[quote]Dustin wrote:
The dude in the video is quite the gentleman, cussing out the woman and all.[/quote]
Thats what im saying. Fucking Californians.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
BG … you learned all that being a doorman? Impressive :)[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
[quote]Totenkopf wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
The dude in the video is quite the gentleman, cussing out the woman and all.[/quote]
Thats what im saying. Fucking Californians.[/quote]
I understand why he is pissed, but no need to throw a fit like a baby.
You guys are confusing your causes of action. A claim of discrimination - LEGAL discrimination - seems to have no merit here. As was correctly stated, a public business may refuse to serve a person for any reason at all - except for a prohibited reason. Discrimination on the basis of membership in a protected class (that’s the key here, “lunks” are not a protected class) is illegal. Discrimination on some other basis is okay.
If someone were to injure themselves as a result of a lunk alarm, that action would most likely be one of negligence. Now, whether the proximate cause of the injury was the alarm would likely be a fact issue. That means the defendant would not win on summary judgment - there would be a trial. Since juries are notoriously whimsical, I’d suppose there’s a chance that a defendant may settle such an action. Now, if the defendant isn’t in favor of settling suissance lawsuits, you get to roll with a trial. In short, I bet you could find an atty to take this case. I’d be surprised if there was a recovery, but I’ve heard of far stranger things.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Gregus:
I am not going out of my way to prove you wrong. You’re simply wrong…and misguided. Kudos to the business owner stuff - I am too, it’s too be admired, but has nothing to do with this thread. I can’t believe I’m giving you an actual analysis of “why” you’re wrong, but here goes, in an attempt at a peace treaty. By the way, I don’t “supervise” paperwork. I am the final arbiter of what will be paid, if it gets paid, and if we go to verict or settle. The lawyers are doing “paperwork” and interpreting law - I am making the actual decisions.
First, “meathead” is not a protected class under the discrimination laws. Look up your state discrimination laws - you will not find a spot for your cause. “Lunk” will not get you there either. Further, if there was a viable cause of action, an enterprising class action lawyer (they own their own business too) would have taken it on.
Even if the damages were miniscule (they would be), a class action lawyer can reap a nice sum for legal fees, just for bringing a successful action, while those in the class would get pennies.
Next, you as a business owner have a perfect legal right to regulate, encourage or discourage certain “conduct” in your establishment. This is no different than those gyms that don’t have free weights. Are they “discriminating” against meathead free weight users? No. They are making a choice, you’re aware of the choices, you can either choose to join or go elsewhere. Same with chalk. Same with acceptable attire and other dress codes.
I could go on and on and on. I hope you get the point. Just because you find something “objectionable”, doesn’t mean it rises to the level of “actionable” under tort law.
Further, if someone did get injured while the lunk alarm went off, you’d have some tough hurdles to leap, and no, lawyers would not be fighting for your case. First, you are engaged in a dangerous activity by its very nature. There is an assumption of risk to sporting events and lifting weights. Convincing a jury that the proximate cause of your injury was the sounding of a lunk alarm as opposed to the actual execution of the lift would be a long row to hoe.
A gym is noisy. There are startling noises all about. Your case would be extremely weak and given that they probably don’t allow overhead lifting either, I don’t see what lift you could do at PF to be startled enough to lose it.
I wish you and your gym much success, but you’re a bit misguided here. I’m not even sure I share your outrage. I’m no more outraged by PF than I am Curves as I have no desire and/or intention of joining either. They both cater to and market a certain segment of business, as is their right.[/quote]
Thank you for your courtesy. I mean it. I see your point and have from the beginning. Im not arguing on an existing precedent. Im arguing on a new “issue”. A precedent could be set. This is how all legal precedents came about. Someone was the first to make it happen against all opposition. I was referring to a hypothetical NEW legal process that they ARE indeed opening themselves up to.
And hey i never actually felt any hostility, just internet bickering, lol, albeit with passion between high test men. lol. Best of luck and i wish you much much $$$$$ in your business endeavors. I mean it.
[quote]stuntmonkeys wrote:
You guys are confusing your causes of action. A claim of discrimination - LEGAL discrimination - seems to have no merit here. As was correctly stated, a public business may refuse to serve a person for any reason at all - except for a prohibited reason. Discrimination on the basis of membership in a protected class (that’s the key here, “lunks” are not a protected class) is illegal. Discrimination on some other basis is okay.
If someone were to injure themselves as a result of a lunk alarm, that action would most likely be one of negligence. Now, whether the proximate cause of the injury was the alarm would likely be a fact issue. That means the defendant would not win on summary judgment - there would be a trial. Since juries are notoriously whimsical, I’d suppose there’s a chance that a defendant may settle such an action. Now, if the defendant isn’t in favor of settling suissance lawsuits, you get to roll with a trial. In short, I bet you could find an atty to take this case. I’d be surprised if there was a recovery, but I’ve heard of far stranger things.[/quote]
Don’t be surprised. The Law frowns on practices that “STRESS” people for no reason other then sales and marketing. Besides, lawsuits are not always filed to win them. Lawsuits are filed oftentimes for the purposes of “stressing” and inflicting monetary stress and as a means of persuasion. It would be most effective in forcing PF to comply, especially if a media ruckus reports on injuries as a result of this alarm and pending lawsuits by members.
Watch the whole chain remove those things overnight.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
As a business owner i’m telling you guys its a matter of time before they remove that alarm as a result of a lawsuit. Just a matter of time. In fact this chain will fade in time and it’ll be all over.
