Muslim Dunkin’ Donuts owner sues over pork
A discrimination lawsuit filed by a Muslim Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee who was not allowed to renew his contract with the chain because of a refusal to sell pork products can proceed, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The decision reversed an Illinois federal court judge’s 2004 ruling that rejected Walid Elkhatib’s argument that Dunkin’ Donuts discriminated against him based on his race by making the sale of breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage a mandatory part of his franchise agreement.
According to court papers, Elkhatib, a Palestinian Arab, has been a Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee since 1979, before the company began selling any pork.
Once breakfast sandwiches were introduced in 1984, Elkhatib’s Chicago-area Dunkin’ Donuts outlets sold them without bacon, ham or sausage for nearly 20 years. The company did not object, even providing him with a sign that said “Meat Products Not Available.”
In 2002, however, Elkhatib was told he would not be able to relocate a store or renew his franchisee agreements due to his failure to carry the full product line.
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.
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.
Walter Olson and his legal eagle commenters at Overlawyered take a closer look at the suit. A sample:
I’m not really commenting on the case overall, just the argument that because he was allowed to avoid serving pork in the past, that he should be treated the same now.
I find the argument ludicrous. The donut business is hitting hard times, people are not buying and eating donuts like they used to. Heck, even the mighty Krispy Kreme is having major problems.
To solve this downturn the donut business has been diversifying, e.g., selling iced coffees, bagels, sandwiches and soups.
Businesses do not operate in a fixed time. They have to be free to adapt to changing situations. To freeze a business in time makes absolutely no sense.
Posted by: Ima Fish | July 11, 2007 01:08 PM
I’m a bit confused by some of this legal discussion. As I understand the article, the current contract has run out and they needed t enter into a new one. DD felt that the previous allowance that they made to permit the exclusion of pork was no longer a profitable one for them to make.
I don’t know how long these franchise contracts run but DD has certainly stepped up the marketing of their non-pastry product since 2000. Is there evidence that they have since allowed this for other franchises where space was not a consideration?
If not, then it seems that the case is being made that you cannot change your mind about making an accommodation. This will certainly produce the result that far fewer will be made in the first place.
Posted by: OBQuiet | July 11, 2007 01:19 PM
But nevertheless, the pork is in the contract. While DD might have allowed this franchise to escape meeting its duty at some point in time, it does not mean that DD must allow this franchise to fail to meet contractual obligation for all time.
If we interpret contracts so strictly, that any deviation of the terms automatically and forever becomes new terms, then like other ‘zero tollerance’ policies, contracts will be enforced with an iron fist even if it is bad business for both parties, lest a new contract is written for them by the courts.
Getting away with violation of contract terms shouldn’t permit one to the right to get away with the same in perpetuity.
Posted by: nevins | July 11, 2007 01:32 PM
This commenter looks at the bigger picture:
I’ve been a student of Islam for some years now, and I’ve never understood the prohibition on eating pig products to extend to selling them. Handling them, yes, but contributing to others handling them, no.
He may have a right to sue, but this is an example of the creeping extremization of Islamic Law. It’s not like the pharmacists not wanting to sell plan B, where they could reasonably argue they’d be abetting a mortal sin if they did so. This is abetting nonbelievers doing something that’s not a sin by virtue of their being nonbelievers.
Posted by: jb | July 11, 2007 08:38 AM
***
This has nothing to do with the Dunkin Donuts lawsuit, but it’s food-related, so I’m tacking it on: The WSJ reports that the co-founder of Whole Foods Market used a sock puppet to diss his main competitor and tout his good looks:
In January 2005, someone using the name “Rahodeb” went online to a Yahoo stock-market forum and posted this opinion: No company would want to buy Wild Oats Markets Inc., a natural-foods grocer, at its price then of about $8 a share.
“Would Whole Foods buy OATS?” Rahodeb asked, using Wild Oats’ stock symbol. “Almost surely not at current prices. What would they gain? OATS locations are too small.” Rahodeb speculated that Wild Oats eventually would be sold after sliding into bankruptcy or when its stock fell below $5. A month later, Rahodeb wrote that Wild Oats management “clearly doesn’t know what it is doing …. OATS has no value and no future.”
The comments were typical of banter on Internet message boards for stocks, but the writer’s identity was anything but. Rahodeb was an online pseudonym of John Mackey, co-founder and chief executive of Whole Foods Market Inc. Earlier this year, his company agreed to buy Wild Oats for $565 million, or $18.50 a share.
