• activ8r@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 months ago

    So they really are just chicken nuggets for adults then…
    Seriously, what the fuck are you guys doing over there if “boneless wings” are neither boneless nor wings?!

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      To be fair, calling them “wings” was to my knowledge more about linking them to how chicken wings as a dish were prepared and presented than a statement on where the meat came from on the bird.

      I don’t know much about this case in particular but it fits into a long pattern of activist conservative judges basically legislating from the bench to protect business interests. So it’s unsurprising that one of them would basically say “no one actually believes the wing part, so there’s no reason for them to believe the boneless part either, and therefore there’s no liability if there are bones in the product.”

    • BigPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      You say “over there” but this is an Ohio ruling. That’d be like judging all of Europe for Belarusian rulings.