Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on July 11, 2007, 09:53:33 AM
-
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.
-
I wonder if Jewish owners have run into the same problem.
-
He does not support their product, so why should they support him?
Jihad Coffee & Donuts sounds like a nice name for a new company.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
He does not support their product, so why should they support him?
Well, he pays franchise fees, presumably, and he sells donuts and coffee and whatnot. He's a small business owner that chooses not to sell these pork sandwiches which are a small part of the menu, which seems like a reasonable decision.
I used to own two franchise restaurants, and there's always pressure to add new products from corporate without regard to whether they'll sell, so while the issues I had are different in specific from him, perhaps I'm more sympathetic to the idea that as the owner of his business, he should be able to choose not to sell those products. It's his money on the line, not to mention his soul in his mind.
-
Or...maybe he should have read the franchise agreement.
-
He'll get away with it because he is Muslim.
-
Dunkin-Donuts screwed up when they required the items in the franchise agreement, but didn't enforce it. Now they want to enforce it selectively.
==========================
"In an opinion Tuesday, U.S. Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner wrote that because three other Dunkin' Donuts franchisees in the area were allowed to continue operating without selling breakfast sandwiches for reasons other than the owners' religious views such as space or lease restrictions, that there was sufficient evidence to take the suit to trial."
-
Yeah but the whole point of franchises is that the customer expects the same food/quality at any of the locations.
-
Well, he pays franchise fees, presumably, and he sells donuts and coffee and whatnot. He's a small business owner that chooses not to sell these pork sandwiches which are a small part of the menu, which seems like a reasonable decision
If he is violating the franchise agreement, they have every right to revoke his franchise.
I used to deliver pizzas as a part time job. One store that I drove for (the name of that now defunct chain escapes me atm), the franchise owners also owned a store that sold Mexican food. It just so happened that both stores were right next to each other. The pizza store was having it's drivers deliver the Mexican food also. The pizza corporation immediately revoked the franchise as soon as they found out.
It was rumored that a disgruntled driver placed a phone call to corporate headquarters but I never heard if that was actually true or not.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Yeah but the whole point of franchises is that the customer expects the same food/quality at any of the locations.
Good point. If I go to a Wendy's......ANY Wendy's, I can expect to see the exact same menu at all of them.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Dunkin-Donuts screwed up when they required the items in the franchise agreement, but didn't enforce it. Now they want to enforce it selectively.
==========================
"In an opinion Tuesday, U.S. Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner wrote that because three other Dunkin' Donuts franchisees in the area were allowed to continue operating without selling breakfast sandwiches for reasons other than the owners' religious views such as space or lease restrictions, that there was sufficient evidence to take the suit to trial."
Do you have a link for that?
The part of the article you quoted makes it sound like there were viable reasons the other stores didn't have the breakfast sandwiches.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Good point. If I go to a Wendy's......ANY Wendy's, I can expect to see the exact same menu at all of them.
But you won't. The big fast food chains all have a "core" menu that all restaurants must carry. Other items are optional.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
But you won't. The big fast food chains all have a "core" menu that all restaurants must carry. Other items are optional.
For the most part you do see the same menu. There are *regional* items though. Here in the Denver area I have yet to see any of the various fast food restaurants menu's vary. If I went to say Kansas City, yes there would be some variation. McDonald's McRib sandwich was originally a regional item for example.
-
Jackal: He's been a franchisee for over 20 years without this being an issue, it's only now becoming a problem.
Here's a real world example: Pizza Hut has a Taco Pizza, but not all Pizza Huts offer it. I'd think that the same discretion they exercise should be available to this small business owner. As long as the food he DOES serve meets the franchise requirements, I see no conflict, plus the fact that there are many Dunkin Donuts (three in his area alone) that don't serve these sandwiches, the argument that they are a 'Core item' doesn't seem to hold up.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Jackal: He's been a franchisee for over 20 years without this being an issue, it's only now becoming a problem.
Here's a real world example: Pizza Hut has a Taco Pizza, but not all Pizza Huts offer it. I'd think that the same discretion they exercise should be available to this small business owner. As long as the food he DOES serve meets the franchise requirements, I see no conflict, plus the fact that there are many Dunkin Donuts (three in his area alone) that don't serve these sandwiches, the argument that they are a 'Core item' doesn't seem to hold up.
So.......you are saying race discrimination, right?
-
Here's a real world example: Pizza Hut has a Taco Pizza, but not all Pizza Huts offer it.
That would be an example of an optional item would it not?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
So.......you are saying race discrimination, right?
Is there a gas leak in here? No, because religion ain't a race as far as I know. He's objecting on religious grounds. This isn't a first amendment issue because Dunkin Donuts isn't the government (yet), it's a small business issue. As far as I can tell, they (as a corporation) are probably entitled to set this restriction legally, I just think it's dirty pool.