[John Mackey]For about eight years until last August, the company confirms, Mr. Mackey posted numerous messages on Yahoo Finance stock forums as Rahodeb. It’s an anagram of Deborah, Mr. Mackey’s wife’s name. Rahodeb cheered Whole Foods’ financial results, trumpeted his gains on the stock and bashed Wild Oats. Rahodeb even defended Mr. Mackey’s haircut when another user poked fun at a photo in the annual report. “I like Mackey’s haircut,” Rahodeb said. “I think he looks cute!”
The NYTimes found this gem:
As one might expect, Yahoo’s message boards erupted with chatter about Mr. Mackey’s secret identity.
“In light of this news, perhaps the name of the company should be changed to Whole Foods Bazaar,” JimTarHeel wrote. “What a hoot! It’s so Nixonion! Maybe he needs some animal fat in his diet. I’ve known vegans who suffered from teeth and gum disease; now we know a vegan who’s suffering from ‘foot-in-mouth’ disease.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Overlawyered
- Does Dunkin’ Donuts Discriminate Against Muslim Franchisees?
- Does Dunkin’ Donuts Discriminate Against Muslim Franchisees? at PIGASYS
- Channel BF » Blog Archive » Does Dunkin’ Donuts Discriminate Against Muslim Franchisees?
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Dunkin Donuts, Sharia
Patterico
» The Newest Senators
JustOneMinute
» Susan Rice To The United NationsBelmont Club
» Good enoughGateway Pundit
» Change... Obama Continues Boycott of FOX NewsBelmont Club
» Crusader RabbitRight Wing Nut House
» THE INCREDIBLY STUPID THOUGHTS OF DEEPAK CHOPRANewsBusters.org
» Name That Party: Democratic Birmingham Mayor ArrestedNewsBusters.org
» MSM Ignore India's Strict Gun Control LawsWeekly Standard
» Canada Plans to Save the Big 3, TooTigerHawk
» Blame America firstDavid Frum
» Will the Harper government collapse?
Pork, its whats for breakfast!
I can see both sides of this argument.
On the one hand, Dunkin Donuts has a company policy to sell pork products at their stores. They have a right to enforce this policy. However, since they have made an exception in this case, I wonder if it’s right to allow them to reverse this decision. If this is just a case of a corporation trying to force him out so they can sell the franchise to someone who will sell pork, then he’s being unfairly treated.
I know we don’t have all the facts. Myself, I enjoy a good pork tenderloin and biscuit once in a while. With a sign out front stating that no meat products are sold there, I wouldn’t be stopping there to look for one.
Am I the only one who noticed that?
(I doubt it.)
Why are US judges doing whatever they can to help muslims to achieve their final goal of sharia law ? They will become unemployed in an instant if they are permitted to live.
If our constitution is allowing muslims to work the system then it is time for an amendment .
Our culture offends you . Your entire cult offends me. You cannot touch pork but you can have sex with a 9 year old girl , beat your women , and behead someone who does not agree with you. You think the desert is hot wait until you get to hell.
When I think Dunkin Donuts I think *drumroll* Donuts - not Pork items. As long as the guy doesn’t hire illegal aliens I say let him sell what he wants. If he loses money (and subsequently his franchise) that’s on him.
However, the second he stops selling to “infidel” women who are dressed “inappropriately” then we have a problem (unless he’s a part-time airport cab driver).
This is America. If he doesn’t like the Dunkin Donuts deal, why doesn’t he open his own donut shop and make a killing himself.
Maybe he could open a restaurant based solely on the Muslim diet?
By the way, did anyone explain to this owner that the LARD used in making the donuts is also made of pork?
Since when does the supreme court rule on contractual disputes? The contract says sell pork…where’s the confusion?
And how long before this moron decides to close down shop for Ramadan (month of fasting), refuse to serve women who don’t sport the hijab or persons with guide dogs, and demand his own personal foot-washing station?
This Muslim lunatic, sharia loving, proto-terrorist should be counter sued to the point he wishes he were a Korean Dry Cleaner in Washington DC.
I’d laugh myself silly if a business (especially a “restaurant”) shut down for an entire month and expected to stay in business.
“Wow, we didn’t do too hot this year.”
“Ya, maybe because we closed for an entire freakin’ month you idiot!”
So, by this same logic, if other Dunkin’ Donuts franchises in the area are required to continue selling breakfast sandwiches (with pork products) while this ones does not we could conceivable claim that they are in fact the true victims of the double standard? Rediculous.
