Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually with today's climate of political correctness, I would predict a greater chance of winning with being gay than with the confederate battle flag. Over the past couple of weeks the CBF has become everyone whipping boy,while the White House gets lite up in gay rainbow lighting.Politically correct is based on feelings only.Except that the confederate flag is politically incorrect, unlike gay marriage.What were the damages to the gays that didnt get their cake. since they were just asking at that point, they did not lose time, they had not given money, which would have been considered a contract, and there were no quantifiable damages from it.There is no doubt that Walmart defaulted on the contract, but what are her damages? In order for there to be a suit, there has to be quantifiable damages. If she has already accepted Walmart's refund, the case is over.
Yet they won.
She can win, she has a stronger case than the gays did.
The flag is now (not then) politically incorrect because SOME are offended by it.
Gay marriage could be considered politically incorrect because SOME are offended by it.
The Flag has been flying legally and being displayed legally for over 100 years, it has place in the history of the country.
Gay marriage has not be accepted for over 100 years with its place being built in the history of the country.
You are correct, there is a greater chance of winning with a flag than with being gay.
Also, it could be argued that since the lady had already paid for the ring that it was her ring, not Walmarts'. Walmart sent the ring back to the manafacturer to be melted down after all this transpired.Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.
Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.
So you are okay with Walmart lying to the woman. They agreed to provide the ring. Also she lost the time that she could have been shopping for a ring while the order had been placed with Walmart. The transaction was a done deal. This sale should have been grandfathered in because the order was obviously made before the recent confederate flag controversy that Walmart has recently reacted too. The order was placed before Walmart changed its policy.Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.
So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.
The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.
she's due a refund. nothing more.So you are okay with Walmart lying to the woman. They agreed to provide the ring. Also she lost the time that she could have been shopping for a ring while the order had been placed with Walmart. The transaction was a done deal. This sale should have been grandfathered in because the order was obviously made before the recent confederate flag controversy that Walmart has recently reacted too. The order was placed before Walmart changed its policy.Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.
So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.
The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.
Suppose you had ordered and paid for some special item through Walmart. You wait two weeks in anticipation for it to arrive. You get the call from Walmart to come pick it up because it's ready,. But when you get there you are told you can not have you item. Now the item is ready, just a few feet across the counter, but you are offered a refund. Are you not damaged? Didn't you just go through a wild goose chase for two weeks for nothing. Don't you feel like you were lied to and mistreated, perhaps even humiliated.
you leave it to the store?, then you agree with the Americans.Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.
So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.
The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.
So you are okay with Walmart lying to the woman. They agreed to provide the ring. Also she lost the time that she could have been shopping for a ring while the order had been placed with Walmart. The transaction was a done deal. This sale should have been grandfathered in because the order was obviously made before the recent confederate flag controversy that Walmart has recently reacted too. The order was placed before Walmart changed its policy.Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.
So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.
The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.
Suppose you had ordered and paid for some special item through Walmart. You wait two weeks in anticipation for it to arrive. You get the call from Walmart to come pick it up because it's ready,. But when you get there you are told you can not have you item. Now the item is ready, just a few feet across the counter, but you are offered a refund. Are you not damaged? Didn't you just go through a wild goose chase for two weeks for nothing. Don't you feel like you were lied to and mistreated, perhaps even humiliated.
you leave it to the store?, then you agree with the Americans.Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.
So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.
The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.
as in, leave it up to the bakery to decide what and to whom they sell.
I agree with you 100%
The lesbians were not discriminated against because they were lesbians, Im sure that the bakery would have made a cake for them for a birthday party or something, It was a gay wedding that was the question. Gay weddings were not protected.Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.
So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.
The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.
And Wal Mart will drag it out until there is no value in the restitution...I'm going to make a simple observation here...
When you offer to sell an item to the public, you are entering yourself into a retail contract. You agree to sell, the consumer agrees to buy, with the full expectation of receiving the product you agreed to sell them.
If I understand my contract law correctly, this woman could sue under a clause known as "specific performance." If all she wants is the ring, in lieu of monetary damages, this is what she would need to do. Money will not be an adequate remedy for the item desired. This method, if successful on behalf of the plaintiff, would force Wal-Mart to fulfill the contract as agreed to.
She would have a solid case, in my honest opinion.
The lesbians were not discriminated against because they were lesbians, Im sure that the bakery would have made a cake for them for a birthday party or something, It was a gay wedding that was the question. Gay weddings were not protected.Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.
