A significant percentage of "Hate Crimes" against Blacks are actually hoaxes perpetrated by the "Victim".Oddly, I know of no Hoaxed "Hate Crimes" against Jews. Between the "Progressive" Anti-Semites and Muslims, there's no shortage, hence no need to fake any.
All "hate crimes" in America are fabrications.
News flash pal, ALL so called "hate crimes" are fabricated.
Wow. It only took about 30 days since I made the original post before we got ANOTHER faked "hate-crime" story from the homos. heh heh So they are occurring about once a month now. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/us/whole-foods-offensive-cake/Two words; B.S. (fag). Here's why: NOBODY LEAVES A STORE WITH A CAKE AND DOESN'T LOOK AT IT FIRST. NOBODY. PERIOD. Ask ten people what they would have done in this case and I guarantee you that you will get 100% different than what this homo did. THE FAGGOT IS LYING. If he DID leave the store without looking at it, then the problem is his because there is no way to prove that he did not put the word on the cake himself afterward. Also the part about "not returning to the store because he didn't want to cause a scene" is not in line with how most people would have reacted. If he was as upset about it as he claimed, most people that angry would have gone back to the store and raised Hell. His claim does not pass the smell test at all. If his story is true, he learned a lesson about checking merchandise you purchase on the scene before removing it from the premises. Stupid lying faggot. Here is an idea - have the stupid faggot take a polygraph test and if he fails, have his **** amputated. If he's telling the truth, give him a huge settlement. If I were emperor, that would be my decision and if he refused to comply, I would have him defenestrated for causing all of the trouble in the first place. ( please note the excerpt below is abridged to conform to copyright infringement constraints).Headline: Whole Foods denies it made anti-gay cakeAn anti-gay slur ended up on a cake and the Internet is asking questions.A Texas pastor filed a lawsuit against Whole Foods on Monday. Jordan Brown says he was given a custom cake that was decorated with an anti-gay sentiment.Brown, who is an openly gay man, is suing the grocery store for emotional distress, claiming the Austin store is responsible for the actions of its employees. "Pastor Brown never asked for this to happen. He continues to be overwhelmed by the feelings of pain, anguish and humiliation because of this incident," his lawyer, Austin Kaplan, said in a statement.
There's some issue with the seal on the box that I don't quite understand but that seems irrelevant anyway - likely something that the lawyer is trying to use to obfuscate the issue in order to drag out the debate in public view. The greater point is that one doesn't leave a store with a product like a custom-decorated cake without checking it first. Not one in a thousand people would leave without checking it.Legally once the cake left the store it was the customer's responsibility, not the store's. Taking possession of it, the leaving the store meets the requirement of implied acceptance (which is a valid legal principle). It's the same thing as leaving a car dealership with a new car and then returning hours later claiming that it was severely damaged before you took it off the lot. It's not gonna fly legally because there is an assumed responsibility of customers to VERIFY SATISFACTION WITH A PRODUCT BEFORE TAKING LEGAL POSSESSION OF IT. In a legal sense, "possession" means physically accepting it into one's control and removing it from the immediate vicinity of the purchase.The store has no legal liability for any product which leaves their possession because it is implied that it was in satisfactory condition when taken, or the customer would not have taken it. The phrase "Let the buyer beware" is not just a truism. Any subsequent forensic investigation or examination of the cake (such as analyzing the icing used to make the added word to determine if it is identical to the other) would have to be paid for by the plaintiff because there is no strong evidence that there is any crime. So there is nothing to justify launching a criminal investigation. At this point, it's the customer's word against the store's employees and that is a wash as far as law enforcement is concerned - hearsay is not enough in itself to start an investigation. Historically , the onus is on customers to prove bad faith after taking custody of a product and that requires material evidence of malfeasance (catching someone red-handed or presenting clear, compelling material evidence of same). IMO a label on a box does not meet the definition of "clear, compelling" evidence. It's a label. Nothing more. It cannot speak or give testimony nor does it contradict standing legal precedent on laws of possession, custody or liability.
An unsealed box hah hah I'm confused. What difference does it make if there was one two or five seals? Who opens the box and when is, it seems to me irrelevant since the cogent legal issues are:1) Who had legal possession of the box and its contents when it left the store? (answer:the customer, there is video evidence of this).2) Who had access to the contents of the box after it left the store? (answer: the customer or parties unknown- stipulated by customer's own statements)3) Other than the verbal report of the customer, what evidence exists that the configuration of the contents of the box were anything other than what the employee of the store said it was (a cake with the words "love wins" on it) when it was handed over to the customer and subsequently removed from the store by him? (answer: absolutely none whatsoever). I am not an attorney but I wonder how any number of labels on the box or their status at any point has any material connection to the determination of the answers to those three previous questions? I don't get how the status of the label(s) has anything to do with the status of the contents, altered or not from the stipulated verbal contract implicit in the transaction, were the sole responsibility of the customer based on existing "implied satisfaction" case-law. If he paid for it. Took it out of the store, got in his car, drove away and didn't come back immediately, the cake belonged to him in whatever condition it was in and the company no longer has any material liability for its condition before, during or after he carried it out of the store. The customer has to show evidence that the store did something wrong before he took it out of the store and a label is just a label. It says nothing about anything. It exists and has no other significance, it seems to me. any liability or responsibility
That's the point, the lawyers case came down to the seal on the box if I'm to understand correctly.It's the customers responsibility to check for errors and make sure it's what he ordered.Did it happen? probably, can he prove it? Nope. Does Whole Foods like this being in the news? Nope. So they'll settle out of court and the guy gets a clear 30 grand in his pocket, end of story.