Furthermore, reasons such as space and lease considerations that prevent such sales hardly compare to a refusal to sell a products as required by contract. Why are US Appelate judges allowing this proprietor to abuse our system of law by claiming descrimination in a situation without obvious merit?
This is just another example of Muslims attempting to force their religion into yet another part of our country. When you own a franchise, you abide by the rules. If you don’t like it, get out. It’s as simple as that.
I am at a loss to understand the appeasement being used to Muslim threats, whining and lawsuits. It’s the 1930’s all over again, and people still don’t understand that appeasement doesn’t work. Where is the ACLU? If this were a Christian issue, there wouldn’t be any question about how this would end up. Of course, Christians aren’t beheading anyone, so I guess that’s what’s making people scared. Rather than stand up for what is right, appease. What utter BS.
Where’s that store again? I’m moving in next door and taking all the business. It’s a can’t miss business deal to teach a little free market capitalism.
Reading this made me realize that a business ran by a truly devout Muslim (no pork, alcohol, infidel women, dirty feet, etc) would get spanked in a head-to-head competition against a red-blooded, American ran capitalist business.
If this adherent of the Religion of Peace can’t deal with handling pork, he ought to work out an arrangement with Hebrew National to sell hot dogs.
Contracts are at the whim of the author of the contract. If the contract says sell pork or do something else, that’s what you have to do.
I’ve run into all sorts of contract issues where something I’ve been doing before was no longer allowed (on my website). It happens about every 2 months where they ban something I’m doing that was legal.
If I complain even the slightest bit, they say, well just don’t sell our stuff anymore with your website cause we won’t pay you unless you comply with the NEW contract.
The muslim won’t win this case. The court of appeals just said the case could proceed because the other 2 stores didn’t sell the products. But it sounded like they didn’t sell the products because they didn’t have enough space so it was impossible and not a choice.
All these demands and bullying started right after 9/11. What the h*ll is wrong with us when we give in? They killed THREE THOUSAND innocent Americans. Where is our backbone?
Ease up. The guy’s an American franchisee, not a slave. He has invested his own capital, and assumed all the risk. Dunkin Donuts gets paid for the use of their brand name, very limited national advertising, some propietary recipes and business guidelines. They do not financially subsidize “their” shops. In comparison, McDonald’s allows owner/operators to customize their menus for foreign and even special domestic markets. Here in Hawaii, spam is prominently featured, along with taro pies. This man has proven himself as a good businessman since 1979. If he chooses to sacrifice some sales in consideration of his religious beliefs, or even mere eccentricty, the market alone should decide whether or not he will continue.
I’m no friend of the ROP.
Here in Los Angeles a kosher SUBWAY is preparing to open and it will not serve cheese and it will be closed on the Jewish sabbath and holidays and most definitely during Passover. I’m looking forward to it.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s an issue between franchise and franchisee to be addressed at the inception of the agreement.
I don’t know about Sharia, but there is Jewish law prohibiting benefit from even selling mixtures of meat and cheese, though no prohibition in acting as a cashier in someone else’s business ringing up such items. A bit of trivia… if an observant Jew had utensils designated for pork, he could even cook it for Michelle. Though not a cheeseburger. Jewish law doesn’t proscribe pork for non-Jews. In fact, pork is fine for Jews for everything BUT eating. I can play football with a pigskin. I can even repel potential bombers by putting cannisters of lard on Jerusalem buses:
No doubt, the terms of the franchise (like with the Nathan’s down the street from the future SUBWAY) are that the status quo at the time of the original franchise agreement will be maintained.
I don’t empathize with the ROP much, but this time I do.
On the other hand, if the franchisee breaks laws and prohibits seeing eye dogs or customers carrying shopping bags containing closed and sealed bottles of booze, to hell with the intolerant storeowner… and quickly.
Palani, then let him open one in Kalihi without the Spam. lol
The courts are infested with traitors.
The idiot is bringing a discrimination suit!
The truth is exactly the opposite — to wit, he demands to be discriminated for.
The Dunkin’ Donuts company wants uniformity among their franchisees.
He wants a special exception made for him because he is a mohammedan.
========
This is precisely the opposite of what the discrimination laws are intended to protect against.
=========
Ultimately this is just another probe of our defenses, our legal defenses in this case.
It’s a lot like the flying imams.
========
I don’t go to Dunkin’ Donuts much, but if Dunkin’ Donuts stands up for themselves I’ll start making a point of going there periodically for a bacon-and-eggs or a ham sandwich.
Great..now I am hungry.
