Switch hitters need not apply.

Local News | Bisexual men sue gay group, claim bias | Seattle Times Newspaper

Okay, I read this story and I laughed my arse off but the story begs the question as to how far we let this sort of thing go. I mean that this really puts the cherry on the litigious cake don't you think.

This quote here really caught my attention:

Quote:

---

In any case, Allen said, the alliance is a private organization and, as such, can determine its membership based on its goals.

---

Do you think the Boy Scouts could say this? How about the Catholic church?
Hey, I want to start my own all white, all men, all heterosexual club. Lets see how far that will go.

All responses to the story and or my question are welcome.

BillyJeff2 need not reply :p:p
Just teasing Billy!

I actually have to disagree with your argument on this one...
It is a private group, and it can set it's own rules for membership.

Sure, other organizations would get a lot of attention if this were reversed, but there is nothing preventing it.
Oh, and you can't start the aforementioned club, it already exists: KKK.
(ok, I'm not that familiar with the Klan, but as I understand, it only allows white hetero males...)

I still think the pants lawsuit was better, but this one will definitely have more personal drama...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

I actually have to disagree with your argument on this one...
It is a private group, and it can set it's own rules for membership.

Sure, other organizations would get a lot of attention if this were reversed, but there is nothing preventing it.
Oh, and you can't start the aforementioned club, it already exists: KKK.
(ok, I'm not that familiar with the Klan, but as I understand, it only allows white hetero males...)

---

You don't disagree with me at all. I haven't even presented my argument. I only showed what I believe to be an inconsistency in the existing argument.

Oooh.. You are a master baiter Mark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

You don't disagree with me at all. I haven't even presented my argument. I only showed what I believe to be an inconsistency in the existing argument.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

You don't disagree with me at all. I haven't even presented my argument. I only showed what I believe to be an inconsistency in the existing argument.

---

Good point. I made assumptions based on the questions. Sorry.

So... In answer to the questions: I do think it is ok for a group to discriminate. I don't think it should be a big deal.
I do think it would be a media circus if a large well known group decided to discriminate against members of a "protected class". But there's nothing to stop a group from doing it, and there should not be anything to stop them. Ever.

Did you read the article? IF the Gay World Series is a "public accomidation" AND sexual orientation is a protected class under state law, then it seems that there is at least SOME rational basis for the suit.

IF on the other hand, the alliance (and the World Series) is strictly private, then it seems MUCH less likely that there is anywhere for the suit to go.

That question, however, is one that will need to be decided by the court.

To what seems to be your point....wait...what's your point? Lawsuits are bad? Lawsuits based on sexual orientation discrimination are bad? Foie Gras is murder (tasty, tasty murder)?

And your questions: I think we had the answer to the Boy Scouts question, already. And the Catholic Church only gives certain "rights" to Catholics, correct? And to heterosexuals....and I think they are still tax-exempt.

My point is that no matter the law these sorts of suits and others such as the infamous hot coffee suit, the pants suit, the motor home suit where the guy sued because he went back to get a drink and the vehicle went of the road, etc. etc. etc. make a joke of the whole damned system. When will common sense be restored?
Reminds me of little children fighting. Where is the guiding influence for these "children"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

My point is that no matter the law these sorts of suits and others such as the infamous hot coffee suit, the pants suit, the motor home suit where the guy sued because he went back to get a drink and the vehicle went of the road, etc. etc. etc. make a joke of the whole damned system. When will common sense be restored?
Reminds me of little children fighting. Where is the guiding influence for these "children"?

---

Ever read this one?

It wasn't just "hot" coffee. It resulted in third degree burns. The woman took a risk putting it between her legs sure. It was proven in court that McDonald's (who refused initial settlements that were ONLY for her medical costs) knowingly provided coffee that was hot enough to cause serious burns even in the face of evidence that their reason for selling coffee so hot was not valid.

I can't comment on the rest of these cases, but in this one there is certainly a lot more to the story than most people realize. She tried mediation and McD's denied. She went to court and McD's got what they deserved based on the facts of the case.