-
OK,
I do think it is getting a bit out of hand and yes it is discrimination at a personnel level. Not the corporate level. Some guy at there HQ does not like this guy (or Muslims). He really could have let it slide, a bisket please.
We see it in the news, but we forget. I remember the Walgreen’s pharmacist refusing to sell the morning after pill. I don't recall Walgreen’s pulling there franchise.
Is it as simple as discrimination? There is nothing simple about discrimination. We all do it, we all see it everyday. Can we stop it? NO we are not smart enough as a people yet (Human race that is).
But there is always hope.
Phaser
-
Originally posted by Elfie
RE: Taco pizza
That would be an example of an optional item would it not?
The fact that three other Dunkin Donuts in his district also don't serve these sandwiches and remain sanction free suggests that they too must be optional, doesn't it?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The fact that three other Dunkin Donuts in his district also don't serve these sandwiches and remain sanction free suggests that they too must be optional, doesn't it?
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.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Is there a gas leak in here? No, because religion ain't a race as far as I know. He's objecting on religious grounds.
So.........religious discrimination .
Got it.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, he pays franchise fees, presumably, and he sells donuts and coffee and whatnot. He's a small business owner that chooses not to sell these pork sandwiches which are a small part of the menu, which seems like a reasonable decision.
I used to own two franchise restaurants, and there's always pressure to add new products from corporate without regard to whether they'll sell, so while the issues I had are different in specific from him, perhaps I'm more sympathetic to the idea that as the owner of his business, he should be able to choose not to sell those products. It's his money on the line, not to mention his soul in his mind.
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.
-
Could you clarify how this applies to this issue, Lasersailor? I'm afraid I don't see the connection, and my ego hopes I'm not the only one too dense to get it.
-
There really wasn't much to the statement.
For any transaction to take place, both parties have to be willing. The muslim owner stated that he wasn't willing to abide by the agreements of the transaction, and Dunkin Donuts then terminated the transaction. It's not rocket science here...
-
""Elkhatib sued Dunkin' Donuts and its former parent company, Allied Domecq, later that year, claiming that the chain's refusal to renew his franchises constituted racial discrimination.""
he is suing based on racial discrimination. it says so right there.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The fact that three other Dunkin Donuts in his district also don't serve these sandwiches and remain sanction free suggests that they too must be optional, doesn't it?
Maybe, maybe not. Two of the stores would have to relocate in order to offer the sandwiches. That might not be feasible from a financial standpoint. The costs of moving and leasing a new place could be cost prohibitive. The third *could* offer them by simply rearranging the displays. (Thats what the article you linked to said.) It also might not be in their franchise contracts for various reasons.
Bottom line is, if he is violating his franchise contract Dunkin Donuts has every right to revoke his franchise immediately.
It could also be that he is one of those people that is a royal pain the the butt to deal with and Dunkin Donuts is just using this as an excuse to get rid of him.
-
It could also be that he is one of those people that is a royal pain the the butt to deal with and Dunkin Donuts is just using this as an excuse to get rid of him.
Some how I do not find that hard to believe.
-
Hi Chair,
Interesting case - incidentally, the owner is actually suing on the basis of racial discrimination not religious discrimination as employment law tends to be very tight on not discriminating on the basis of race but with few restrictions regarding discrimination on the basis of religion. Here is part of the ABA's summary of the case:
Recent cases reflect the difficulty some companies have had in integrating Muslim workers and others into their workplace or business. For example, in August 2002, Walid Elkhatib opened a letter from the general counsel of Dunkin’ Donuts informing him that the company would not be renewing his franchise agreement. Elkhatib, whose Muslim faith forbids him from handling pork, had refused to sell the company’s new line of breakfast sandwiches at any of his three restaurants. When the time came for Elkhatib to renew his franchise, the company declined his application, citing his refusal to sell the full line of products. Not fitting the template for an employment discrimination case reachable under Title VII, Elkhatib invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which bars racial and certain forms of ancestry discrimination in the making of contracts. The federal court ultimately rejected Elkhatib’s claim, finding that it was a religious rather than a racial claim (hence not reachable under section 1981), and that the Dunkin’ Donuts rule affected religions such as Islam and Judaism equally. Elkhatib v. Dunkin’Donuts, Inc., No. 02 C 8131, 2004 WL 2600119 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2004).
The fact is many businesses routinely make decisions that interfere with an employees free exercise of their religion. For instance, when the local Goodyear plant in our area recently insisted that one of our congregants switch over to working on Sunday, he found that he had no legal protections against the move despite the fact that as a church we are strongly opposed to non-essential work on the Lord's Day (for a brief round-up of why this is the case please click here (http://www.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/5407173839.pdf)). I know of another Christian who ended up selling his franchises over the parent company's insistence that he carry pornographic magazines. The fact is that in the United States, when it comes to matters of religion, the balance of power is definitely with the employer not the employee. Many of our congregants have had to accept this and turn down jobs or work extra hard because of this, and I've had to deal with absurd religious discrimination in the workplace myself. As Christians we should be willing to accept this as part of the price of following Christ.
