If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Consumerist)   Woman tells her caterer that there will be Muslims present, gets upset when half the food is full of pork, demands more than the $3,000 refund they're offering. Yes, because EVERYONE should know Muslims don't eat pork   (consumerist.com) divider line 542
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

18491 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Dec 2011 at 2:41 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



542 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-12-11 02:39:12 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: The reason why it was written for Muslims and Jews to not eat pork (and flesh from certain other animals) to start with is that if it's not prepared just right, one can catch disease from it. Back in that day, people did not understand proper sanitation and preparation, so it was easier to just ban it completely. Forgive me for asking, but does anyone have any idea just why Muslims and Jews continue to follow out dated dietary laws that in these modern times are no longer needed to stay healthy? It's the purpose of any law that matters, not the letter of the law.


For the devout, it is the letter of the law that matters. If God said "don't eat this," you don't eat it. After all, He never gave an explanation to interpret. Mighta been that lack of refrigeration, no knowledge of proper cooking temperatures and such, or it might be a test of faith. I'm with you, and I think it's silly to continue following these dietary laws, but for them...so is it written, so shall it be.

Heck, in Ezekiel 20:25-26, God admits that he gave the Jews purposefully bogus laws and rituals while they were wandering just to make them miserable, and to remind them who's boss.
 
2011-12-11 03:50:35 AM  
Of course, we would presume that every Muslim we met in the US definitely doesn't eat pork. Just like no Catholics live in sin and all Jews keep kosher.

/Assuming someone doesn't eat pork because they have a "muslim sounding" name is profiling.
//If the wedding had alcohol, it would be reasonable to assume the pork restriction was also not in effect.
 
2011-12-11 04:25:53 AM  
Why not? I live in a non-muslim western country, was raised Roman Catholic (now Agnostic) and I knew it by the time I was 10, back in the 80's .. These days if someone makes a point of sayng something like that to you 10 seconds on google will tell you everything that might be relevant to your job.
 
2011-12-11 04:26:03 AM  
Was this headline meant to be read with sarcasm detector at full power ?
 
2011-12-11 04:44:10 AM  

Daniels: //If the wedding had alcohol, it would be reasonable to assume the pork restriction was also not in effect.


Not necessarily.
If half the wedding guests aren't Muslim, there probably would be alcohol present.
That doesn't mean that the Muslims aren't going to follow their religious restrictions. They'll just, y'know, drink water or soda or something.
 
2011-12-11 05:27:49 AM  

MasterAdkins: While people should know about Jews and Muslims and their weird food habits I'm pretty sure I don't care. Here is free food, eat it or not. If you are detached from reality I don't see how it is my job to accommodate that.


How about people who pay professional caterers to provide food that is specifically free of pork? Should they be required to pay caterers who then provide a pork-based menu?

Doesn't matter WHY pork was off the menu, if the people paying the tab had said they didn't want pork then they shouldn't have to pay.
 
2011-12-11 08:07:54 AM  
There is something fundamentally wrong with a religion that bans pork and alcohol consumption, and makes women wear burkas.
 
2011-12-11 08:16:53 AM  

Fomby_Belcher: There is something fundamentally wrong with a religion that bans pork and alcohol consumption, and makes women wear burkas.


More accurate.
 
2011-12-11 08:47:29 AM  

Pert: MasterAdkins: While people should know about Jews and Muslims and their weird food habits I'm pretty sure I don't care. Here is free food, eat it or not. If you are detached from reality I don't see how it is my job to accommodate that.

How about people who pay professional caterers to provide food that is specifically free of pork? Should they be required to pay caterers who then provide a pork-based menu?

Doesn't matter WHY pork was off the menu, if the people paying the tab had said they didn't want pork then they shouldn't have to pay.


=====================

How do you know any of this? All we've heard is this woman's side of the story. As far as I know, she hasn't shown the catering contract to anyone. Has is occurred to anyone that this woman is exaggerating or outright lying? How do you know she didn't deliberately "forget" to include this detail in the contract so she could manufacture a "hate crime" and collect a big, fat settlement?
 