-Rob

Not quite. Coffee should be served scalding hot. If that women was stupid enough to put scalding hot coffee between her legs, then she had it coming. And I don't blame MickyD for not wanting to mediate. If she had had integrity, she would have sued for damages, not for a big lottery style 'never have to work again' paycheck for something that was caused by her own stupidity.

i herd about this on a AM station the other day....i couldnt help but just laugh....
did anyone ever hear about the guy that broke into someones home then broke his leg while trying to rob these people that were on vacation and they come back to find the guy have starved to death they called the cops and what not....this clown ended up suing them and won..i think it was by the fact that he got hurt on thier property....i bet the guy that owned that house was thinking man i just should of shot that guy then called the cops

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMARACING8

i herd about this on a AM station the other day....i couldnt help but just laugh....
did anyone ever hear about the guy that broke into someones home then broke his leg while trying to rob these people that were on vacation and they come back to find the guy have starved to death they called the cops and what not....this clown ended up suing them and won..i think it was by the fact that he got hurt on thier property....i bet the guy that owned that house was thinking man i just should of shot that guy then called the cops

---

Question. If he starved to the point of death how did he sue?;)

he was only half starved :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Not quite. Coffee should be served scalding hot. If that women was stupid enough to put scalding hot coffee between her legs, then she had it coming. And I don't blame MickyD for not wanting to mediate. If she had had integrity, she would have sued for damages, not for a big lottery style 'never have to work again' paycheck for something that was caused by her own stupidity.

---

Not to get off-topic but she did sue for damages. The millions came from punitive damages which were awarded, not requested.

I'm torn because I hate McDonald's, but I also think it's a bit ridiculous to hold them accountable for hot coffee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commiecat

I'm torn because I hate McDonald's, but I also think it's a bit ridiculous to hold them accountable for hot coffee.

---

They were not held accoutable for HOT coffee. They were held accoutnable for serving a product in a condition that they KNEW to be unsafe. The coffee was served at a temperature well above the norm for economic reasons, if memory serves (to eek more coffee out of the beans, saving $$). They had been warned in the past.

I've spilled freshly made coffee out of the coffee pot directly onto myself. It's damned hot. My skin got a little red. Maybe one little blister. This woman suffered second (and do I remember even some third? Is that possible?) degree burns, requiring a hefty amount of medical treatment.

The corporation was warned that they were doing something dangerous (mroe dangerous than just "hot coffee') and they disregarded customer safety for profits. Why should they NOT be held accountable for the damage they cause by this decision. A corporation has the DUTY to not hand out a product more dangerous than a customer ought reasonably believe it to be.

Sorry, that's about all i remember...I took torts more years ago than my memory really likes to acknowledge. As such, my brain may have made up any or all of the "facts" as I remember them. pelase refute me if this is the case.

How gay do you have to be to be on the team, thats the question. If you've willing to call youself gay then I guess you are gay enough for me. The part that I don't understand is, now that they have thier own club they want to deny some one the right tot join them because they like women too. It's a double standard placed on them that they are placing on someone else. I though sport was about having fun not some stipulations that someone decides to have fun.

When I first read the title I thought for sure this had to do with shaving with both hands. :nono: Read and learn, hey?

:beer2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commiecat

I'm torn because I hate McDonald's, but I also think it's a bit ridiculous to hold them accountable for hot coffee.

---

Maybe McD should have put a warning sign saying something like "Warning! Hazard! Hot coffee can be hot" in case someone doesn't mind using his/her own brains .:roflmao

Now seriously. These kind of affairs are totally unknown here; people are assumed to have a capability to think what it comes to everyday life.
Of course our laws do not make it possible for affairs like this.
There seems to be a lot of money and lawyers involved with these cases. Just like in the Jims link: I do not understand how these dudes could ask for 75000 for an emotional distress. Were they discriminated or not. Emotional distress is very objective term. You can't ask money from someone if you feel low. Not by law and not by common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

They were not held accoutable for HOT coffee. They were held accoutnable for serving a product in a condition that they KNEW to be unsafe. The coffee was served at a temperature well above the norm for economic reasons, if memory serves (to eek more coffee out of the beans, saving $$). They had been warned in the past.

I've spilled freshly made coffee out of the coffee pot directly onto myself. It's damned hot. My skin got a little red. Maybe one little blister. This woman suffered second (and do I remember even some third? Is that possible?) degree burns, requiring a hefty amount of medical treatment.

