Diabetic's discrimination lawsuit against restaurant is hard to swallow

The Los Angeles Times (via Drudge) ^ | February 17, 2011 | David Lazarus

[Ronin]

David Martin was in the mood for raw fish, and he liked the deal offered by a Studio City sushi restaurant: all you can eat for $28.

He took a seat at the counter and started ordering. But it turned out that Martin didn't really want sushi, which includes rice; he wanted all-you-can-eat sashimi, which is just fish. He began picking the seafood off the top and leaving the rice.

Restaurant owner Jay Oh told Martin that if he wanted the all-you-can-eat price, he'd have to eat the rice too and not just fill up on fish. Martin replied that he has diabetes and that he can't eat rice.

[verga]

What, exactly, do you think would be fair, in light of the fact that sushi is just rice? Should they change the definition just for you?

I am not asking to have anything change I just don't like the blanket attacks on this guy by so many of the previous posters. None of them were there yet quite a few of our so called "conservative FRiends" lambasted this guy and raked him over the coals with out having all the information.

[Pearls Before Swine]

As a Diabetic i have to watch what I eat, when i go to a buffet I pick and choose carefully, because i know for a fact that rice will send my glucose numbers right through the roof.

No one stops you from eating sashimi, but as I'm sure you must realize, the fish costs a lot more than the rice. Therefore, an all you can eat sashimi deal is unprofitable to the restaurant. They make their profit on the average amount of fish/rice mix consumed in an all you can eat deal.

Are you saying that because of your diabetic handicap, that restaurant has to serve you a much more expensive all you can eat meal?

[verga]

See my post #41. My complaint was all the vitiriol against this man with out anyone here knowing all the facts.

[Ronin]

I am starting to get a handle on where you are coming from, and since you are diabetic as well, I can imagine why you would be inclined to sympathize with this guy. I do think, however, your sympathy is misplaced in this case.

The story indicates clearly that the restaurant owner attempted to accommodate Larkin by offering to prepare two orders of sashimi, which would cost $25 and would normally be more than enough for anyone who was not determined to pig out, but was refused. That indicates to me that Larkin had indeed planned on pigging out on the expensive fish, ignoring the rice -- smug in his mind that, if called on it, he could whip out the "diabetic card" and get away with it.

Furthermore, despite its low price in relation to the sliced fish, you are ignoring the fact that this person was cheerfully wasting significant amounts of rice -- a taboo in virtually every Asian culture, where the grain is quite literally the staff of life. Now, I don't want to harp on that point too much because most Americans probably wouldn't understand the significance, but I am quite sure it was a major part of why Mr. Oh was so upset. In Southeast Asia, wasting rice simply is not done. It's the worst sort of bad manners.

Then, there is the snarky lawsuit itself. He initially demands a $4,000 payoff and then ups the ante to over $6,000 later. No way, no how, not even a little bit.

Finally, I resent you cloaking yourself in the Conservative mantle in this discussion and strongly resent you accusing those who find Larkin's behavior to be deplorable of being liberals. The Conservative ethos, as I understand it and have always tried to practice it, has always been founded on the "square deal", or as the Aussies would call it, the "fair go". The deal at any buffet restaurant is "take all you want, but eat all you take".

If you think that being a diabetic gives you the right to disregard that kind of common courtesy rule, you are not a Conservative in my book.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Seems like the solution is pretty easy...don’t offer anything “all you can eat.”

Reminds me of an old joke that ought to good for at least a groan. A guy goes into a restaurant that says all the catfish you can eat - $5.00. He orders that and is brought a serving of catfish. He eats it and orders more. The owner brings it to him and says, "That will be another $5.00" The customer stutters, "Wait a minute! Your sign says All You Can Eat - $5.00!" The owner replies, "That IS all you can eat for $5.00. Want more, another $5.00." Bada boom, bada bing.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I am on the side of the diabetic since I react the same way to rice. You have to be strong and not eat it.