2011-12-11 08:59:57 AM  

Sleeping Monkey: Not everyone, but maybe someone who makes a living preparing food should have some sort of clue.

/thinking subby is 13.


Age or IQ?
 
2011-12-11 09:14:40 AM  

Fissile: How do you know any of this? All we've heard is this woman's side of the story. As far as I know, she hasn't shown the catering contract to anyone. Has is occurred to anyone that this woman is exaggerating or outright lying? How do you know she didn't deliberately "forget" to include this detail in the contract so she could manufacture a "hate crime" and collect a big, fat settlement?


I suppose it's possible that she's made up all the details, but it's just as equally possible that she's telling the truth.

Her lawyer has probably seen the contract, and the caterer's lawyer may have wisely told the caterer not to comment on the matter. If the caterer did offer a partial refund, that's suggestive of acknowledging fault (assuming that the woman is telling the truth).

Companies screw up orders all the time. Why is it so hard for some people to believe that a caterer made a stupid mistake?
 
2011-12-11 09:29:13 AM  

Fissile: Pert: MasterAdkins: While people should know about Jews and Muslims and their weird food habits I'm pretty sure I don't care. Here is free food, eat it or not. If you are detached from reality I don't see how it is my job to accommodate that.

How about people who pay professional caterers to provide food that is specifically free of pork? Should they be required to pay caterers who then provide a pork-based menu?

Doesn't matter WHY pork was off the menu, if the people paying the tab had said they didn't want pork then they shouldn't have to pay.

=====================

How do you know any of this? All we've heard is this woman's side of the story. As far as I know, she hasn't shown the catering contract to anyone. Has is occurred to anyone that this woman is exaggerating or outright lying? How do you know she didn't deliberately "forget" to include this detail in the contract so she could manufacture a "hate crime" and collect a big, fat settlement?


Still farking that chicken, huh? Lying to the Consumerist won't actually accomplish anything. As I've said a couple times, she could be lying, she could even be fictional and made up by some Consumerist writer. It continues to be odd and very telling that you automatically oppose her.
 
2011-12-11 09:30:10 AM  

indylaw: Fissile: How do you know any of this? All we've heard is this woman's side of the story. As far as I know, she hasn't shown the catering contract to anyone. Has is occurred to anyone that this woman is exaggerating or outright lying? How do you know she didn't deliberately "forget" to include this detail in the contract so she could manufacture a "hate crime" and collect a big, fat settlement?

I suppose it's possible that she's made up all the details, but it's just as equally possible that she's telling the truth.

Her lawyer has probably seen the contract, and the caterer's lawyer may have wisely told the caterer not to comment on the matter. If the caterer did offer a partial refund, that's suggestive of acknowledging fault (assuming that the woman is telling the truth).

Companies screw up orders all the time. Why is it so hard for some people to believe that a caterer made a stupid mistake?


=============

It certainly is possible that the caterer made a mistake. All I'm saying is that so far we've heard only one side of the story. Just because she has a lawyer doesn't mean that she's telling the truth or that her lawyer is telling the truth. This may shock you, but there are more than a few lawyers who are dishonest. Have a look. Lying Lawyer Busted (new window)
 
2011-12-11 09:33:39 AM  

Fissile: How do you know any of this? All we've heard is this woman's side of the story. As far as I know, she hasn't shown the catering contract to anyone. Has is occurred to anyone that this woman is exaggerating or outright lying? How do you know she didn't deliberately "forget" to include this detail in the contract so she could manufacture a "hate crime" and collect a big, fat settlement?


I don't know any of that. It's irrelevant. I was objecting to the suggestion made by MasterAdkins that the problem revolved around people refusing to eat the "free" food that was put in front of them and that they could simply choose not to eat it if it didn't accord with their beliefs. That's completely beside the point.

OK, the woman's story may be a pack of lies (in which case this whole thread is irrelevant) but that doesn't make MasterAdkin's comment relevant. The issue is whether the caterer breached their contract, not whether the guests refused to eat the food.