I’m going to side with the Muslim franchisee on this one. Jews also don’t eat pork. The neighborhood of Midwood, Brooklyn is a heavily Modern Orthodox Jewish (non-Hasidim) neighborhood. It has a kosher Dunkin Donuts; thus does not sell bacon products. I don’t see why they can’t also accomodate this entrepreneur.
Let the market decide. Give him the pork-free restaurant. If business succeeds despite the lack of pork, everyone wins. If the business fails because of this, the owner will sell the business to someone else who will serve pork.
As a Jewish person, my religion also forbids eating pork. However, after consulting with various Orthodox Rabbis, selling the product to non-Jews is fine because nothing in Judaism prevents Christians or other non-Jews from eating pork. In other words, we do not inflict our religion on everybody else.
Also, bomb sniffing pigs in Israel are equally if not more effective than dogs in rooting out potential homicide bombers. So Jews can purchase these pigs provided they do not eat them, which means somebody, including Jews, can sell the pigs as well.
If the Caliphate extends to Dunkin Donuts, I will take my business to their competitors.
eric
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/jews-bacon-and-the-war-on-terror/
The people selling the franchise have the right to insist on whatever terms they wish to sell it under.
It’s their property to sell or not, if, how and when they please.
If they think the market wants bacon, and they want their franchisees to cater to that market, it’s their right to put that in a contract. Period.
If they gauge the market wrong, it’s the Dunkin Donuts name that suffers.
If the idiot doesn’t like the terms he’s offered, and he hasn’t got the juice to negotiate more palatable terms, tough!
Let him go open some other sort of business.
============
This is an attempt to force Dunkin Donuts (the owners of the property for sale) to sell franchises under terms they don’t want to enter into.
More specifically, sharia terms.
DaleC; Loved your comment!
I feel as if we are living in a Twilight Zone…….this IS the USA, isn’t it?
Seems the Muslims and illegals have become the new earmark of what it is to be an “American Citizen” with all the rights and privileges.
Guess the rest of us are the outsiders looking in.
As several people have already noted, Halacha (Jewish lew) prohibits the consumption of pork products. Here in Washington DC, there are three Dunkin Donuts that are supervised by the Capital Area Rabbinic Council, as well as three Krispy Kreme under similar supervision. None of these venues sell ANY meat products (let alone pork) because of halachic consideration, and they succeed because they are able to appeal to a niche market that other venues cannot compete in.
Recently, the Dunkin’ Donuts at Cabin John Mall here in DC gave up it’s certification, so that it could sell breakfast sandwiches with pork sausage, allegedly to boost profitability through a more diverse menu. Maybe they will, maybe they wont, but what will definitely happen is that they will loose a substantial customer base, as they are located smack in the middle of one of DC’s Orthodox Jewish communities, in this case of (I’m guessing) 750 families, give or take. [There are three synagogues within walking distance of Cabin John Mall, one of about 350 families and two of about 150 families each if my understanding is correct.]
I’m with the franchise owner here. If he were to EXPAND his menu offerings without the franchiser’s consent, he would be risking the value of the brand through quality controls that are outside of the franchiser’s control. What is happening here is he is REDUCING his menu offerings, which cannot increase risk to the brand. Just doesn’t work that way. In doing so, he is striving to compete in a niche market. And the problem with this is?
I understand Dunkin Donuts position, but my belief is this is an instance of “Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you are right to do it”. It’s not arranged marriages, repression of women, insistance on beards folks. It’s a jelly doughnut. And it’s cooked in something a damn sight healthier then lard…
Wow!
There seems to be a bunch of people willing to accept Sharia, as long as it makes good business sense.
Now I’m getting nervous.
I’m confused: Islam is a race? I thought it was a religion. Is the judge incompetent or just a poor communicator? Do Christians who consider drinking prohibited get to own a liquor store franchise or do they FIND SOME OTHER BUSINESS?
They have to be very careful on the decision of this case as it would be setting a huge precedent.
If he wins his suit, then pharmacy employees can refuse to sell contraceptives, and then again so could pharmacy franchises owned by people whose religious views oppose certain medications.
Wasn’t there a big hoopla some months back about WalMart and contraceptives? And about a specific employee not wanting to sell them somewhere, Target maybe?
