Chiropractors are not real doctors and most of them aren’t even particularly qualified to work on people’s backs.
The scientific literature and especially the best controlled, largest N studies show chiropractic is a bit less effective than physical therapy, while noticably better than doing nothing.
So if you live in some shithole country without universal healthcare, then I guess chiropractors aren’t the worst possible choice if you specifically have back pain.
Generally you have a right to control your own image for commercial purposes. For example, a restaurant owner couldn’t take a picture of a patron and then use it for their advertising (absent consent). Even though there is no expectation of privacy while eating in a public restaurant and image maybe captured for other, non-commercial, purposes (e.g., in the background of someone taking picture of a birthday dinner). For average schmoes, it’s rare. For celebrities, it’s a bigger deal.
If the schmoe (or celebrity) did something newsworthy, then such images are fair game.
I bet she voted Trump! I believe a company can choose to do business (or not) with anybody they so desire. I don’t think discrimination enters into it. Did she enter the premises without her alleged exemption notes? If so, surely there’s no come-back? The hand-written one looks like some kid’s attempt to cover up lack of homework: “The dog eat it!”. I think I could have conjured up something more believable. Sounds like a nasty piece of work.
You can sue anybody for anything in America. Doesn’t mean you won’t get laughed out of court.
The only thing this story didn’t touch on is if Lenin got the cash. Does he even know about this? The GoFundMe doesn’t seem to have any content from him.
if this yoga karen did hot yoga to sweat out toxicity she’d vanish. how on earth does she get to say namaste and get away with it. if there were a candidate for someone to force the entire population to do yoga over smart tvs in a parody of 1984 it would be this karen.
To add to this, under California common law, you have a proprietary interest in your own identity (ie, a property right). It is generally a violation of this right for someone to use your name, likeness, etc, without your consent for commercial purposes. (N.B. IANAL, but Midler v. Ford was the first case I briefed getting my paralegal certificate.)
Obviously doesn’t apply here because the information was disclosed by the plaintiff, and even then, the defendant didn’t in any way alter or mischaracterize the information, so there’s no false impression, let alone clear and convincing evidence of malice/negligence.