/and for what it's worth, the woman claims that she's already been offered $3,000 compensation, so my suspicion is that the venue must have done something wrong and are testing the water re: how little compensation they can get away with.
 
2011-12-11 09:33:55 AM  

eddiesocket: Fissile: Pert: MasterAdkins: While people should know about Jews and Muslims and their weird food habits I'm pretty sure I don't care. Here is free food, eat it or not. If you are detached from reality I don't see how it is my job to accommodate that.

How about people who pay professional caterers to provide food that is specifically free of pork? Should they be required to pay caterers who then provide a pork-based menu?

Doesn't matter WHY pork was off the menu, if the people paying the tab had said they didn't want pork then they shouldn't have to pay.

=====================

How do you know any of this? All we've heard is this woman's side of the story. As far as I know, she hasn't shown the catering contract to anyone. Has is occurred to anyone that this woman is exaggerating or outright lying? How do you know she didn't deliberately "forget" to include this detail in the contract so she could manufacture a "hate crime" and collect a big, fat settlement?

Still farking that chicken, huh? Lying to the Consumerist won't actually accomplish anything. As I've said a couple times, she could be lying, she could even be fictional and made up by some Consumerist writer. It continues to be odd and very telling that you automatically oppose her.


===========

I'm not "automatically opposing" her. All I'm saying is "Show me the evidence".

/haven't seen any evidence yet
 
2011-12-11 09:55:27 AM  

Fissile: I'm not "automatically opposing" her. All I'm saying is "Show me the evidence".

/haven't seen any evidence yet


You're not a court of law. Nobody is obligated to provide you with anything.
 
2011-12-11 10:12:14 AM  

RexTalionis: Fissile: I'm not "automatically opposing" her. All I'm saying is "Show me the evidence".

/haven't seen any evidence yet

You're not a court of law. Nobody is obligated to provide you with anything.


=============

So this is what it boils down to: "I'm going to make all kinds of accusations and insinuate that I'm the victim of a hate crime, but I don't need to prove anything!" She needs to STFU, as do you.
 
2011-12-11 10:15:38 AM  

TrixieDelite: Sounds like there was ham or pork in everything but the dessert...but damn, wouldn't a warm slice of pecan pie with a crumbled bacon and graham cracker crust be heavenly??


Holy sh*t, yes please!
 
2011-12-11 10:33:22 AM  

TrixieDelite: Sounds like there was ham or pork in everything but the dessert


Sounds like you are unfamiliar with lard-based pastry........

/my vegetarian brother asked our aunt for her wonderful pastry recipe, which began "Half butter and half lard..." . Oh how we laughed.....
 
2011-12-11 10:35:07 AM  

Fissile: RexTalionis: Fissile: I'm not "automatically opposing" her. All I'm saying is "Show me the evidence".

/haven't seen any evidence yet

You're not a court of law. Nobody is obligated to provide you with anything.

=============

So this is what it boils down to: "I'm going to make all kinds of accusations and insinuate that I'm the victim of a hate crime, but I don't need to prove anything!" She needs to STFU, as do you.


No, she doesn't need to prove anything TO YOU. I'm sorry if that concept is an unbearable strain on your 5 watt lightbulb of a mind.
 
2011-12-11 12:06:19 PM  

RexTalionis: Fissile: RexTalionis: Fissile: I'm not "automatically opposing" her. All I'm saying is "Show me the evidence".

/haven't seen any evidence yet

You're not a court of law. Nobody is obligated to provide you with anything.

=============

So this is what it boils down to: "I'm going to make all kinds of accusations and insinuate that I'm the victim of a hate crime, but I don't need to prove anything!" She needs to STFU, as do you.

No, she doesn't need to prove anything TO YOU. I'm sorry if that concept is an unbearable strain on your 5 watt lightbulb of a mind.