Then just order the sashimi. It has no rice. It is more expensive because fish is more expensive than rice but it is a choice. I am not diabetic but I don't order sushi because I only want the fish or if it a roll of some kind that I like I will tolerate the small amount of rice, something I suppose you can't do.

I know being a diabetic must be irritating just as it is for those who are allergic to certain foods and things in food, like MSG and red dye, but life is as it is.

[Darnright]

>No one stops you from eating sashimi, but as I’m sure you must realize, the fish costs a lot more than the rice. Therefore, an all you can eat sashimi deal is unprofitable to the restaurant. They make their profit on the average amount of fish/rice mix consumed in an all you can eat deal.<

I order sashimi because I don’t want the effects of eating rice. Sashimi is not served plain. The fish is served on strips of either fresh cucumber or on strips of avocado, at least around my area. Fresh vegetables are not cheap, but they are more healthy than rice for those who don’t eat rice because of health reasons.

[Darnright]

>but they are more healthy than rice for those who don’t eat rice because of health reasons.<

Ok, remind me to preview my posts better next time!

[Pearls Before Swine]

I order sashimi because I don’t want the effects of eating rice.

I like sashimi, too. But, I wouldn't be surprised if an "all you can eat sushi" deal would come with some "clean the plate we serve" restrictions. You don't have to take the deal--you can order the a la carte sashimi at the stated price. It's not humiliating to a disabled (diabetic) person--it's just a different menu choice.

This guy wanted a special deal--he just wanted to pick the good stuff off of the plate at the cheap price. Everyone wants that deal; I don't think his condition entitles him to that special deal.

[metesky]

The old Lobster Bowl on RT. 6 in Wareham had an all you can eat lobster night back in the 70s... Until that night when Andre The Giant dropped by and purportedly downed 63 bugs!

[verga]

Finally, I resent you cloaking yourself in the Conservative mantle in this discussion and strongly resent you accusing those who find Larkin's behavior to be deplorable of being liberals. The Conservative ethos, as I understand it and have always tried to practice it, has always been founded on the "square deal", or as the Aussies would call it, the "fair go". The deal at any buffet restaurant is "take all you want, but eat all you take". If you think that being a diabetic gives you the right to disregard that kind of common courtesy rule, you are not a Conservative in my book.

You were just fine till you turned on the snarky faucet yourself right here.

[Ronin]

I got a bit wound up at the end of that post so I’ll apologize. Gomen nasai.

It’d been a long day.

[ez]

Groan. :)

[ez]

Groan. :)

[FourPeas]

Shakedown. No doubt.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Thanks for the groan. At least you noticed how bad it was.

:-)

[sarasmom]

I have never been accused of holding “liberal” views.

I often choose to pay for meals offered by public businesses.
When I can't afford to eat out, I cook my own meals at my own home.
If a restaurant does not offer the ambiance, or the type of food I want, I do not go there for a meal.
I am not a diabetic.
I am a person who can't eat certain vegetables anymore.
Cucumbers and broccoli now make me painfully ill, sfter consumption.
Cucumbers, in any form, cause me a level of indigestion I must seriously strive to avoid.
Most restaurants are more than willing to cater to my menu choices.
Are you seriously claiming they don't cater to yours?

[GATOR NAVY]

I hope the jury, representing the fourth branch of government, uses its common sense and resists any pathetic instructions it might receive from the vested legal ruling class about how to rule on this (eg, based on anything like the pathetic ADA); and that it throws this right out of court.

I hope so too, but seeing as how this is California, I'm not holding my breath.

[sarasmom]

And to specifically address the last part of your “argument”

“I never said or implied that I or an other diabetic is exempt, but we D@MN well should not be prohibited from enjoying a good meal from time to time where and when we choose to.”

You can D@MN well follow the rules at a public business, just like the vast majority of everyone else in our society, or you can admit that you are no different than a common thief, who from time to time, enjoys stealing from others when and where they choose to.
I submit that you are the liberal.
You only follow rules that you perceive of particular benefit to yourself, and all other rules are to be considered “unfair” because you are so special.

[verga]

Oh shut up!!!!