What is Digg?408 Comments
- InfidelAl, on 10/11/2007, -22/+179Suppose he wins... That would put business in quite a pickle. They can't not hire someone based on their religious preference. And their employees can determine what they will and won't sell based on their own personal religious affiliation.
So, a Scientologist could get hired at a pharmacy, then not sell anything and they'd have to keep him on? - Liam76, on 10/11/2007, -16/+99If you open a franchise you agree to play by their rules, if he chooses not to the fracnshise should be bale to cancel his contract.
This is little different that a pharmacist deciding not to sell drugs on moral grounds. It may not be a life or death situation, but he chose to open a store that sold pork, if he doesn't like it he should find a new line of work.
Freedom of religion does not require other people, groups, or companies to accomidate you. - kbull, on 10/11/2007, -10/+62I am so ***** glad I don't have some ***** religious or ideological restriction on the type of food I eat.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+56Once 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. ( from the article)
- PhoneGuy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+40If Dunkin has another possible franchisee for the area in question that is willing to carry the full product line, then it would be in their best interests to not renew Elkhatib's franchise agreement. I would be willing to bet that this boils down to money for Dunkin, and that is their right. Typically franchise agreements have several outs for the Franchise holder to easily terminate / not renew a contract with a franchisee - this is nothing new.
- azzrik, on 10/11/2007, -11/+47Perhaps customers have started complaining, if you walk into a franchise they are meant to sell the same thing in every shop, and I'm sure the owner would have had to sign a contract that would state as to keeping up the image of the shop, it would be like a veterinarian running a Mc Donald's saying no meat or a KFC saying no chicken unless the contract was altered.
- rudy23, on 10/11/2007, -2/+37too bad they entertained him before. If I was running a chain of stores I want to put all products I want in my stores. If you or your religion doesn't like em dont get a franchisee. Period.
- faskill, on 10/11/2007, -5/+29People seem to think that courtesies are mandatory. Companies shouldn't have to cater to people that want to not follow policies and procedures. Many companies franchise.
Also, if your religion (something that should have no bearing on a majority of the business world) doesn't allow you to sell a product that your commanding company sells, don't get in to that business. The business owner could have gone a different route. - SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26I think you meant vegetarian...
I know veterinarians who not only eat meat, but hunt! - crombie, on 10/11/2007, -3/+25I live in a town with a large Jewish community, and our DD doesn't have any meat products at all -- this way they're Kosher without having to jump through any additional hoops. It's one of the most successful businesses in town. So if he can make a case that instead of being A Dunkin' Donuts in the Chicago area, he's THE Dunkin' Donuts for the Muslim community, he's actually helping the company, rather than being perceived as whining about discrimination.
- silencerider151, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24Damn, I don't know what I'd do if I couldn't get some pig with my donut.
- bremma, on 10/11/2007, -9/+29I'd have been a bit more skeptical of this suit, had it not been that Dunkin' Donuts allowed him to not sell the meat for 20 years. In that case, the fact that they are suddenly jumping on his back after helping him not sell pork, I think gives him plenty of reason to sue and defend his shop.
- kooft, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22In his defense, when he purchased the franchise Dunkin wasn't selling pork products. When they did start selling pork products, they permitted him to leave these items off the menu and went as far as providing him with signage indicating his store didn't sell meat products. They permitted him to operate this way for nearly 20 years and only after 9/11 did they decide to enforce their franchise rules.
I'm not saying that Muslims, or any other religious group, should be granted freedom to alter contracts based on their religious beliefs but business have an obligation to operate in a consistent manner. If Dunkin would have, and they should have, addressed this issue when they first started selling pork products, they would have won it hands down. Instead, they permitted him (and many others) to not sell pork products and gave them official corporate support (signs). - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17it might surprise a lot of fundamentalists that a lot of off the shelf medicines such as the ones in capsules, jell type pills etc are made with pork gelatine. Even a vast collection of confectionary such as marshmellows, jelly beans etc contain pork gelatine.
Where I used to work, there was this very religious muslim guy who likes marshmallows and used to eat ***** loads of em. I wasn't very social with him initially but later when we got to know each other, I told him about the pork and showed him the ingredient. Maybe I enjoyed destroying one of his passions but the look on his face was hilarious. I told him that in this day and age, one cannot live by outdated restrictions. He stopped eating them. And then I told him about the capsule pill, jello, syrup bases etc I think I changed him forever. - Namrok, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19You mean like fundamentalist Christians who refuse to sell birth control pills, or the morning after pill?
Just saying. That one actually happens. - kooft, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Freedom in America doesn't mean the freedom to make up rules that suit your mood at the moment. The proprietor of a restaurant is well within his/her legal right to deny you service based on the fact that you have an animal with you. The exception to this rule is if the animal qualifies as a service animal under the American's with Disabilities Act. Even then the proprietor can still deny you service but would be subject to possible penalties if the person was in fact disabled. Unless you are handicapped (and your pig qualifies as a service animal), you'll have no firm ground to base a lawsuit upon.
- catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16Obviously they sell more than donuts.