==============

She's got a lawyer and is making threats of legal action. Got news for you, Herr Leibniz, if you start in making with the lawsuits, it becomes PUBLIC INFORMATION. Shiat, or get off the pot. Let's see what you got, or STFU.
 
2011-12-11 12:07:05 PM  

Le Geno Vert: you were born a steer,
you were raised a steer,


For what it's worth, steers aren't born. They become steers later.

RexTalionis: No, she doesn't need to prove anything TO YOU. I'm sorry if that concept is an unbearable strain on your 5 watt lightbulb of a mind.


I'm not convinced that we're getting the full and honest story here either. You don't call up a caterer and tell them "Bring lots of food". They have a menu. You choose from that menu, you tell them what food to bring. "Bring lots of food, no pork" would not be a normal order at all.

Normally, for a catering thing of this size, you'll also have a tasting.

But the woman in the story expects us to believe that she didn't choose off a menu, she didn't have a tasting, that the caterer decided what food to bring, and that he then ignored her one and only specification of "no pork" and put pork in essentially every dish.

It's just not a very believable story, and that's based on hearing her side of the story. I suspect if we heard the caterers side, the reactions in this thread would be very different. And I suspect that if she does take this to court, instead of to the press, she'll be asked to show some evidence. They are bound to have some paperwork showing what she ordered. I'll bet it is a lot more detailed than "bring food, no pork".
 
2011-12-11 12:27:38 PM  

JuggleGeek: Le Geno Vert: you were born a steer,
you were raised a steer,

For what it's worth, steers aren't born. They become steers later.

RexTalionis: No, she doesn't need to prove anything TO YOU. I'm sorry if that concept is an unbearable strain on your 5 watt lightbulb of a mind.

I'm not convinced that we're getting the full and honest story here either. You don't call up a caterer and tell them "Bring lots of food". They have a menu. You choose from that menu, you tell them what food to bring. "Bring lots of food, no pork" would not be a normal order at all.

Normally, for a catering thing of this size, you'll also have a tasting.

But the woman in the story expects us to believe that she didn't choose off a menu, she didn't have a tasting, that the caterer decided what food to bring, and that he then ignored her one and only specification of "no pork" and put pork in essentially every dish.

It's just not a very believable story, and that's based on hearing her side of the story. I suspect if we heard the caterers side, the reactions in this thread would be very different. And I suspect that if she does take this to court, instead of to the press, she'll be asked to show some evidence. They are bound to have some paperwork showing what she ordered. I'll bet it is a lot more detailed than "bring food, no pork".


=============

^This^ So far, she's making a lot of accusations. OK, you claim that only did the caterer NOT do what you asked for, but that his actions were probably motivated by religious hatred. Prove it, and I'm in your corner. The fact that she refuses to provide any proof, short of, "believe me", makes me think she's full of shiat.
 
2011-12-11 12:48:52 PM  
i187.photobucket.com
 
2011-12-11 01:33:58 PM  

Fissile: RexTalionis: Fissile: I'm not "automatically opposing" her. All I'm saying is "Show me the evidence".

/haven't seen any evidence yet

You're not a court of law. Nobody is obligated to provide you with anything.

=============

So this is what it boils down to: "I'm going to make all kinds of accusations and insinuate that I'm the victim of a hate crime, but I don't need to prove anything!" She needs to STFU, as do you.


Why don't you just will it so?

You do not control other people. If you want something, don't demand it, then get angry don't get it. Just ask politely. You'd be surprised how far a little courtesy can take you, where fussbudgetry won't.

You have a valid point, that we can't pass actual judgment without hearing the other side of the story, but that's missing the point and purpose of this discussion. We are not an actual jury, just a group of people discussing what's presented to us. With that, this discussion moves on an assumption of truth, with the knowledge that we can't really know, and the knowledge also that it makes no difference what we say or think. In effect, we're just discussing it hypothetically, which has exactly the same effect and validity as if it was entirely fictional. Which renders the issue of proof moot.
 
2011-12-11 01:35:16 PM  

Fissile: JuggleGeek: Le Geno Vert: you were born a steer,
you were raised a steer,

For what it's worth, steers aren't born. They become steers later.