They are making the biggest mistake a business can make. They are alienating the CORE fitness people in favor of the lazy customers with fragile egos. This is bad because that customer base is finicky and has NO loyalty to fitness in general. Once their flash in the pan enthusiasm fades so will their gym dues and attendance.
They will get sued for discrimination in short order. Imagine lunk replaced with “Ni$$er Alarm”. It’s a way to bring NEGATIVE attention and DISCRIMINATE based on a newly defined criteria. However Discrimination is discrimination. I predict they will loose the alarms and/or the chain will collapse.
Ahhhhhhhh The Irony of the Judgment free zone.
[/quote]
I got interested in how PF got started so i looked it up on wikipedia. Says it started franchising in 2003, w/ revenue of 100million. The original gym started up in 1992. Maybe one day they’d get rid of the alarm, but it seems like there already have been lawsuits filed against the company. I’m sure most of their clientele are finicky lazy people. However, I can also see many of the customers being young people who only spend 10$ a month on a membership. Their business model is to sell memberships on the cheap, and therefore I don’t see PF going out of business any time soon.
[quote]SSanville73 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Convincing a jury that the proximate cause of your injury was the sounding of a lunk alarm as opposed to the actual execution of the lift would be a long row to hoe.
[/quote]
When a jury can be convinced that someone spilling a cup of coffee on themselves and getting burned by said hot coffee is deserving of thousands of dollars in compensation from the coffee purveyor, then I think a lawyer could convince a jury of just about anything.[/quote]
Urban legend sprinkled with fact. Do you know the facts of that case? McDonalds customers had been burned prior. McDonalds chose to keep their coffee exceedingly hot anyway, in spite of knowing about the risk it posed to their drive thru customers. In the end, McDonalds got burnt, because they chose to ignore a potential liability. They were aware of the dangerous condition, it was forseeable, and they chose not to change the temperature. There was a little more to the case than someone just spilling hot coffee.
good for him.
those machines look like they were made by Playschool.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Lmfao at pretty much that whole video…could you imagine if a bunch of T-Nationers went to a planet fitness together? Would they even let us in? I mean not one person in that video (including the background) was in shape.
Free bagels and pizza! Wash it down with some soda!
[quote]SickAbs wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Lmfao at pretty much that whole video…could you imagine if a bunch of T-Nationers went to a planet fitness together? Would they even let us in? I mean not one person in that video (including the background) was in shape.
Free bagels and pizza! Wash it down with some soda![/quote]
I’d go with you Sick … just to video tape your bench/squat … granted we’d get kicked out before I could film it, but still … you could at least say you tried
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]SickAbs wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Lmfao at pretty much that whole video…could you imagine if a bunch of T-Nationers went to a planet fitness together? Would they even let us in? I mean not one person in that video (including the background) was in shape.
Free bagels and pizza! Wash it down with some soda![/quote]
I’d go with you Sick … just to video tape your bench/squat … granted we’d get kicked out before I could film it, but still … you could at least say you tried[/quote]
I’ll let you know when I’m in boston to watch my phillies beat you roid users in interleague play. And I’ll help you off the bar when youre trying for 225.
[quote]SickAbs wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]SickAbs wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Lmfao at pretty much that whole video…could you imagine if a bunch of T-Nationers went to a planet fitness together? Would they even let us in? I mean not one person in that video (including the background) was in shape.
Free bagels and pizza! Wash it down with some soda![/quote]
I’d go with you Sick … just to video tape your bench/squat … granted we’d get kicked out before I could film it, but still … you could at least say you tried[/quote]
I’ll let you know when I’m in boston to watch my phillies beat you roid users in interleague play. And I’ll help you off the bar when youre trying for 225.
[/quote]
suhweet … I’ve been waiting for someone to spot me … it’s not that I can’t lift it, it’s just that damn sticking point ya know? You know, I don’t need to explain it to you … and that’s all you got huh … roid heads? Phillie’s beting us in interleague play? Well, at least you didn’t call me a fag … so, you’re trying. Can’t fault a guy for trying.
[quote]ladieslove wrote:
good for him.
those machines look like they were made by Playschool. [/quote]
CYBEX…
But they are not like other cybex machines I’ve seen.
Good bearings, and belts, somewhat adjustable.
Feels, ok if you can get the fit right.
[quote]Null wrote:
[quote]ladieslove wrote:
good for him.
those machines look like they were made by Playschool. [/quote]
CYBEX…
But they are not like other cybex machines I’ve seen.
Good bearings, and belts, somewhat adjustable.
Feels, ok if you can get the fit right.[/quote]
i’m just not a machines kinda girl
It’s funny how they’re saying the gym is a judgment free zone, most of the people at those gyms are extremely judgmental.
Planet fitness is actually great and here is why, all the dumb fucks can go there and get skinny fat on the treadmills and leave the real weight lifting gyms to us.
The Top 8 video was loltastic.
The guy raging at the small girl was pretty pathetic and possibly just reinforced in their mind the reason behind the “lunk” alarm.
[quote]ladieslove wrote:
[quote]Null wrote:
[quote]ladieslove wrote:
good for him.
those machines look like they were made by Playschool. [/quote]
CYBEX…
But they are not like other cybex machines I’ve seen.
Good bearings, and belts, somewhat adjustable.
Feels, ok if you can get the fit right.[/quote]
i’m only a machines kinda girl in the bedroom[/quote]