Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

I was Refused Service at McDonalds

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

I was Refused Service at McDonalds

Old 05-19-16, 07:23 AM
  #126  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bakes1
It is painfully obvious that bicycles do not belong in drive thrus.
Based on what actual facts?
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 07:26 AM
  #127  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gweedo1
I don't know that it's fair to say that policy does absolutely nothing to help keep workers safe. My guess is it was a response to incidents that happened, and like so many if not all safety polices, it's as much about harm reduction as harm elimination.

I can see where a drive through worker could be kept safer, say for example at all night drive through, when a crack head or some other wasted low life walks up to a window at 3 in the morning demanding service and who's intentions may not have been robbery or assault, but then at some point into the transaction, things change for the worse, due to the effects of the drugs/alcohol, what have you. "What do you mean i can't get fries with that!!!...F you!!!" etc and so on, all the BS of stoned/wasted people who can turn into animals at the drop of a hat plus the lack of respect so many, too many, people have for front line workers at fast food joints, thinking they can be treated with disrespect.

So what if a few disgruntled customers don't get served and then vent their indignation on the internet because that policy is extended to all who walk up to a drive through window, including, heaven forbid, cyclists...as though we are somehow superior?

Better to have a safety policy in place to help keep workers safer than make an extra 10.00 a week. And customers shouldn't be dicks about it IMO because we all live in a world where we don't always get what we want. So really, what's the big deal?
The policy doesn't prevent any of this happening. It only prevents actual customers transacting with the business.

Criminals don't obey rules. See Chapter 1, "Crime for Dummies".
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 07:33 AM
  #128  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Palmyra, Virginia
Posts: 76

Bikes: Specialized Sirrus Comp 2006, Diamondback Ascent Ex 1989

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by oldnslow2
The manager should of offered to bring one to you at the front door.
Good business man and nice person would have done just that.
elizwlsn is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 08:27 AM
  #129  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 1,245

Bikes: 1975 Motobecane Le Champion lilac, 2015 Specialized Secteur Elite

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
Based on what actual facts?
Other than the signs at every drive through that state motor vehicles(generally meaning cars)only?
How about the fact that almost all drive thru lanes are very tight and bumper to bumper when busy.
Do you have any idea how many insurance claims involve rear end accidents in drive thrus?
Is that where you want to be on a bike?
Do you choose to take the lane on a road or highway in bumper to bumper traffic when it can be avoided?
I wonder...
Thanks for proving the second point in my post that you quoted cowboy

Last edited by bakes1; 05-19-16 at 08:33 AM.
bakes1 is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 08:34 AM
  #130  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by PepeM
They did you a favor. Go to a better place.
This.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 09:04 AM
  #131  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
The policy doesn't prevent any of this happening. It only prevents actual customers transacting with the business.

Criminals don't obey rules. See Chapter 1, "Crime for Dummies".
No, that statement is wrong. The policy does not stop people in cars from conducting business, and does work as a deterrent to help keep workers safe, simply by not serving anybody who is more likely to reach in an grab a worker, or climb through the window, as opposed to being behind a door of a car. You can argue all you want with that reality, if you like, but it's true: the policy does not do nothing to keep workers safer.

And, criminals are not the only ones who don't follow both written and unwritten rules/laws. They got caught at some point, and that's what makes them different from most others. Most rule/law breakers don't or haven't yet been caught and convicted and can't be called criminals in an official way, but criminality is a potential in all of us. I slipped through a red light on my bicycle the other day. Broke the rules...oh my!
Gweedo1 is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 09:13 AM
  #132  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hypno Toad
I can see this point at the McDonalds drive thru, but what about banks? Many have the same policy and there is no threat of robbery at the drive up windows. Also, there are a number of fast food places that are the opposite, they encourage walk up orders (Dairy Queen, Sonic, ...). I don't do any fast food*, so it's all speculation for me.

