Quote:No you missed my point, the suit is an example of the problem with discrimination laws. He is being excluded based on his disability so it is technically discrimination, however it's obvious to everyone that mcdonalds cant be expected to cover the cost of not discriminating against non driving blind customers.

Ultimately its up to the owners of individual mcdonalds who and how and when they will serve their products as it should be.

No I got it, but I think the way you're describing it as a form of discrimination is, to some extent, legitimizing the man's arguement and you'd have to have a very loose and liberal definition of what discrimination is to consider a drive thru being open to only patrons in cars as discriminatory. And again, he's not being discriminated against because he's blind like you are saying. A blind person could be a passenger in a vehicle and get served. If he's being discriminated against, it's him and every other person who walks up to McDonalds at 2 am blind or not. "Random guy on the sidewalk at 2 am" isn't and will never be a protected class. If he's trying to attach his disability to the case, he should then direct it at the government for not issuing him a driver's license instead of McDonalds for not allowing him to walk blindly through a drive thru.


He just needs to find a friend with a car who is up late enough to take him when he's having his Big Mac attack at 2 am. How does he even know he's at a McDonalds or where the door is unless he lives right behind it or someone who isn't blind took him there? This sounds more like a lawyer concocted case that was just waiting for the right plaintiff to come along rather than a legitimate gripe.

---