- InfidelAl, on 10/11/2007, -7/+20I did RTFA, but thanks. Reagrdless, I don't see how the legal precident this would set would differ.
- Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14I think one of the real world issues where this applies is in that of contraception. There's already been cases where pharmacists wouldn't sell birth control (or made it very inconvenient for people to buy it) based on religious conviction of the pharmacist. Let's say it's the franchise owner instead of the employee pharmacist. Let's say the franchise owner decides to allow his employee pharmacist to refuse to sell birth control even if the owner disagrees personally.
That's actually where this ruling goes against precedent (I think). IIRC, the courts have already ruled that pharmacies may not restrict or hamper the purchase of contraceptives to anyone. Maybe it's different in that under current law, a woman "has the right to choose," while there is no legislation explicitly saying that people "have the right to pork" (pun intended).
Then again, the Constitution expressly includes rights not listed therein, and it's arguable that the right for a company to sell pork to willing buyers is one of those unlisted rights. Companies are allowed to change policy, too. If my company suddenly decided that they were going to begin selling firearms and ammunition over the internet, and I would need to be a salesperson for that, else be fired, I would not expect to be able to sue the company. - Komgol, on 10/11/2007, -10/+22I don't get this *****. You don't want to RTFA? Don't post a comment in the section for the ***** article.
When he bought the franchise the restaurant didn't sell "***** pork". They changed their policy over a decade into their contract -- and allowed him to operate that way. They even facilitated it by providing him with signs. - bradtacs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14"I don't get this *****. You don't want to handle pork? Don't buy a franchise of a restaurant that sells ***** pork."
Somebody didn't read the article, when he bought the franchise twenty years ago they did not sell pork. When they did begin selling pork they allowed him to continue to run his shop without it for many years as well with no issue. The issue here is why after 20 years of him doing business this way is it suddenly an issue. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14You guys did catch the fact that they didn't sell pork products when he went in to the business, right?
- jcounterman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14They don't sell them in muslim countries where the customers wouldn't buy them. This is the US, where people would buy them.
And who gave you the right to pidgeonhole them into only selling donuts? If they want to expand their business to other things, that is their right. - rebopper, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Discrimination because you want to bring a live barnyard animal into a restaurant? Good luck with that one.
- BillDoE, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Why can't he open his own Donut shop?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12He might win, the company let him have his way for 20 years. Maybe there is some flexibility with franchise ownership.
- cherrick, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Sorry, but no. There's already a precedent where you can refuse to hire a person based on religious affiliation if it will genuinely interfere with their job and accommodation would be unreasonable.
- Liam76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I think you miss the point. This isn't Riyadh, Tel Aviv, or New Delhi. it is in a country where breakfast sandwiches have the option of meat as the standard. the company knows it makes them look bad if there is no country wide standard for their food.
- shwilmo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14There are a number of kosher dunkin donuts in my area that do this same thing (don't sell breakfast sandwiches with pork) and as far as I can tell they've never had any problems with the dunkin donuts franchisee agreement. sounds more like they're really discriminating against him for being muslim than the corporation has any real problems with him not selling their full product line.
- akatherder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11FTA: "three other Dunkin' Donuts franchisees in the area were allowed to continue operating without selling breakfast sandwiches"
He got by without serving pork for over 20 years and other Dunkin' Donuts in the area aren't being required to sell them either. They need to go by their contract word for word or keep giving him a free pass. - vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Let's certainly not read the article all the way (the story continues after that little break in the middle).
At issue is that other stores refused to carry the sandwiches as well with no problem. It seems that his statement of reason for not carrying the products was the most likely reason he was being denied a renewal of his franchisee agreement. - Lax32, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Maybe it might not be RIGHT for them to do it, but they dont have to do anything they dont want. He owns a franchise within a larger company. Meaning that in exhange for using their name, he has to play by their rules.
- bradtacs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10"If you open a franchise you agree to play by their rules, if he chooses not to the fracnshise should be bale to cancel his contract."
Sure I agree but I think the issue here is that they allowed him to run his shop for twenty years with no meat, why all of the sudden is it an issue? - faskill, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Or (gasp) Dunkin Donuts is realizing that customers not only like coffee in the morning but something edible that isn't a donut. Perhaps they've realized some people like variety, and increasing their offerings would earn them extra revenue. (Gasp) perhaps they are trying to meet demand.
"*Cooperate* needs to back peddle on this one and fast" - SocialPoison - faskill, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12You definitely can look at that as a win for the company. However, if the company wants to sell a product, and you operate a franchise location, you should have to sell that product. If Dunkin Donuts says it isn't required to sell product b, then that is perfectly fine.
The only reason I'm annoyed by this is because the guy is making money from the Dunkin Donuts name as well as having a streamlined donut selling business. Dunkin Donuts takes care of creating a product, researching what will sell, logistics, etc. The owner has to peddle the product. He doesn't seem to be completing his side of the deal. He is however costing the company money by bringing up all this unnecessary litigation due to religion.