* Truth be told, I do get one egg mcmuffin every year. The crew I ride the "Royal" Benjamin with, they like to stop at McDonalds right before the start of the Westside Dirty Benjamin. We leave our bikes outside a suburban McDonalds while we get our fast food to fuel 100 miles of gravel grinding.
Yes, well, it's up to individual businesses to make their own risk assessments, and what one decides is best for them is not universal, regardless of similarities in their service models. My guess is it's difficult to equate the risks of a bank "walk-up" window, (I've never seen one in my life) as opposed to a drive through re possibility for violence against workers unless one knew more about each business. And I don't care, personally what any drive through's policies are. There is no bill of rights for drive through window customers. If one says "no" to walk-up customers at a drive though window, so be it: it's their policy, and up to me to accept it, no matter what any other business' policy is. I can take my business elsewhere if I like.
Gweedo1 is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 09:18 AM
  #133  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bakes1
Other than the signs at every drive through that state motor vehicles(generally meaning cars)only?
How about the fact that almost all drive thru lanes are very tight and bumper to bumper when busy.
Do you have any idea how many insurance claims involve rear end accidents in drive thrus?
Is that where you want to be on a bike?
Do you choose to take the lane on a road or highway in bumper to bumper traffic when it can be avoided?
I wonder...
Thanks for proving the second point in my post that you quoted cowboy
So, no actual facts. Got it.
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 09:28 AM
  #134  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gweedo1
No, that statement is wrong. The policy does not stop people in cars from conducting business, and does work as a deterrent to help keep workers safe, simply by not serving anybody who is more likely to reach in an grab a worker, or climb through the window, as opposed to being behind a door of a car. You can argue all you want with that reality, if you like, but it's true: the policy does not do nothing to keep workers safer.
Google it. Please. It's so easy to learn the truth.

Originally Posted by Gweedo1
And, criminals are not the only ones who don't follow both written and unwritten rules/laws. They got caught at some point, and that's what makes them different from most others. Most rule/law breakers don't or haven't yet been caught and convicted and can't be called criminals in an official way, but criminality is a potential in all of us. I slipped through a red light on my bicycle the other day. Broke the rules...oh my!
I'm not even sure what this has to do with the discussion, so I'll just assume that your coffee hasn't yet kicked in.
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 09:44 AM
  #135  
Senior Member
 
trailangel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,848

Bikes: Schwinn Varsity

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1931 Post(s)
Liked 742 Times in 422 Posts
135 responses?
People are too sensitive about not being able to drive up, get their cardboard burger and eat it will riding away, one handed on a bike.
Hey, isn't that like text messaging? ...What if you hit a car while eating a burger on a bike?
Should be a law against that!
trailangel is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 10:27 AM
  #136  
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,207

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3640 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
If you operate on the facts, instead of the emotions, you are completely correct.
The very simplest of which is that if someone is injured on your property, you can and very often are held liable, and even without getting into more security concerns, that alone is enough to put forth a rather reasonable restriction.
jefnvk is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 11:31 AM
  #137  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jefnvk
The very simplest of which is that if someone is injured on your property, you can and very often are held liable, and even without getting into more security concerns, that alone is enough to put forth a rather reasonable restriction.
The facts do not support this position.

Regardless, why lie? And, for those of you who are defending McDonald's (!), why condone lying?
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 01:16 PM
  #138  
Senior Member
 
BlazingPedals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle of da Mitten
Posts: 12,483

Bikes: Trek 7500, RANS V-Rex, Optima Baron, Velokraft NoCom, M-5 Carbon Highracer, Catrike Speed

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1513 Post(s)
Liked 734 Times in 455 Posts
Their property, their right to set their policy. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere, don't preach to us here about what they SHOULD do or why their policy should be different.
BlazingPedals is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 01:23 PM
  #139  
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,207

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3640 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
The facts do not support this position.

Regardless, why lie? And, for those of you who are defending McDonald's (!), why condone lying?
Other than that link I gave you yesterday that supports me, and an entire insurance industry built around offering protection in the case someone injures themselves on your property that exists for a reason.

Why lie, indeed?
jefnvk is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 01:39 PM
  #140  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlazingPedals
Their property, their right to set their policy. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere, don't preach to us here about what they SHOULD do or why their policy should be different.
That's entirely wrong. Google "public accommodation".

Nobody's preaching. Just asking the question: why lie? The facts don't bear out the devastating risks that are being proffered as the reason for the policy, which might be perfectly reasonable, if there were even a few examples to support the position.

