Corporate religious discrimination

[john9001]

a small point, they are not revoking his franchise, they are not renewing it.

you really have to read the franchise agreement, i worked for a new car dealer that lost his franchise because he was involved in a shady real estate redevelopment that got him a federal indictment but no conviction.
he had to sell the dealership even before the trial took place.

[Elfie]

a small point, they are not revoking his franchise, they are not renewing it.

Agreed. Dunkin Donuts could have revoked his franchise immediately for not following his contract. Maybe Mr. Walid should just be thankful that they didn't.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Elfie


Bottom line is, if he is violating his franchise contract Dunkin Donuts has every right to revoke his franchise immediately.

Exactly. He can handle / offer Pork and abide by his contract... he's choosing not to... he calls that racial discrimination on Dunkn Doughnuts part?

I might buy the argument if he burst into flames after touching a BLT.

[dedalos]

Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288845,00.html

The Muslim owner of a Dunkin-Donuts has had his franchise revoked because he doesn't want to sell breakfast sandwiches with pork products (ham, bacon, etc).  As a corporation, Dunkin Donuts probably has the right to refuse to renew a franchise agreement for whatever reason, I imagine, but it sounds pretty scummy.

When I could eat donuts, I preferred Krispy Kreme, but I've heard that Dunkin Donuts has great coffee.

Its not about relegion.  Its about food and doing business.  If the DD business ofends him in any way he should get out of it. Asking DD to change their business for him is just abnoxious.  I'm sure he signed a contract with them.  It was ok then, but know his god has a problem with it? lol.  DD was there before him.  He should get in to a business that does not offend his relegion and leave the rest of us alone.

[Speed55]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
I might buy the argument if he burst into flames after touching a BLT.

Same here, otherwise it's time to find another job.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
They had specific reasons not related to supernatural opinion, cited in the article
were space issues and /  or lease restriction. Viable reasons to make exceptions.

This dude decided not to offer a franchise product based on his opinion.

If they allowed every franchise owner to decide what should and shouldn't be offered in their stores, nation wide menus would reflect the owners opinion, not the Dunkin Donuts brand... and lack the consistency customers come to expect.

The problem is the Franchise allowed this franchise owner to not sell all itmes on the menu for the last 20 years or so.  They are only enforcing the Franchise agreement now.   So it is selective enforcement.  They screwed up 20 years ago.

[Seagoon]

Hi Traveller,

Originally posted by Traveler
The problem is the Franchise allowed this franchise owner to not sell all itmes on the menu for the last 20 years or so.  They are only enforcing the Franchise agreement now.   So it is selective enforcement.  They screwed up 20 years ago.

Companies can and do change their policies and then enforce them at will all the time. Let's say Dunkin Donuts had started out with a Uniform that included a long sleeve shirt in 1979 and then in 1984 switched to a short-sleeve uniform. Let us then say that the Muslim owner following Sharia law objected to having his female employees uncover their arms and thus never switched to the short sleeve shirts. Now the company may have known about this and tolerated it, but if new management came in (as was the case with Dunkin) and decided that henceforth all franchises would strictly adhere to the uniform policy. They could then insist that the owner switch to short sleeve shirts regardless of the prior management policy. Now if a nearby Dunkin had employees with longsleeve shirts because of some sort of local ordinance, building code, health code, lease requirement  etc. then the company would have no ability to override the local restriction.

Interestingly enough, under the law the Muslim owner would have to show that the company allowed other franchise owners to keep longsleeved shirts and forced him to use the short-sleeved version because they were discriminating against him on the basis of his race. His religious scruples cannot be the basis of his current lawsuit.

Legally it's silliness in any event. If Dunkin had a uniform policy that their stores be open on Sunday, I couldn't simply opt to have mine closed on that day without being in breach of contract. A local law forbidding commerce on Sunday would be a different matter and something the company couldn't over-ride, but employee scruples cannot overide corporate policy at will. What if I had a religious objection to Caffeine and Sugar for instance?

- SEAGOON

[Chairboy]

Were the pork products even on the menu when he purchased his franchise?

A question I'd encourage folks to ask themselves: If he shared your religion and his objection was something that your religion proscribes, would you feel differently?  If he was catholic and Dunkin Donuts wanted him to sell apple fritter communion wafers as snacks, for instance, or bottled Holy water, or you were Mormon and they introduced products with caffeine after you started, or required the restaurant to stay open on a religious holiday, how would you feel about this objection?