GG religion... gg. - wolferz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Solved with a pink slip? And the money spent training said person is recovered how? What happens when he cries discrimination for firing him? While the example is humorously outlandish, the concept behind it is the same as something more realistic. Say you have a Muslim working at a deli that sells sandwiches containing pork products. You can't refuse to hire him based on his religious preference even if he tells you he will refuse to make anything containing pork. You then can't fire him based on that ether because that would also be discrimination.
Actually there are two Jews working at the local deli who have no problem working with pork. They just refuse to eat those products themselves.
Oh and no, being part of a franchise is not a right, its a privilege given by the owners of the franchise. For all points and purposes you are working for said owners. You just don't get a salary. If they want you to sell something they should be able to "fire" you if you wont. By your own argument if I wanted to open up a McDonald's and sell Burger King products I should be able to. Your basically saying that the owners of the franchise do not have the power to tell me what products to sell even though it is their brand, their foods, and their money. - KSUdesigner, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13"Don't buy a franchise of a restaurant that sells ***** pork. "
They didn't sell pork when he bought the franchise. - LogicBomB, on 10/11/2007, -10/+18There are a lot of great muslims out there - I know a few personally, great guys - but people like this piss me off. Don't drive a cab if you can't transport alcohol, don't open a store that sells pork if you can't sell pork, etc... I might as well open a hair salon and say it's against my religion to touch hair.
Seriously, I hope Dunkin' wins and they throw the Muslim out on his ass - it's a franchise and people EXPECT that his store is the same as the other stores, it gives the franchies a HORRIBLE name if they start mix and matching what they offer. What next? No Big Macs at McDonalds because a hindu man won't touch a cow product? Sorry, that's what YOU SIGNED UP FOR. - GiggleStick, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9So could he have a dunkin donuts franchise, and suddenly decide donuts are too unhealthy, and he will only sell water from now on, and keep calling it dunkin donuts? Shouldn't he have to sell what dunkin donuts sells to be a dunkin donuts? What if he was mormon, and so wouldn't sell coffee because it has caffeine in it?
- whandsfield, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13Yeah, but think of the precedent this sets for all of the Buddhist hot dog vendors... Will they still be able to only serve "one with everything"?
- insomniac8400, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15Very sad if he wins. For him to push his beliefs on the public, seems very very wrong. I'm annoyed that Dunkin Donuts allowed this for 20 years. This is the same as a pharmacist refusing to sell birth control at a walgreens. People should be able to expect these chain stores to have the same products at all stores, the customer shouldn't have to deal with an owner that refuses to carry things based on some crappy misguided stupid belief. Its easy to say the owner has the right, but just because this isn't something critical like medication doesn't mean it should be allowed.
- noamchomskeet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8He opened DD before pork was introduced into their menu. Many huge franchises allow one-offs from the norms, i.e. McDonalds in Argentina doesn't sell pork and is strictly Kosher. I know of many KFC's and Browns Chicken that sell Halal only meat, and no pork. The McDonalds in London sells Halal only meat on certain sandwiches, so there are just a few examples of corporations allowing this.
- azzrik, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Bloody spell check
- GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I know a veterinarian who eats lots of McDonalds, since her vet is right next door.
Is that fine by you, or are you also going to tell me who I know and who I don't? - jonnyeh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9That's BS. Who are you to tell Dunkin' Donuts what they should sell? If people ara not buying donuts as much anymore, and DD wants to make up the loss with breakfast sandwiches, that's their right. The scientology analogy is perfectly fine.
- aaaargh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Almost everyone has ideological restrictions on the type of food they eat, but when surrounded by a parochial group of like-minded idealogues, just consider such restrictions normal. Many Americans are aghast at the eating of dogs, cats, or horses, while horse meat is popular in much of the world. Eating human flesh is a nearly universal taboo - it's usually illegal, isn't generally available, and reportedly isn't very tasty, but ideology is probably the biggest reason people don't eat it.
- jsmith39, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13That's really high up there on the dumb ***** responses to digg articles, "It's a DONUT STORE". Following that line of logic Home Depot shouldn't be able to sell anything but Homes? Lowes goes out of business because no one knows what the Hell a Lowes is and won't buy any?
You're right this has nothing to do with fundamentalism, Scientology or Pharmacies (which was just an example provided by someone else to try and prove a point). It's about a chain store deciding what is best for their business and Fox News (once again) jumping in with the ***** shovel. - Jerim, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7There is legal theory that once you fail to enforce an aspect of a contract, you can not enforce it later on. This is true with non-complete clauses. If your former employer sees you in violation of the non-compete clause, and fails to act, then they can not enforce it a later date. By not enforcing the clause when the owner first informed Dunkin Donuts that he would not be selling pork products, they basically nullified the clause. In fact, one might argue that the contract as a whole is nullified, since Dunkin Donuts refused to hold the franchisee owner to the terms of the contract. Contracts are there to define certain responsibilities. If you don't hold their feet to the fire, then the contract is pointless.
- Roger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I agree. So where's all the human meat?
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I am torn on this one. On one side if he is making a profit he really doesnt need to sell pork. On the other hand franchizes are supposed to be really similiar to one another that is the entire point. And he does not have to renew his franchise if he does not want to. Just like he doesnt have to work as a butcher if he doesnt want to.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 388 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is