Regardless, though, why lie?
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 01:46 PM
  #141  
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,207

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3640 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
That's entirely wrong. Google "public accommodation".

Nobody's preaching. Just asking the question: why lie? The facts don't bear out the devastating risks that are being proffered as the reason for the policy, which might be perfectly reasonable, if there were even a few examples to support the position.

Regardless, though, why lie?
Did you google it?

" (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. "

Last I checked, cyclists were not a protected group with the full right to use the drive thru on their bicycle.

Why do you refuse to consider that maybe there aren't the devastating results because the policy is in place?
jefnvk is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 01:58 PM
  #142  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jefnvk
Other than that link I gave you yesterday that supports me, and an entire insurance industry built around offering protection in the case someone injures themselves on your property that exists for a reason.
The link about the lawsuit against McDonald's that had nothing to do with lawful activity in the drive-thru lane? That doesn't support the position that bicycles in the drive-thru lane are in any more danger than any other location where you might ride a bike. It does support the position that property owners can be named in a lawsuit, and that juries can find for the plaintiff. That's happened, before, and it wasn't relevant, then, either. Have you read anything about the appeal? Probably shouldn't.

If the purpose of the policy is to alleviate risk, then banning bicycles in the drive-thru lane does not achieve that purpose. There are many other, far more dangerous, activities that are not prohibited in McDonald's stores. Obviating risk doesn't seem to be a priority. Please, though, find an example that supports your position that bicycles in the drive-thru lane present any danger that doesn't exist, elsewhere. I can't. I did find examples of people actually dying while in their cars in the drive-thru lane, and they haven't banned cars, yet. Can you see how the logic doesn't work? Dead people in cars, live people on bikes: ban bikes.

Did you see post #47 ? It's not the insurance industry that made this rule.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
Why lie, indeed?
Yeah, I can't think of a reason, either.
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 02:04 PM
  #143  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jefnvk
Did you google it?
Yes.


Originally Posted by jefnvk
Last I checked, cyclists were not a protected group with the full right to use the drive thru on their bicycle.
I didn't say they are. I said that the statement, "Their property, their right to set their policy." is wrong.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
Why do you refuse to consider that maybe there aren't the devastating results because the policy is in place?
What makes you think I haven't considered the possibility?
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 02:09 PM
  #144  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
Yeah, I can't think of a reason, either.
It's a convenient cop-out excuse foisted on worker-bees by a franchise owner who might be mistaken in their beliefs or intentionally spreading a lie for completely unrelated reasons.

Arguing with either the person at the window or even the manager on site is probably a waste of breath and a doosh move -- they are not the decision makers, they are probably only relaying what they have been told, and are completely unable to form or communicate a counter argument other than asserting that it is policy. They are merely telling you what they have been told to say, regarding the matter.

Could be that it's less about the safety of cyclists than it is about some rowdy crews of BMX miscreants who made life miserable for some outlet or other. And rather than something billed as a family restaurant coming out and saying, no bikes in the takeout lane because your kids suck, they turn it around and make it about cyclists safety. Could be any number of other reasons than safety, but that's their marketing line for their rule.

It doesn't matter why, there's no forum where anyone will care (other than here) about the issue, so you get a rote line and are moved along.

Arguing with the window attendant or the manager at hand will not give you the satisfaction you are looking for, and only make their day a bit more miserable than working for peanuts at McDs already is.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 02:11 PM
  #145  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mconlonx
It's a convenient cop-out excuse foisted on worker-bees by a franchise owner who might be mistaken in their beliefs or intentionally spreading a lie for completely unrelated reasons.

Arguing with either the person at the window or even the manager on site is probably a waste of breath and a doosh move -- they are not the decision makers, they are probably only relaying what they have been told, and are completely unable to form or communicate a counter argument other than asserting that it is policy. They are merely telling you what they have been told to say, regarding the matter.

Could be that it's less about the safety of cyclists than it is about some rowdy crews of BMX miscreants who made life miserable for some outlet or other. And rather than something billed as a family restaurant coming out and saying, no bikes in the takeout lane because your kids suck, they turn it around and make it about cyclists safety. Could be any number of other reasons than safety, but that's their marketing line for their rule.

It doesn't matter why, there's no forum where anyone will care (other than here) about the issue, so you get a rote line and are moved along.