RexTalionis: No, she doesn't need to prove anything TO YOU. I'm sorry if that concept is an unbearable strain on your 5 watt lightbulb of a mind.

I'm not convinced that we're getting the full and honest story here either. You don't call up a caterer and tell them "Bring lots of food". They have a menu. You choose from that menu, you tell them what food to bring. "Bring lots of food, no pork" would not be a normal order at all.

Normally, for a catering thing of this size, you'll also have a tasting.

But the woman in the story expects us to believe that she didn't choose off a menu, she didn't have a tasting, that the caterer decided what food to bring, and that he then ignored her one and only specification of "no pork" and put pork in essentially every dish.

It's just not a very believable story, and that's based on hearing her side of the story. I suspect if we heard the caterers side, the reactions in this thread would be very different. And I suspect that if she does take this to court, instead of to the press, she'll be asked to show some evidence. They are bound to have some paperwork showing what she ordered. I'll bet it is a lot more detailed than "bring food, no pork".

=============

^This^ So far, she's making a lot of accusations. OK, you claim that only did the caterer NOT do what you asked for, but that his actions were probably motivated by religious hatred. Prove it, and I'm in your corner. The fact that she refuses to provide any proof, short of, "believe me", makes me think she's full of shiat.


It's like you get off on being farking retarded. How do you know she hasn't provided any proof? You don't even know her name or where she is or what company she's angry at. And nowhere in the letter does it say she's accusing anyone of a "hate crime" or being motivated by religious hatred. You made that up entirely. You also don't know what "hate crime" means. Even if the caterers did it on purpose (which the bride does NOT allege), that would not be considered a hate crime under the legal definition.
According to her letter, which is all we have to go on, she's lawyered up. She hasn't even sued anyone yet. And you think she's "full of shiat" because you personally haven't seen a copy of the contract. I'm not sure if that's more narcissistic or just plain idiotic.
If the contract doesn't say "no pork", then she's screwed. But it certainly seems far more likely that it does than it doesn't, as must brides don't like to deliberately fark up their own weddings.
 
2011-12-11 01:38:14 PM  

JuggleGeek: Le Geno Vert: you were born a steer,
you were raised a steer,

For what it's worth, steers aren't born. They become steers later.

RexTalionis: No, she doesn't need to prove anything TO YOU. I'm sorry if that concept is an unbearable strain on your 5 watt lightbulb of a mind.

I'm not convinced that we're getting the full and honest story here either. You don't call up a caterer and tell them "Bring lots of food". They have a menu. You choose from that menu, you tell them what food to bring. "Bring lots of food, no pork" would not be a normal order at all.

Normally, for a catering thing of this size, you'll also have a tasting.

But the woman in the story expects us to believe that she didn't choose off a menu, she didn't have a tasting, that the caterer decided what food to bring, and that he then ignored her one and only specification of "no pork" and put pork in essentially every dish.

It's just not a very believable story, and that's based on hearing her side of the story. I suspect if we heard the caterers side, the reactions in this thread would be very different. And I suspect that if she does take this to court, instead of to the press, she'll be asked to show some evidence. They are bound to have some paperwork showing what she ordered. I'll bet it is a lot more detailed than "bring food, no pork".


If she's lying, she actually takes a much bigger risk going public to the press instead of to court. She can be hooked up for slander and libel, which when addressed as a liability against a whole business can run into a lot more money than what she's demanding.
 
2011-12-11 01:40:43 PM  

Fissile: JuggleGeek: Le Geno Vert:

=============
^This^ So far, she's making a lot of accusations. OK, you claim that only did the caterer NOT do what you asked for, but that his actions were probably motivated by religious hatred. Prove it, and I'm in your corner. The fact that she refuses to provide any proof, short of, "believe me", makes me think she's full of shiat.


