless, it is rare to see any business really be held to account for treachery, and that one franchise is likely its own corporation or partnership anyway
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
1,165 posts, read 1,514,833 times
Reputation: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Regardless, it is rare to see any business be held to account and that one franchise is likely its own corporation or partnership anyway
Indeed, it is nice to see, but it is hardly holding a large corporations feet to the fire like we should be doing to numerous violators.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:41 PM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,109,663 times
Reputation: 8527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
From your link:

DETROIT (AP) -- A judge on Wednesday finalized a $700,000 settlement between McDonald's Corp. and members of Michigan's Muslim community over claims a suburban Detroit restaurant falsely advertised its food as prepared according to Islamic law.

So, it's REALLY about falsely advertising to a largely Muslim community in order to increase sales. And it came back to bite them.

Simple reading comprehension, unfortunately, some people don't seem to remember that class. All they saw was mooooooooslims.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:42 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,391,755 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I'm unaware of laws in this country which mandates truth in advertising...
I suspect that you would have to know Michigan law to have any idea what theory they were arguing under, with that said I would suspect many states prohibit unfair and deceptive trade practices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:44 PM
 
Location: North Texas
24,561 posts, read 40,281,740 times
Reputation: 28564
Just to reiterate what so many here have said already...if it was advertised as halal and was not halal, that is false advertising and they had every right to sue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,535,277 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
Simple reading comprehension, unfortunately, some people don't seem to remember that class. All they saw was mooooooooslims.

Kind of amusing when a poster doesn't read his own link prior to starting a phony outrage thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:46 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 3,132,371 times
Reputation: 478
there are no damages relative to the belief system because the act was not intentional and Allah could not have been offended....therefore the only representation of consideration possible is the value in the meal..

otherwise the claim would be suggesting that Allah and the ongoing faith-belief can be appeased with money -by implying that money is sought in consideration for damages and in a direct result with something that had nothing to do with the practice in the belief, intentions or Allah..so its an irrational claim which contradicts itself in its required frame and foundation...all he should get is a couple of coupons or whatever, what a dumb judge....so if a Christian went to McDonalds and ordered a fish sandwich on fri and there was some meat in the construction of the bun or something or who cares what to build the thing what then...another big law suite....it wouldn't even get heard...and rightly so...thats how crazy this is.

Last edited by stargazzer; 04-18-2013 at 01:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:46 PM
 
46,947 posts, read 25,984,404 times
Reputation: 29441
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The commission is NOT involved..
<sigh> I am aware of that. You still saw fit to cite them in post #40, so I assumed you were discussing a hypothetical. I pointed out you cited the wrong statute. This would have been a clear violation of the deceit in advertising rules.

Or do you wish to withdraw post 40?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top