Personally, while I sympathize with Walid's desire not to go against conscience (even though I obviously don't agree with Muslim dietary restriction), I find his legal appeal to his race as the basis for the discrimination he is encountering to be lame, frankly. If the Kuffar's insist on him selling pork in order to be part of his chain, he should be willing to leave the franchise and pay the price of his conviction. I can't count the number of Christian friends I have who've had to do essentially that including one concert pianist who has turned down world tours because the contract stipulated Sunday performances.
While I believe in the principle of reasonable accomodation, I accept that there is simply no way every company can accomodate every religious belief. A western modeling agency, for instance, is not going to be able to accomodate the Muslim requirement that women wear the Hijab. An Automaker is not going to be able to accomodate Amish employees on the assembly line, and so on.
Unfortunately, since societally we are becoming increasingly balkanized and have abandoned the ability to discriminate between truth claims, I think we are going to see more rather than less of these lawsuits.
- SEAGOON
-
Personally, while I sympathize with Walid's desire not to go against conscience (even though I obviously don't agree with Muslim dietary restriction), I find his legal appeal to his race[/i] as the basis for the discrimination he is encountering to be lame, frankly. If the Kuffar's insist on him selling pork in order to be part of his chain, he should be willing to leave the franchise and pay the price of his conviction.
Well said.
For Mr. Walid this is a religious issue but he is suing for racial discrimination. It's not an Arab issue with not handling pork, it's a Muslim issue...ie...his religious views. I think Dunkin Donuts will ultimately win this one.
*edit*
Here's another thought. He is the owner, why can't he just let his employees handle the pork? Unless of course all of his employees are also Muslim. ;)
-
WTF is this coming to? It's NOT Muslim Correct?
It's NOT Islamic Correct?
Screw them all... Make them all frikken Martyrs and let them deal with 70 dam virgins in the same kitchen.
My Sister-in-Law married a Bangledesh Camel Boy and now wears a Burka, prays 5 times a day facing Mecca... He was stupid enough to celebrate 9/11 at my Brother in Laws home in Korea and got his arse properly beat down. That opened and closed his both his eyes.
They now live in CanaDuh and if that SOB ever crosses the Northern Border I'll take him out.... and buy him some BBQ pork.
A frikken Burka and a Koran don't make you any more religious than the Bear and the Pope.
I'm just so frikken tired of the Liberals stand at appeasing hand over foot the Muslims and the Islamic extremist, it makes me want to puke.
Mac
ask me how I really feel.
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
Isn’t there some amendment that requires the separation of church and donuts?
-
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
-
they don't want him to eat the bacon , they just want him to sell it to the infidles.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Most Liberals?? BS
Show me that stat will you?
I wont wait because you cant.
Most of you are liberals. You just fail to realize it.
-
We take every dam B52 in America, pay the Farmers per pound of their Pigs reasonably and load every screaming hog.
One dammm pass over Tehran and frikken Baghdad add Damascus if you will and drop thousands of screaming American Pork on these bassturds and send them all to Hell.
Then invite all the infidels to a BBQ.
Mac
Ask me how I REALLY feel....
-
Originally posted by 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.
3 other stores in his area does not qualify as *many*. The other stores also have lease/space issues that are viable reasons for not carrying the sandwiches. A fact that has been pointed out that you continue to ignore.
I have worked for franchises in the past, quite a few in fact.
-
AWMac:aok
-
Heres what the wiki says:
Qur'anic injunctions against pig consumption
One example of verses from the Qur'an on pig consumption:
Qur'an 16:115.
He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Muslims consider the eating of pork to be forbidden, with a limited exception to avoid starvation. The Islamic taboo tends to come under scrutiny in places where it is not common, especially when it interferes with those who are unaware or do not follow it. In many cases, the prohibition is extended from consumption to the handling of pork products, creating issues in grocery, shipping, and restaurant environments.
Sounds like pork 'handling' might not be that bad a thing.
Chairboy, the other restaurants may have had legitimate contraints on what they could offer (ie storage and preparation facilities). Whereas this guys only objection is his religion beliefs. It starts with pork, then where does it end? Does he start refusing to employ females? Does he refuse to serve unaccompanied females? etc and so on.
As seagoon has pointed out if his convictions are so that he feels he cannot comply with the franchise agreement it is time for him to move on. That is his choice.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
We take every dam B52 in America, pay the Farmers per pound of their Pigs reasonably and load every screaming hog.
One dammm pass over Tehran and frikken Baghdad add Damascus if you will and drop thousands of screaming American Pork on these bassturds and send them all to Hell.
Then invite all the infidels to a BBQ.
Mac
Ask me how I REALLY feel....
Add beer and it`s on for Saturday. :D