So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.
The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.
so just like the Confederate Flag, it was an idea that was denied, not the person.
The difference is that with the ring, the woman was now 2 weeks out from having the ring made. She did suffer more financial damage than the lesbians that could have turned around, gone to the non christan bakery down the road and had their cake made. the might have last a half hour or so of time.
I think the wal mart case is stronger.
The lesbians were not discriminated against because they were lesbians, Im sure that the bakery would have made a cake for them for a birthday party or something, It was a gay wedding that was the question. Gay weddings were not protected.Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.
So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.
The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.
so just like the Confederate Flag, it was an idea that was denied, not the person.
The difference is that with the ring, the woman was now 2 weeks out from having the ring made. She did suffer more financial damage than the lesbians that could have turned around, gone to the non christan bakery down the road and had their cake made. the might have last a half hour or so of time.
I think the wal mart case is stronger.
What financial damage did the woman occur?
You can't, in my opinion, argue one against the other.
Walmart is entirely in the wrong. The woman had a contract with Walmart to sell her a legal product. Then they changed their policy. The contract was written under the old policy and the store had a contractual obligation to fulfill all orders under the store policy in effect when the contract was entered into. In placing the order, the woman justifiably relied on the representations of the store to enter into the contract.
It's very simple. The store has no defense.
The lesbians were not discriminated against because they were lesbians, Im sure that the bakery would have made a cake for them for a birthday party or something, It was a gay wedding that was the question. Gay weddings were not protected.Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.
So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.
The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.
so just like the Confederate Flag, it was an idea that was denied, not the person.
The difference is that with the ring, the woman was now 2 weeks out from having the ring made. She did suffer more financial damage than the lesbians that could have turned around, gone to the non christan bakery down the road and had their cake made. the might have last a half hour or so of time.
I think the wal mart case is stronger.
What financial damage did the woman occur?
You can't, in my opinion, argue one against the other.
If she could not find a place to get the ring at the exact same price elsewhere, she has financial damages. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might be treble damages. She has equitable damages in that she did not get her ring on the date when promised.
The lesbians were not discriminated against because they were lesbians, Im sure that the bakery would have made a cake for them for a birthday party or something, It was a gay wedding that was the question. Gay weddings were not protected.Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.
So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.
The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.
so just like the Confederate Flag, it was an idea that was denied, not the person.
The difference is that with the ring, the woman was now 2 weeks out from having the ring made. She did suffer more financial damage than the lesbians that could have turned around, gone to the non christan bakery down the road and had their cake made. the might have last a half hour or so of time.
I think the wal mart case is stronger.
What financial damage did the woman occur?
You can't, in my opinion, argue one against the other.
If she could not find a place to get the ring at the exact same price elsewhere, she has financial damages. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might be treble damages. She has equitable damages in that she did not get her ring on the date when promised.
She can still get a ring at Walmart for the same price.
they absolutely were. products and services available to others were not available to them based on their sexual orientationThe lesbians were not discriminated against because they were lesbiansBreach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.
So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.
The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.
and the lesbians could have still bought a cake. Whats your point?The lesbians were not discriminated against because they were lesbians, Im sure that the bakery would have made a cake for them for a birthday party or something, It was a gay wedding that was the question. Gay weddings were not protected.Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.
So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.
The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.
so just like the Confederate Flag, it was an idea that was denied, not the person.
The difference is that with the ring, the woman was now 2 weeks out from having the ring made. She did suffer more financial damage than the lesbians that could have turned around, gone to the non christan bakery down the road and had their cake made. the might have last a half hour or so of time.
I think the wal mart case is stronger.
What financial damage did the woman occur?
You can't, in my opinion, argue one against the other.
If she could not find a place to get the ring at the exact same price elsewhere, she has financial damages. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might be treble damages. She has equitable damages in that she did not get her ring on the date when promised.
She can still get a ring at Walmart for the same price.
you're absolutely right. they owe her a refund. she might be able to sue for additional money to have the ring rushed elsewhere. that'd be all though.Walmart is entirely in the wrong. The woman had a contract with Walmart to sell her a legal product. Then they changed their policy. The contract was written under the old policy and the store had a contractual obligation to fulfill all orders under the store policy in effect when the contract was entered into. In placing the order, the woman justifiably relied on the representations of the store to enter into the contract.
It's very simple. The store has no defense.