Valiant effort but I doubt you'll overcome the preconception that all country clubs are inherently bigoted. Eating any profits by offering a discount isn't an attempt to appease a dissatified customer, it's an admission of guilt, even though member satisfaction traditionally trumps profit in most private clubs.
In my 30 years of working in private clubs I've seen a couple of instances of blatant discrimination, but always members against employees, never the reverse. During this time, I've also dealt with several clients, wedding and otherwise, who simply viewed complaining to receive a discount after the event as a continuation of price negotiations. But since this situation involves religious dietary restrictions, any suggestion that this woman might be as petty as anyone else automatically translates into my being a bigot convinced of a Muslim conspiracy. With a tongue-in-cheek handle like Wellreadneck, any debate I attempt is simply a waste of breath.
 
2011-12-11 02:01:51 PM  

wellreadneck: Fissile: JuggleGeek: Le Geno Vert:

=============
^This^ So far, she's making a lot of accusations. OK, you claim that only did the caterer NOT do what you asked for, but that his actions were probably motivated by religious hatred. Prove it, and I'm in your corner. The fact that she refuses to provide any proof, short of, "believe me", makes me think she's full of shiat.

Valiant effort but I doubt you'll overcome the preconception that all country clubs are inherently bigoted. Eating any profits by offering a discount isn't an attempt to appease a dissatified customer, it's an admission of guilt, even though member satisfaction traditionally trumps profit in most private clubs.
In my 30 years of working in private clubs I've seen a couple of instances of blatant discrimination, but always members against employees, never the reverse. During this time, I've also dealt with several clients, wedding and otherwise, who simply viewed complaining to receive a discount after the event as a continuation of price negotiations. But since this situation involves religious dietary restrictions, any suggestion that this woman might be as petty as anyone else automatically translates into my being a bigot convinced of a Muslim conspiracy. With a tongue-in-cheek handle like Wellreadneck, any debate I attempt is simply a waste of breath.


Either she's lying or she's not. A court will decide, if it comes to that. If she's not lying, the idea that she's being "petty" in her complaints is absurd. They ruined the reception. And you've certainly proven your handle isn't tongue-in-cheek.
 
2011-12-11 02:18:00 PM  
I have no idea. Mmmm...bacon.
 
2011-12-11 02:41:38 PM  

eddiesocket: wellreadneck: Fissile: JuggleGeek: Le Geno Vert:


Either she's lying or she's not. A court will decide, if it comes to that. If she's not lying, the idea that she's being "petty" in her complaints is absurd. They ruined the reception. And you've certainly proven your handle isn't tongue-in-cheek.


Why is the possibility of her being petty iess likely than some working stiff risking their livelihood just so they can stick it to the brown man? We're not discussing a court battle, this is some anonymous woman seekng vengeance on the Consumerist website. As for handles, I'd suggest you adopt something reflective of your posting style, "spittlecoveredscreen" should suit.
 
2011-12-11 02:52:07 PM  

Fissile: This may shock you, but there are more than a few lawyers who are dishonest. Have a look. Lying Lawyer Busted (new window)


I don't see any reason for you to talk down to me. Perhaps your anger is a little misplaced.
 
2011-12-11 03:14:12 PM  
I've worked as a wedding coordinator. I kept, printed up, catering contract riders simply to outline dietary restrictions. There was only two types of venue I needed these documents for: country clubs and hotels, as they required anyone renting their venue for a celebration to use their catering services.

One wedding I handled that convinced me I needed these documents, was a wedding between a young woman of Greek heritage and a nice Jewish guy. The bride, her mother, the groom's mother and I all met with the executive catering chef at country club where the wedding reception was to take place, following the wedding at the Greek Orthodox church.

The first thing the chef complained about was the bride's desire for an array of Greek appetizers to be passed during the cocktail hour prior to the sit-down dinner, as his staff were not trained in Greek cuisine. He handed over the country club menu to select from - baby quiches, spinach puffs, crab stuffed mushrooms, and cheese plates as passed appetizers, shrimp cocktail, soup or green salad as the first course, roast beef, roast pork or chicken as a main with scalloped potatoes. I pointed out that this menu as not acceptable as the Jewish guests would not be able to partake of the potatoes, the shrimp, the mushrooms or the quiche. The reply I got from the chef absolutely floored me:

"Yeah, we don't cater Jewish affairs. We send them over to the Hilton."

