The Ohio Supreme Court Has Ruled 4-3 That Boneless Wings May Have Bones In Them

First of all before we begin with this atrocity of a story, let's address the atrocity that is the Wall Street Journal. Look I'm as pro-traditional chicken wing as you can be, but there's no need to throw the worst looking boneless wing on planet earth on your story. Show some respect to a still rather tasty food item. Again, I'm traditional 10 times out of 10, but let's stop fueling the narrative that boneless wings are only for women and/or gross. They're a completely different food item, but slather fried chicken with buffalo sauce and dip it in blue cheese and it's still tasty. So while the WSJ is already trying to set the narrative of what Ohio food looks like with a nasty photo, let's at least use something appealing like the finest boneless wings in the entire state.....Roosters:

Thank you. And if you say "those look like chicken tenders", that's cause they're huge. The best. Anyways, the way this story goes is that a guy swallowed something down the wrong pipe while eating an order of boneless wings (garlic parm, for reference) from a restaurant in Ohio. Didn't realize what it was, thinking it was just a piece of meat. Went to the restroom to try and puke, couldn't. Got sick the next couple days, running a fever. Couldn't eat. Finally went to the emergency room and found out it was a bone. He then sued the restaurant and supplier for having bones in their boneless wings, and the case made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Well the Supreme Court ruled 4-3 AGAINST the guy, ultimately determining that "boneless" is a way to cook the food, not a descriptor saying there won't be bones in it.

Folks, say it with me: WHAT THE FUCK? Boneless is a cooking style? I'm embarrassed to still have my license say I'm from the great state of Ohio after a ruling like this. Listen I'm not saying we give the guy 2 million dollars or anything if all he was in it for was the money, but this is a farce of a ruling. Sets a bad precedent for not just future rulings but our state's reputation. They need to take this one to the next level. I want the Chief Justices of all the land deciding this one. Because the fact of the matter is that boneless wings means that bones are not in the wings. What other way can it be interpreted?

What's next? Veggie pizza can have meat on it? Hamburgers can have cheese? (Have to insert one of my favorite Barstool videos of all time here)

But I guess Dave was wrong. You can't assume a hamburger won't have cheese! Just like you apparently can't assume a boneless wing won't have bones in it. Source: the Supreme Court