Walmart destroys private property

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

oh I disagree, now that the story is out and in the public, her image has been damaged.
She has a much stronger case.

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.

I think wal mart should be forced to pay her damage, then forced to sell the confederate flag and make sure to promote decendants of Southern Civil war soldiers to management postions.

lol. that's insane

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if Walmart did not break some type of contract law by reneging on the sales order that was paid for up front. Otherwise, contracts would be useless if parties are allowed to break them on a whim.

you don't think contracts are broken all the time? of course they are, for a myriad of reasons, and when it happens the injured party has to be made whole, which in most cases involves a refund.

Which is why there is no case for a lawsuit. There's no doubt a refund was tendered which can be used to buy the ring elsewhere. No damage no case.

 

[ogibillm]

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.
lol. that's insane

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

the bakery did not break the law.

your first sentence is not supported by fact. the bakery did break the law, they discriminated against customers due to their sexual orientation - such discrimination is forbidden by law. they were taken to court and lost their case. they broke the law. if you can't accept that, you aren't dealing with reality.

no, they did not. If they would have been willing to sell the two lesbians a birthday cake, or a fourth of july cake, or any other cake or pastry they made, then it is obvious that they were not discriminating against sexual orientation.
If the only thing they were unwilling to do was bake a cake for a wedding, then it is the gay wedding that they had issue with, which was not at the time considered a right.
Even still, if they are forced to make the cake, then their religious freedom is in question.

so you are unwilling to deal with reality. that's fine, but the law disagrees with you. sweet cakes bakery broke the law. that is a fact, not an opinion. courts have ruled, judgments issued.

 

[Preacher]

Feels great to have boycotted Wal Mart weeks ago and to not have set foot in one since then! I feel better for doing so! Its an awesome feeling truly it is. Yall should try it.

 

[JoeMoma]

oh I disagree, now that the story is out and in the public, her image has been damaged.
She has a much stronger case.

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.

I think wal mart should be forced to pay her damage, then forced to sell the confederate flag and make sure to promote decendants of Southern Civil war soldiers to management postions.

lol. that's insane

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if Walmart did not break some type of contract law by reneging on the sales order that was paid for up front. Otherwise, contracts would be useless if parties are allowed to break them on a whim.

you don't think contracts are broken all the time? of course they are, for a myriad of reasons, and when it happens the injured party has to be made whole, which in most cases involves a refund.

Do you not think that people get sued in contract disputes all the time?

That being said, if this case were taken to court, if would have more to do with principle than the expectation of being awarded big money for damages. But you never know what a good country lawyer will be able to pull off unless he tries.

 

[ogibillm]

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.
lol. that's insane

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if Walmart did not break some type of contract law by reneging on the sales order that was paid for up front. Otherwise, contracts would be useless if parties are allowed to break them on a whim.

you don't think contracts are broken all the time? of course they are, for a myriad of reasons, and when it happens the injured party has to be made whole, which in most cases involves a refund.

Do you not think that people get sued in contract disputes all the time?

That being said, if this case were taken to court, if would have more to do with principle than the expectation of being awarded big money for damages. But you never know what a good country lawyer will be able to pull off unless he tries.

of course people get sued. but you can't sue someone for damages that didn't occur. she's entitled to her money back, perhaps some additional funds to have a ring expedited somewhere depending on the terms of the sale, but that's all.

what principle do you think she'd be defending by taking walmart to court? what good would a 'good country lawyer' do if there were no damages?

 

[blackhawk]

She should go back into Walmart buy a gun and the ammo they do sell there go to her car load the gun go back in and tell them give me the dam ring.

 

[JoeMoma]

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if Walmart did not break some type of contract law by reneging on the sales order that was paid for up front. Otherwise, contracts would be useless if parties are allowed to break them on a whim.

you don't think contracts are broken all the time? of course they are, for a myriad of reasons, and when it happens the injured party has to be made whole, which in most cases involves a refund.

Do you not think that people get sued in contract disputes all the time?

That being said, if this case were taken to court, if would have more to do with principle than the expectation of being awarded big money for damages. But you never know what a good country lawyer will be able to pull off unless he tries.

of course people get sued. but you can't sue someone for damages that didn't occur. she's entitled to her money back, perhaps some additional funds to have a ring expedited somewhere depending on the terms of the sale, but that's all.

what principle do you think she'd be defending by taking walmart to court? what good would a 'good country lawyer' do if there were no damages?