After a quick meeting with both families that night, the bride acquiesced to using the community center at the Greek Orthodox church as the reception venue and I arranged for the best Greek restaurant in town to cater the affair. After that, any time I had to deal with the country clubs or the hotels, I had a copy of the rider in my bag to add to the contract for things like "no pork products", "no shellfish", "at least one sugar free dessert" and my person favorite "no mushrooms".

I had a bride that insisted, over my objections, to have her reception at that country club. Her groom was deathly allergic to shellfish and mushrooms. I spelled out on the contract rider that there was to be no shellfish or mushrooms used in the dishes served and that the kitchen area be sanitized prior to the preparation of the food for their celebration. I had both the executive catering chef and the venue manager sign the rider and attached copies to all the contracts for that venue.

During the reception, the groom was rushed to the emergency room because of an allergic reaction. The dumbasses in catering had served up beef wellington as the entree, in place of the requested tenderloin medallions wrapped in bacon. I felt horrible because one of my girls had become ill, so I had to assign an assistant of mine to oversee the reception instead of doing it myself - the next morning, I checked in on the couple and brought them a 20% refund on my fee. I then got on the catering manager at the country club and demanded they refund a minimum of 20% because of the unauthorized menu substitution. The manager told me to fark off and he'd see me in court. It took about 6 months, but the judge ruled the country club in material violation of the contract and awarded the couple the entire fee paid to the club, plus medical bills and a $10,000 punitive award.
 
2011-12-11 07:21:52 PM  

Praise Cheesus:
I had a bride that insisted, over my objections, to have her reception at that country club. Her groom was deathly allergic to shellfish and mushrooms. I spelled out on the contract rider that there was to be no shellfish or mushrooms used in the dishes served and that the kitchen area be sanitized prior to the preparation of the food for their celebration. I had both the executive catering chef and the venue manager sign the rider and attached copies to all the contracts for that venue.

During the reception, the groom was rushed to the emergency room because of an allergic reaction. The dumbasses in catering had served up beef wellington as the entree, in place of the requested tenderloin medallions wrapped in bacon. I felt horrible because one of my girls had become ill, so I had to assign an assistant of mine to oversee the reception instead of doing it myself - the next morning, I checked in on the couple and brought them a 20% refund on my fee. I then got on the catering manager at the country club and demanded they refund a minimum of 20% because of the unauthorized menu substitution. The manager told me to fark off and he'd see me in court. It took about 6 months, but the judge ruled the country club in material violation of the contract and awarded the couple the entire fee paid to the club, plus medical bills and a $10,000 punitive award.


Cool/sad story, bro/sis. This is the real point. I'm not a professional chef, but I know that Beef Wellington has mushrooms in it. If someone told me that they would die if they ate a mushroom, I would have caught the error. (And I would have provided the pork they asked for in the first place.) What kills me is that this is a strictly an issue of NOT RECEIVING A SERVICE FOR WHICH THEY PAID, but so many are just being douches because some of the folks in question are Muslims.
 
2011-12-11 09:35:25 PM  

gimmegimme: What kills me is that this is a strictly an issue of NOT RECEIVING A SERVICE FOR WHICH THEY PAID, but so many are just being douches because some of the folks in question are Muslims.


The fact that they were muslims isn't relevant to me. I simply don't believe her story.

The way she explains it makes it sound like she ordered "Food, with no pork". That's not a believable story.

If she ordered X and they gave her Y, then I'm probably on her side. You should get what you pay for, not whatever they feel like giving you. But she makes it sound like she never looked at a menu, and never did a tasting, and just told them "Feed us, and no pork", and I'm not buying it.

Not believing her doesn't make me a douche, so fark off.
 
2011-12-11 10:31:15 PM  
See what happens when assholes want to be all PC.