The corporation was warned that they were doing something dangerous (mroe dangerous than just "hot coffee') and they disregarded customer safety for profits. Why should they NOT be held accountable for the damage they cause by this decision. A corporation has the DUTY to not hand out a product more dangerous than a customer ought reasonably believe it to be.

Sorry, that's about all i remember...I took torts more years ago than my memory really likes to acknowledge. As such, my brain may have made up any or all of the "facts" as I remember them. pelase refute me if this is the case.

---

Got the rest for you.

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

Just remember for every successful lawsuit there is another warning label.

You know the type:

Warning not for use while in the bathtub/shower ( actually on toaster boxes)

Warning not for internal consumption ( on any external cremes like Preparation H )

Warning HOT ( any coffee cup coming out of a drive through window )

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: :banghead::banghead:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

My point is that no matter the law these sorts of suits and others such as the infamous hot coffee suit, the pants suit, the motor home suit where the guy sued because he went back to get a drink and the vehicle went of the road, etc. etc. etc. make a joke of the whole damned system. When will common sense be restored?
Reminds me of little children fighting. Where is the guiding influence for these "children"?

---

It's sad, but true, that common sense isn't very common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Not quite. Coffee should be served scalding hot. If that women was stupid enough to put scalding hot coffee between her legs, then she had it coming. And I don't blame MickyD for not wanting to mediate. If she had had integrity, she would have sued for damages, not for a big lottery style 'never have to work again' paycheck for something that was caused by her own stupidity.

---

You should spend some time examining this case. It is very interesting and quite easily proved McDs was entirely at fault. It is also interesting how McDs spun reality in order to maintain their reputation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

You should spend some time examining this case. It is very interesting and quite easily proved McDs was entirely at fault. It is also interesting how McDs spun reality in order to maintain their reputation.

---

I have looked through the case in the past and yes in the case provided McD was at fault and did do a great job spinning the case. I still think that they as a corporation where idiots since the lady did come and ask them for them to cover her expenses and they laughed at her. I feel for anyone who has need for skin graphs since my wife was a burn nurse for a few years before switching to pediatrics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

The corporation was warned that they were doing something dangerous (mroe dangerous than just "hot coffee') and they disregarded customer safety for profits. Why should they NOT be held accountable for the damage they cause by this decision. A corporation has the DUTY to not hand out a product more dangerous than a customer ought reasonably believe it to be.

---

Well, yes, but what's the alternative?
Serving lukewarm coffee to appease the people who want to be insulated from life? Some things in our daily lives have the potential to hurt us. It is our own responsibility to make sure that they don't.

If I buy a hammer and hit on my fingers, the hardware store is not to blame.
Same if the hammer were an axe. It is understood that buy buying the axe, I take responsibility for using it. Come to think of it, it's the same when using a straight razor. If you buy one and cut yourself, you can't hold dovo accountable.

Imo, if you buy coffee, you know it will be hot enough to hurt you. If it then does, it is a bit lame to hold McD accountable. Yes, they were warned that their product was very hot. But that doesn't change the fact that coffee should be like that. They put a number of coffee experts on the stand who testified that indeed, coffee should be that hot. But to no avail.

I'd like to get back on topic guys but as an aside there would have to be some very special circumstances for me to consider McDonalds responsible for that poor lady's injuries...like an employee of McDonalds intentionally pouring coffee into the ladies lap, or even accidentally through inattention.
The court may have decided in favor of the lady, The law may be on the side of the lady, but unlike the lady I do not look down the barrel of a gun with my finger on the trigger assuming the gun is unloaded, I do not saw on my fingers with my knife assuming the knife is dull, and I always remember that the coffee I am about to enjoy is likely scalding hot.

thats a good point, since the coffee was poured on her . . . but, I'll leave you back on topic, -- research in understanding what actually happened makes both arguments easier to discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

\Yes, they were warned that their product was very hot. But that doesn't change the fact that coffee should be like that. .

---

Actually, they were fined, repeatedly, for serving coffee that was too hot to drink . . .

680 teams!!! Wow! That is amazing. I think the suit is bogus. How do they justify $75,000? I lost a chess game recently, I think I have some damages coming my way too.