I am waiting for all the big drug companies next innovation for Americans … it will be the follow on to Viagra, Levitra and Cialis … it will act on a totally different part of the human anatomy … THE BACKBONE … symptoms of this affliction are a marked jaundice of the spinal column, a penchant for adherence to liberal PC speech, and a total lack of good old common sense … unfortunately there is no 100% cure and it requires repeated treatment to prevent its recurrence …
There’s a locally famous restaurant, Ben’s Chilli Bowl, in DC. It is owned and operated by a Muslim and he sells pork products.
I suppose the point is, there is no hard and fast rule, and that there is room for the franchisee to maneuver within his faith to satisfy his contractual obligations.
Whether he’s muslim or not, this to me is the kicker. All of a sudden after 20 years they decide to kick him to the curb. 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.
If they were Christians, they would still lose in court.
Seems to me, if po’ Walid doesn’t want to sell pork products, he should sell his franchise, and open up his own donut shop, where he can sell anything he wants.
Question:
If a muslim owns a franchise pharmacy, such as Walgren’s, can he refuse to sell insulin - a pork product?
About the ONLY good thing that could come from this possibile eventuality is that Nancy Pelosi would have to cover her face…
Dunkin donuts is right on this. Walid can go and open up his own donut shop. He should not try to impose his culture on every body eles. Americans will be making a mistake if they pander to sharia.
Sure, it’s likely, as this whole issue is about culture and religion - NOT RACE- and the goal is to eventually make America an Islamic caliphite.
Just take a look at how schools nationwide are bending over backwards to accomodate the growing influx of muslim students’ religious and cultural needs.
Regretably, the muslims have many allies in goverment and the courts all too willing to assist them in subverting our judeo-christian heritage.
What gets me is that other franchisees are allowed to exist that don’t have to carry the product line at all.
When my parents owned a Dunkin Donuts (back in 1980ish) they had a oven and so carried the muffin products that DD had introduced then. Other stores did not have ovens for various reasons and thus did not carry them.
But when we got inspected (which is a competition between all the stores in the region), the other stores lack was not considered against them, although any problems we might have had with ours was a strike against us in the competition - unlevel playing ground as it were.
Personally I think that DD has created a grandfather situation here with this franchisee and should simply continue it - otherwise it’s going to cost everyone money and only the lawyers will win.
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.
Hey…I got an idea….he could break away from Dunkin Doughnuts and rename his store Dawah Doughnuts….then maybe he could franchise to other interested moooooooooslims….IF YOU DON’T WANT TO FOLLOW THE FRANCHISES RULES, THEN BREAK AWAY. What if his store installed foot baths!, you want to get a doughnut and coffee at 5 a.m. with dirty feet being washed 2 feet away!?…when does it end…this is AMERICA, not some Islamic nation. Serve the pork! just don’t eat it…
The fact that this guy has not been serving pork products for 20 years is irrelevant. If his contract expired with DD, he must negotiate a new one.
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!!!
Hang on a moment here — how does Mr. Elkhatib’s position constitute “forcing his culture on everyone else”? He wants to continue the position his store has been in for some years now. Has Dunkin Donuts been damaged by Mr. Elkhatib’s reduced stock? The Jewish Community Center in Cleveland, OH has a completely kosher Subway on premises, including a hand-washing station. Are you suggesting they are going to impose Rabbinic law on the United States?
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.
BOFH….it’s not a matter length of the time he has been doing something, which may or may not be detrimental to DD. They have rules, and are enforcing them, now. If my company changes my health plan, what do I do? I change my health plan,or quit. Same thing here…and what the hell does a Jewish Community Center have to do with this?…that just means the meat is handled in a certain way and blessed by Rabbis, you can still get a ham sandwhich…is this DD in a Muslim community center?..no, then they serve the general community and should be held up to the DD franchise rules..or lose the franchise..
I certainly understand DD has rules. 50 years ago the rules in this country allowed for one set of facilities for Caucasians, and one set for African-Americans. These rules were challenged and we are a better country for that. Now I do understand that that was a matter of law, and this is a matter of business, 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).
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.]
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.”
Some background…
…From the ABA (scroll about halfway down).
…And from “Decision of the Day”
Time will tell here.
Interestingly enough, in my neck of the woods (a part of Maryland with a large Jewish population) there are a few kosher Duncan Donuts (these, obviously, do not sell pork). Dunkin Donuts did, I’m told, give the franchise holder some difficulty about this– bottom line is that it’s a business decision. If DD can make more money with a kosher franchise, they’ll have one. If they can make more money selling pork, they’ll do that. That’s capitalism/life.
Ultimately who the hell cares?
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!
Allah Akbar Crullers. Sheese.
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.
Message to all Followers of Allah and Mohammad:
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….