Do you think those bakers that refused to bake the cake for the gay wedding did $130,000 in damages?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if Walmart did not break some type of contract law by reneging on the sales order that was paid for up front. Otherwise, contracts would be useless if parties are allowed to break them on a whim.

you don't think contracts are broken all the time? of course they are, for a myriad of reasons, and when it happens the injured party has to be made whole, which in most cases involves a refund.

Do you not think that people get sued in contract disputes all the time?

That being said, if this case were taken to court, if would have more to do with principle than the expectation of being awarded big money for damages. But you never know what a good country lawyer will be able to pull off unless he tries.

of course people get sued. but you can't sue someone for damages that didn't occur. she's entitled to her money back, perhaps some additional funds to have a ring expedited somewhere depending on the terms of the sale, but that's all.

what principle do you think she'd be defending by taking walmart to court? what good would a 'good country lawyer' do if there were no damages?

Do you think those bakers that refused to bake the cake for the gay wedding did $130,000 in damages?

Nope, that was over kill.

 

[ogibillm]

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if Walmart did not break some type of contract law by reneging on the sales order that was paid for up front. Otherwise, contracts would be useless if parties are allowed to break them on a whim.

you don't think contracts are broken all the time? of course they are, for a myriad of reasons, and when it happens the injured party has to be made whole, which in most cases involves a refund.

Do you not think that people get sued in contract disputes all the time?

That being said, if this case were taken to court, if would have more to do with principle than the expectation of being awarded big money for damages. But you never know what a good country lawyer will be able to pull off unless he tries.

of course people get sued. but you can't sue someone for damages that didn't occur. she's entitled to her money back, perhaps some additional funds to have a ring expedited somewhere depending on the terms of the sale, but that's all.

what principle do you think she'd be defending by taking walmart to court? what good would a 'good country lawyer' do if there were no damages?

Do you think those bakers that refused to bake the cake for the gay wedding did $130,000 in damages?

well they did break the law - and not being a lawyer myself i would guess that it's a lot easier to claim damages when someone has violated the law and discriminated against you

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if Walmart did not break some type of contract law by reneging on the sales order that was paid for up front. Otherwise, contracts would be useless if parties are allowed to break them on a whim.

you don't think contracts are broken all the time? of course they are, for a myriad of reasons, and when it happens the injured party has to be made whole, which in most cases involves a refund.

Do you not think that people get sued in contract disputes all the time?

That being said, if this case were taken to court, if would have more to do with principle than the expectation of being awarded big money for damages. But you never know what a good country lawyer will be able to pull off unless he tries.

of course people get sued. but you can't sue someone for damages that didn't occur. she's entitled to her money back, perhaps some additional funds to have a ring expedited somewhere depending on the terms of the sale, but that's all.

what principle do you think she'd be defending by taking walmart to court? what good would a 'good country lawyer' do if there were no damages?

Do you think those bakers that refused to bake the cake for the gay wedding did $130,000 in damages?

well they did break the law - and not being a lawyer myself i would guess that it's a lot easier to claim damages when someone has violated the law and discriminated against you

$130,000 worth of damages, I don't think so.

Walmart broke their promise -- reneged on their contract. That ought to be worth something.

 

[ogibillm]

you don't think contracts are broken all the time? of course they are, for a myriad of reasons, and when it happens the injured party has to be made whole, which in most cases involves a refund.

Do you not think that people get sued in contract disputes all the time?

That being said, if this case were taken to court, if would have more to do with principle than the expectation of being awarded big money for damages. But you never know what a good country lawyer will be able to pull off unless he tries.

of course people get sued. but you can't sue someone for damages that didn't occur. she's entitled to her money back, perhaps some additional funds to have a ring expedited somewhere depending on the terms of the sale, but that's all.

what principle do you think she'd be defending by taking walmart to court? what good would a 'good country lawyer' do if there were no damages?

Do you think those bakers that refused to bake the cake for the gay wedding did $130,000 in damages?

well they did break the law - and not being a lawyer myself i would guess that it's a lot easier to claim damages when someone has violated the law and discriminated against you

$130,000 worth of damages, I don't think so.

Walmart broke their promise -- reneged on their contract. That ought to be worth something.

yep. it's worth the cost of the ring.

 

[JoeMoma]

Do you not think that people get sued in contract disputes all the time?