I think it's okay for them to stay private even if they use public parks, but it sounds like they should stop referring to themselves as a public institution.

I thought it was funny though that they let two straight people play on a team . . . is that because all non-professional sports use ringers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sicboater

Ever read this one?

It wasn't just "hot" coffee. It resulted in third degree burns. The woman took a risk putting it between her legs sure. It was proven in court that McDonald's (who refused initial settlements that were ONLY for her medical costs) knowingly provided coffee that was hot enough to cause serious burns even in the face of evidence that their reason for selling coffee so hot was not valid.

I can't comment on the rest of these cases, but in this one there is certainly a lot more to the story than most people realize. She tried mediation and McD's denied. She went to court and McD's got what they deserved based on the facts of the case.

-Rob

---

Rob, you know I like you, but you cannot be serious. Yes, coffee is hot. The sky is blue, and water is wet, too. If it wasn't that hot, she'd have probably sued them for serving her a cup of lukewarm coffee. And if she's dumb enough to put hot coffee between her legs, why should McDonald's (and I'm not defending McDonald's, but the principle) be responsible for her medical costs? I mean, do you have to have a warning label to tell you not to put your hands on a hot stove? Is it the stove's fault or yours if you get burned? So I guess I don't see how McDonald's got what they "deserved". If anything, the woman got what "she" deserved for being somewhat retarded. And think about it...the coffee could only get somewhere ~ 212 degrees, which I think is the boiling point of water. And it doesn't retain a whole lot of residual heat, like say, cooking grease. 3rd degree, full-thickness burns? I've spilled boiling water fresh off the stove on myself before, and the worst I got was a couple blisters. She must've had the skin of an infant, and if she were that sensitive she shouldn't have been drinking coffee anyway. Point is, it was HER fault she got burned, and someone else had to pay for it. I could understand a bit of her point if the shape of a coffee cup was designed to be placed between one's legs, but common sense says it's HER fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

You should spend some time examining this case. It is very interesting and quite easily proved McDs was entirely at fault. It is also interesting how McDs spun reality in order to maintain their reputation.

---

I'll admit I haven't read the case, other than what made the "news", but how is a woman spilling hot coffee on herself anyone's other than HER fault? Had McDonald's poured the coffee on her, fine, but how can it be spun that she spilled the coffee on herself and it was McDonald's fault. It goes against reason and sense.

Addition: I reread the facts of the case from the link posted earlier in the thread. Ok, McDonald's coffee was served hotter than is usual. Still doesn't change the fact it was HER carelessness that caused her to get burned. That would be like me suing KMG because I ground the tip off my finger (and have done that several times) while making a razor with their grinder, or suing the grinding belt maker because their belts were too sharp, and cut my skin. Sheesh...where does personal responsibility come into play?

In letting that lady win the suit with the lady suing the microwave company because she wanted to dry her cat in it (seriously....what was she thinking) make a joke out of the US legal system.


[edit] just reread and turns out it wasn't a cat but a poodle and she didn't win [/edit]


I'm not saying the system IS a joke....but lawsuits like that have made everyone over here facepalm at the thought taking a system like it seriously.

(Personally I think it's not the system to be blamed but those involved in the case, just like McD wasn't to be blamed but the lady who spilled coffee on herself.

LX yea the legal system here is such a joke sometimes it would work alot better if there were more normal everyday working people that dealt with SOME of these issues i am not saying all lawyers are bad or good but in the end it should come down to the judge to throw out something menial and should of told the plantif well you should of thought about it before you did it.
side note: i have noticed ALL fast food resturants/starbucks etc serve thier coffee hotter than the avg drip coffee maker...when i am on the road i preffer that hotter cup of coffee because it stays warmer longer and i dont have to rush to drink it.
why does a coffee cup need a warning label you dont see a warning on every electrical outlet saying danger there may be 110/220 volts in here

Imho one thing that makes the law system bit different there in U.S is that there it is possible to ask and get money - a lot of money - for emotional distress in no-crime cases like this. So why wouldn't people (and their lawyers) take advantage of it?
Is it lawyers, victim or judge that decides what is the real value of emotional distress (= someone feels bad or hurts his mind) and how does money compensate it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sailor

Imho one thing that makes the law system bit different there in U.S is that there it is possible to ask and get money - a lot of money - for emotional distress in no-crime cases like this. So why wouldn't people (and their lawyers) take advantage of it?
Is it lawyers, victim or judge that decides what is the real value of emotional distress (= someone feels bad or hurts his mind) and how does money compensate it?