But in the end, I feel the real issue here is the situation that small business owners can be in when in a franchise.  It reminds me of Home Owner associations, where you're paying for the privilege of losing control over your possessions.  While franchise restaurants have a statistically lower failure rate, my experience has shown that it's not a silver bullet, and there are many persuasive reasons _not_ to enter into a franchise, and control over your own menu is one of them.  I note that he wasn't trying to change any recipes, just that he didn't want to carry some items that he shouldn't have had to.  

I suspect their enforcement is somewhat selective because, as some of the posts here show, being Muslim is in itself a reasonable reason to disregard personal concerns.  The respect shown to folks of different beliefs is pretty low sometimes, and while it may be socially acceptable to classify Islamic food restrictions as "crazy" because they aren't yours, I'd hope that the small business aspect of this would overcome that.

1. He doesn't want to sell these products.
2. Other Dunkin' Donuts are allowed to not sell them.

Seems fine, and I'm suspicious about the motivations of the company that selectively enforces this rule.  How will you feel when it's another company that acts arbitrarily against your religion?

[eskimo2]

Isn’t there some amendment that requires the separation of church and donuts?

[Seagoon]

Chair,

I demonstrated above that corporations can and do discriminate against Christian believers all the time, in fact his own lawsuit demonstrates the difficulty of suing based on religious beliefs. I also gave examples where corporate accomodation of religious belief is difficult or impossible.

I also pointed out examples of Christians leaving their jobs or working harder rather than attempting to sue their employers on the basis of their race.

Look, you don't have a problem with McDonald's insisting that its franchises be open on Sunday or that they include beef in their burgers despite Hindu objections (and I might add that countless Dunkins are owned by practicing Hindus who serve meat despite their religious objections), I think here we are being asked to make an unreasonable accomodation precisely because he is a Muslim and we are becoming hypersensitive in the opposite direction. As the original court case pointed out - the Dunkin rule equally affects persons of Jewish faith.

Admittedly some people may object to the lawsuit because they don't like Muslims and are sick of playing appeasement with a religion that is officially at war with them (Quranically you live in the Dar-El-Harb literally the "nations of war"), but I think that a strong case can be made based on prior precedent and long established case law. Nobody else gets religious preferment from Dunkin.

- SEAGOON

[john9001]

they don't want him to eat the bacon , they just want him to sell it to the infidles.

[Gunthr]

i don't see religeon as the issue here.  to me this is strictly a contractual issue that a franchisee and franchisor enter into.  that makes it the purvue of civil law.

[Silat]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Most liberals fail to realize that any business transaction is freely made from both sides.   Each side, be it the business or the buyer has the choice of whether or not to go through with the transaction.

Most Liberals?? BS
Show me that stat will you?
I wont wait because you cant.

[Elfie]

But in the end, I feel the real issue here is the situation that small business owners can be in when in a franchise. It reminds me of Home Owner associations, where you're paying for the privilege of losing control over your possessions. While franchise restaurants have a statistically lower failure rate, my experience has shown that it's not a silver bullet, and there are many persuasive reasons _not_ to enter into a franchise, and control over your own menu is one of them. I note that he wasn't trying to change any recipes, just that he didn't want to carry some items that he shouldn't have had to.

That's the thing about being a Franchise owner. You agree to sell their products and pay them a franchise fee (usually 4%). What you don't get to do is pick and choose which of their products you wish to sell. Franchises are not independent businesses in the strictest sense. Corporate representatives can and do come in to inspect the business to be sure you are following the guidelines for your particular franchise. If you are found to not be following the guidelines for your franchise, your franchise CAN be revoked or simply not renewed.

Religion or Race makes no difference in that matter. It's just part of being a franchise owner.

[Chairboy]

A note, Elfie, is that I've actually owned two franchise restaurants, so this is an area with which I have personal experience.  With the franchises I have experience with, the only time there was real pressure to keep a product on the menu was when it was being rolled out.

Seeing as how these sandwiches were rolled out in the 80s, that doesn't seem to be the issue here.  Also, you may have missed that many other Dunkin' Donuts in his district are allowed to not serve these sandwiches, so I suspect that's not the crux of the matter.

The big no-nos in a franchise are:
1. Changing the look of the stores.  Consistent branding is the target.
2. Using the logo improperly.  See #1.
3. Changing ingredients.  People are expecting things to taste the same.