That being said, if this case were taken to court, if would have more to do with principle than the expectation of being awarded big money for damages. But you never know what a good country lawyer will be able to pull off unless he tries.

of course people get sued. but you can't sue someone for damages that didn't occur. she's entitled to her money back, perhaps some additional funds to have a ring expedited somewhere depending on the terms of the sale, but that's all.

what principle do you think she'd be defending by taking walmart to court? what good would a 'good country lawyer' do if there were no damages?

Do you think those bakers that refused to bake the cake for the gay wedding did $130,000 in damages?

well they did break the law - and not being a lawyer myself i would guess that it's a lot easier to claim damages when someone has violated the law and discriminated against you

$130,000 worth of damages, I don't think so.

Walmart broke their promise -- reneged on their contract. That ought to be worth something.

yep. it's worth the cost of the ring.

And waiting for the week or two with the incorrect knowledge that the order for the ring had been taken care of. And the embarassment and the humiliation of being called to the store to pick up the ring just to be told that she can't have the ring. And being told that the ring that is completed and at the store will be sent back and melted down. There is also the possibility that an event had been scheduled to celibate the lady's nephews graduation, and now she will not have the gift for him because Walmart led her down a wild goose chase, making her think the ring order was a done deal. But it was not a done deal. Walmart snatched it away from her at the last moment, even though everything for the order was complete and all they had to do was hand the ring over. So the damage is not simply the cost of the ring. It's the crushed anticipation of not being able to get the made to order gift for a loved one.

 

[Dragonlady]

Crushed anticipation is hardly damages. And she could certainly obtain any one of hundreds of alternative gifts for nephew.

 

[reconmark]

They should have given the dumb ***** her ring, she paid for it...

 

[JoeMoma]

Crushed anticipation is hardly damages. And she could certainly obtain any one of hundreds of alternative gifts for nephew.

We will have to disagree on that. I say it is because of the lost time she could have used to find a suitable ring somewhere else had she not been misled to think that the purchase of the ring had been accomplished.

Damages aside, do you believe that Walmart handled this situation correctly?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/11/walmart-to-melt-class-rings-bearing-confederate-flag-rather-than-complete/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl8|sec1_lnk3&pLid=-1969750345\

Um. They can't do that.

An Arkansas woman who went to pick up the class ring she ordered from Walmart left disappointed, after store officials told her the retailer's new policy barred them from turning the item over -- because it bore an image of the Confederate flag.

Elaine Glidewell told KFSM someone from the store in Fort Smith called her to pick up the ring she'd ordered for her nephew, but when she arrived on Tuesday, a clerk told her she couldn’t have it. The ring had been ordered before Walmart stopped selling items bearing images of the flag, in the wake of controversy that stemmed from a racially-charged shooting in South Carolina.

“I wanted to cry,” Glidewell told KFSM, adding that the store clerk said the ring would be "melted."

Walmart refuses to sell confederate flags so that makes this OK.

 

[JoeMoma]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/11/walmart-to-melt-class-rings-bearing-confederate-flag-rather-than-complete/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl8|sec1_lnk3&pLid=-1969750345\

Um. They can't do that.

An Arkansas woman who went to pick up the class ring she ordered from Walmart left disappointed, after store officials told her the retailer's new policy barred them from turning the item over -- because it bore an image of the Confederate flag.

Elaine Glidewell told KFSM someone from the store in Fort Smith called her to pick up the ring she'd ordered for her nephew, but when she arrived on Tuesday, a clerk told her she couldn’t have it. The ring had been ordered before Walmart stopped selling items bearing images of the flag, in the wake of controversy that stemmed from a racially-charged shooting in South Carolina.

“I wanted to cry,” Glidewell told KFSM, adding that the store clerk said the ring would be "melted."

Walmart refuses to sell confederate flags so that makes this OK.

If they had refused from the beginning it would had been okay. What is not okay is to take the order and money from the lady and call her to come pick it up a couple of weeks later and say April Fools.

Okay, they didn't really tell her April Fools, but still..........

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Walmart is a disgrace, period.

I am never shopping at Walmart again. Is there a hashtag? Liberals won't shop there for reasons other than the flag, now neither will the rest of us.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I'm sure she got her money back. This is a simple breach of contract. There is nothing illegal in making the ring. It's no different than a baker saying our policy is not to make wedding cakes for same sex couples.

Ahhh! She has a public accommodations case doesnt she liberals. Unintended consequences?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It's amazing to me how little people seem to understand how our legal system works.

What grounds do you guys think she could sue on?

Public Accommodations.