THIS IS AMERICA! PEOPLE IN AMERICA L-I-K-E PORK! IF YOU DON’T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PORK, GO BACK TO ARABIA!!!!!!

When was the last time a Jeiwsh Franchisee sued his corporate bosses because he had to sell pork??? Honestly, Muslims HAVE to be the world’s BIGGEST, STINKIN’ C-R-Y-B-A-B-I-E-S!!!!!!!! If you don’t want to sell pork at your restaurant, find another restaurant to franchise with…..or better yet, start your own chain. People will like you better if you be independent and not whine about how you have to sell something you disagree with!!! I disagree with selling tobacco and alcohol, which is why I found another job with a company I liked better than Seven-Eleven. Don’t whine, grow up, and find something that agrees more with your standards. Don’t belly-ache and whine, especially when you live in the USA, which is and has been the ultimate land of opportunity….

Who needs muslim donuts. What’s next? A muslim owned I-Hop or Cracker Barrel refusing to sell bacon, ham, pork steak, canadian bacon, or pork sausage for breakfeast. Give me a break. Muzzies should open their own halal donuts franchise. See if that flies outside New falljua.

America is not on trial here. We are the single most mixed, tolerant and peaceable nation on earth.

We are at war against sharia – or at least sharia imperialism.

So if we err on the side of caution and forbid one or another person to run some business by sharia rules, who gives a rat’s patootie?

Sharia is the enemy’s ruling philosophy. Get it?

America is not on trial.

America is at war!

…From the ABA (scroll about halfway down).

…And from “Decision of the Day”

Time will tell here.

but there is some precedence for business being required to treat customers fairly (in this case, the business is DD, the customer is Mr. Elkhatib).

Mr Elkhatib is NOT a customer. He is a prospective business partner. Big difference. He is petitioning for the right to continue to use DD’s intellectual property, brand, trademarks, trade dress, and marketing. Not everyone gets equal access to that.

I didn’t think anyone could throw Jim Crow into this discussion, but oh well! Off on tangents they go! “You know, the Nazi’s had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.”

I understand your example about health care, but in that instance, the employer is subsidizing the cost of that benefit to me, and thus has a stake in it from that perspective.

My example was not about the Cleveland JCC, but about a franchised business that deviates from established norm for that franchise, i.e. the Subway IN the Cleveland JCC.

[And if I understand you correctly, no, you cannot walk into any restaurant under orthodox Rabbinic supervision and get a ham sandwich.]

Glen Beck is famous for saying that some arbitrarily large number of Muslims in the US are decent and law-abiding people. These people Beck refers to would no sooner endorse Al Qaeda as they would illegal immigration, which we’ve previously lauded Dunkin Donuts for helping to dry up the demand for such laborors.

The fact that other restaurants don’t have to serve breakfast products is also irrelevant. If you take religion out of the equation, as you should, it stands to reason that DD has a business reason to require breakfast meats to be served at certain locations. Those requirements probably have to do with amount of space leased and the restrictions that are on that lease and are clearly spelled out in a contract.

Because of the nature of its business, Dunkin Donuts must capitalize on every franchise and every opportunity available. In the case of the lease and space restrictions, it is impossible, in a business sense, to increase revenue by adding breakfast meats. In the case of the muslim store owner, it is obviously possible to increase revenue and make that fanchise more profitable.

If this guy doesn’t want to sell meat, it is absolutely within his right not to do so, but that may mean giving up his franchise.

This is not a case of discrimination based on race or religion, it is a pure dollars and sense analysis that has everything to do with remaining competitive.

Dunkin Donuts’ primary responsiblility is to cater to the needs of their customers, then their stockholders, and lastly to their franchisees. It is not their job to cater to the religous views of select franchise owners if it makes bad business sense.

We need to stop putting up with these frivilous lawsuits!!!

Doesn’t seem to me he’s forcing his religion on anyone. He just seems to want to keep on doing what he’s been doing.

He may want to keep doing what he has been doing, but franchise contracts and master agreements are routinely renegotiated upon renewal. New terms and conditions may prompt either of the parties to decline to renew. Looks like DD wants to make sure that all the stores have the same product mix. Can’t blame them for that. From the perspective of a free-market capitalist, I’d say it’s time for this franchisee to move on.