If you didn't want pork in your dishes, request that. Don't get all PC and try to be nice about it, and just expect others to understand what in the fark you are talking about. She doesn't deserve anything back.
 
2011-12-11 11:15:46 PM  
I think I see where the clusterfark occurred in this mess: The bride likely had the whole thing at a resort as a package deal that included the chapel, wedding coordinator, reception venue and catering as a package deal.

That would go a long way towards explaining the lag times on email replies, lack of pre-event tasting menu and a lot of the other details. It's very likely the coordinator emailed the bride a set of menus with prices, asked her to select her choices and when the bride mailed the menu choices back, the bride specified "no pork in any of the dishes", which the coordinator didn't note when passing on the order to the catering group.

What makes me think this is what happened? There's one huge clue in the article: "While all the hype about the beauty of this place is true and warranted, the service was the worst I have ever experienced in my life. Not only were we shuffled around to three different coordinators throughout the 10 months we were dealing with them leading up to our big day, they often took anywhere from a week to 6 weeks to respond to simple emails."

It sounds like she was shuffled around in-house among coordinators. Chances are as her file was passed around, her emails langished in the inbox of someone that considered her someone elses problem and the emails were not properly forwarded. Another hint that she was passed around like a party girl at a Tailhook convention: "Not only was there pork in the buffet, but when we saw the bacon on the salad and the pork sausage in the rice, and called the coordinator over to deal with the issue, she actually disputed against our word, saying she didn't recall hearing us say "no pork." It was only after my husband told her to go check her notes, that upon her return from her office she admitted she "just didn't double check," and apologized for having served pork to all of our guests. " The coordinator paid no attention to the note about no pork, even denying that this restriction had been mentioned until she was forced to go back and consult the file.
 
2011-12-12 12:51:39 AM  

VW_Factor: If you didn't want pork in your dishes, request that. Don't get all PC and try to be nice about it, and just expect others to understand what in the fark you are talking about


If you are going to comment on an article, RTFA. She did request that.
 
2011-12-12 05:18:16 AM  

wellreadneck: eddiesocket: wellreadneck: Fissile: JuggleGeek: Le Geno Vert:


Either she's lying or she's not. A court will decide, if it comes to that. If she's not lying, the idea that she's being "petty" in her complaints is absurd. They ruined the reception. And you've certainly proven your handle isn't tongue-in-cheek.

Why is the possibility of her being petty iess likely than some working stiff risking their livelihood just so they can stick it to the brown man? We're not discussing a court battle, this is some anonymous woman seekng vengeance on the Consumerist website. As for handles, I'd suggest you adopt something reflective of your posting style, "spittlecoveredscreen" should suit.


The possibility of her being "petty" is zero. Either she's lying, and she never told them "no pork", or she's telling the truth. The complaint itself is indisputably not petty, as serving tons of food that half the guests can't eat is horrible service.
 
2011-12-12 06:52:06 AM  
Just a note for people saying "she should have done a tasting":
Some places do not allow tastings. At all, even if you offer to pay.

/planning a wedding now.
//no one with the above restriction will be getting my business.
 
2011-12-12 08:04:00 AM  

lilplatinum: VW_Factor: If you didn't want pork in your dishes, request that. Don't get all PC and try to be nice about it, and just expect others to understand what in the fark you are talking about

If you are going to comment on an article, RTFA. She did request that.


Isn't it sad that all of VW_Factor's objections were dealt with in TFA and the thread, yet he/she still felt the need to make such a comment?
 
2011-12-12 02:57:45 PM  

RexTalionis: thelordofcheese: ZAZ: Same with Jews.

Jews have a wide range of interpretations of dietary rules. Some leave sausage off pizza on Saturdays and otherwise eat the same as anybody else.

You know how I know you don't know any observant Jews?
/live with 2 Jews, rented from a rabbi

Boy, that's a reading comprehension failure if I've ever seen one.


You're telling me.

/derp
 
Displayed 42 of 542 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report