Arguing with the window attendant or the manager at hand will not give you the satisfaction you are looking for, and only make their day a bit more miserable than working for peanuts at McDs already is.
That's what I figure, as well.
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 02:14 PM
  #146  
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,207

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3640 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
The link about the lawsuit against McDonald's that had nothing to do with lawful activity in the drive-thru lane? That doesn't support the position that bicycles in the drive-thru lane are in any more danger than any other location where you might ride a bike. It does support the position that property owners can be named in a lawsuit, and that juries can find for the plaintiff. That's happened, before, and it wasn't relevant, then, either. Have you read anything about the appeal? Probably shouldn't.
The link that something McDonalds had nothing to do with resulted in them still being ruled against, because it happened on their property when they had reasonable suspicion that an action they were taking (or in this case, not taking) resulted in a dangerous situation? I read that it went through at least one round of appeals, and was upheld. If you care to provide a link that it was thrown out at a later point, I'm all ears. Even if it were (which, I have not found any proof that it was), it was still years and likely hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation. In any case, I'm glad to see you have changed your belief that one cannot be held liable for something that happens on their property.

Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
I didn't say they are. I said that the statement, "Their property, their right to set their policy." is wrong.
And completely irrelevant to the argument, because when it is not a protected class or illegal reason, "Their property, their rights" is correct.

Last edited by jefnvk; 05-19-16 at 02:31 PM.
jefnvk is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 02:22 PM
  #147  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 569
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 242 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by jefnvk
Did you google it?

" (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. "

Last I checked, cyclists were not a protected group with the full right to use the drive thru on their bicycle.

Why do you refuse to consider that maybe there aren't the devastating results because the policy is in place?
Everyone's a big, entitled crybaby these days.
American Euchre is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 02:29 PM
  #148  
Senior Member
 
ypsetihw's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1,109

Bikes: s-1

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 221 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by canklecat
Choose another restaurant. McDonald's sucks anyway, and in every way. Worst major chain fast food joint and they don't deserve anyone's business because they don't even try to give half a damn.
I heard an interesting theory once that McDonald's doesn't care about their food or the customers because they are a real estate business. Almost the entire value of the company is based off the land value of their restaurant holdings. Think about it, when was the last time you saw a McD's that wasn't in a prime location? It made sense to me anyway . . .
ypsetihw is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 02:33 PM
  #149  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18358 Post(s)
Liked 4,503 Times in 3,347 Posts
Originally Posted by BlazingPedals
Their property, their right to set their policy. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere, don't preach to us here about what they SHOULD do or why their policy should be different.
I could care less if I have to walk inside, although if the ride-through is for convenience, then I don't see why a bike couldn't use it for convenience too. One issue might be interrupting lines. Easier to queue people standing in lines than in a line of cars, but often the issue occurs when there are no cars in line.

My issue as a pedestrian occurred when the lobby was closed, so there was no choice. Either use the drive-through, or don't get served.

Yeah, not an official protected class... but it is still an odd policy refusing service to any group of customers.

My thoughts are that daytime and nighttime policies should be different.

One issue might be access for thieves, but it is much easier to escape in a car (stolen?) than on foot.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 05-19-16, 02:42 PM
  #150  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jefnvk
The link that something McDonalds had nothing to do with resulted in them still being ruled against, because it happened on their property when they had reasonable suspicion that an action they were taking (or in this case, not taking) resulted in a dangerous situation? I read that it went through at least one round of appeals, and was upheld. If you care to provide a link that it was thrown out at a later point, I'm all ears. Even if it were (which, I have not found any proof that it was), it was still years and likely hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation.
You keep trying to equate a case of documented negligence culminating in criminal activity to a fabricated policy. I'm not willing to make that leap.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
In any case, I'm glad to see you have changed your belief that one cannot be held liable for something that happens on their property.
It's not a belief, and I haven't changed it. In fact, I never said it. Are you a McDonald's manager? 'Cause you fabricate like one.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
And completely irrelevant to the argument, because when it is not a protected class or illegal reason, "Their property, their rights" is correct.
I don't assume qualifiers. I only respond to what was actually said; not what was imagined. It's a little trick I do.
kevindsingleton is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.