---

yea if you find yourself in one of these kangaroo court cases you can ask for alot of money and get it...thats all fine and dandy but guess what those top execs dont like paying out of thier pocket so they raise prices and let the consumer pay for another consumers bone head mistake....NO THANKS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

thats a good point, since the coffee was poured on her . . . but, I'll leave you back on topic, -- research in understanding what actually happened makes both arguments easier to discuss.

---

Provide us a link then because the case I am referring to is the case linked to earlier in this thread and in that case she spilled the coffee in her lap. it was not poured in her lap by another party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Provide us a link then because the case I am referring to is the case linked to earlier in this thread and in that case she spilled the coffee in her lap. it was not poured in her lap by another party.

---

Yes, you're correct. I think that is the link I remember. I missed that link clearly proving McDs at fault posted here. So, assuming others have read the link, then I don't see eye to eye on this case. I see no similarity to this case, obviously demonstrating fault, with the baseball case. Since you see these cases as similar I'll step out of the discussion. To me they are like night and day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

Yes, you're correct. I think that is the link I remember. I missed that link clearly proving McDs at fault posted here. So, assuming others have read the link, then I don't see eye to eye on this case. I see no similarity to this case, obviously demonstrating fault, with the baseball case. Since you see these cases as similar I'll step out of the discussion. To me they are like night and day.

---

We may disagree on this one point but as to my assertion that as a society the U S is far too litigious over far to many petty instances, do you agree with that?

Yes, absolutely! I did a quick search and found several statistics on this issue. I was curious since "we" seem to think that there are four grevious litigations; what would that percentage be? 0001%? But I hit a lot of sights discussing this problem. It would seem that the simple solution is to force those that sue people to pay for all the legal fees. I guess they have a system like that in Europe.

I still don't understand how these silly baseball teams determine that their damages are $75k. Why not 85K? Why not 45K? To me that leads to an immediate conclusion that the lawsuit is frivilous.

But, I don't think it has anything to do with "common sense" as can be clearly seen in the lack of it in this thread. Or, from my perspective most people's sense is only "common". They couldn't solve a soduku puzzle even if all but one number was filled in. I think the only way to instill "common" sense is to apply damages if you lose.

But, my sense, at this point, is that common sense, when applied to litigation, would simply be another bad decision. We have guys that still think McDs had no liability in that case. A strong indicator to me that "common" sense is not going to be a valid determiner. Perhaps, we need to move up to "critical" thinking instead.

Toyota, for example, what does common sense tell us their damages for their gas pedal problem should be? They paid, in damages, 21 hours of profit to the U.S. right? Should the victims get a dime of that? A speeding Toyota barrels down the road and the average U.S. "common" person can't figure out that they should turn the engine off? So they have to pay the government money? How about the guy that spent 3 years in jail, just before the news broke, for killing three people with a Toyota, and claimed the gas pedal got stuck? No one bought his story and he is still in jail. He hasn't gotten a dime.

So, back to our original case. Should we assume that these three "Bi" individuals should be able to make a "common" decision and not sue? Or did they make a "common" decision, based on the intellect of the average american? Shouldn't we just use "common" sense and realize that someone that is "Bi" is having trouble making decisions in the first place?

Edit - - I found a good article that walks through many of the McD's coffee litigations for the last several years and how many jurors found that their initial thoughts (common, perhaps?) didn't apply. It also discusses the case I thought you were referring to when a McD's employee accidentally spilled coffee on a patron causing sever burns. It is also interesting (scary) to see that the award was debated from 1 to 9 million during the jury's debate.

http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

You've convinced me, singlehandedly in this thread, that common sense is a very bad decision tool.

In all those words you used AFDavis, I am not certain that you answered my question, which is, are we in the US too litigious?

Yes, absolutely! And the case you posted is a great example!!