Chick-fil-A: Franchise Operators Must "Participate in Group Prayers"

[hortysir]

Even Jesus says this is wrong,

Matthew 6:6

Matt 10:27
What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops

There's a difference between prayer and preaching. I think the Quakers got this one right.

Mat 5:15,16

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.


While, yes, I know this doesn't refer to prayer either, I think between this and the other verse I quoted, it tells us to not hide our connection to the Lord.

And I should, also, add one more verse that just spoke to my heart:

Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because I don't like it when people think they have a right to use their greater relative power and/or leverage in the workplace to push their personal or religious values onto other people in or outside of the workplace or that they have some kind of right to approve of how someone lives or what they believe in order to belong to an organization that isn't religious in nature. And I would feel that way regardless of the religion, or political philosophy involved. If you have a job or a source of income, it's is NONE of their business whether you're religious, or not. And no one (not the gov't, not your employer, not your home owner's association, and not any business that offers public accommodations) has a right to insist that you pass some kind of religious test.

They have no "greater power or leverage", you douchewad. The contract is between EQUALS, with either side having complete freedom to refuse to sign. There is no compulsion to buy THAT franchise.

Franchisees are not employees, for the last time. There is no helpless underdog being bullied by a mean boss here. Those people have put together hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy this franchise, money which Chick-Fil-A wants and needs, since that's how the corporation itself makes money. They can easily go to any other franchising fast-food company and be welcomed with open arms, if that's what they want. They choose to purchase Chick-Fil-A franchises for their hundreds of thousands of dollars because THAT is the corporate culture, complete with group prayer, that they CHOOSE to be part of, for whatever reason.

In what fantasy universe is this a contract between equals? One party is applying for a franchise to the other party who has the power to grant or deny the application.

Wrong.

One party has money, which is what they are using to buy the franchise. The other party has a business, which they are willing to license for proper considerations that include money and adherence to specific guidelines, like not selling Big Macs at Domino's Pizza.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course there's coercion. As a franchisee applicant, you know that, regardless of your personal feelings or religious convictions, you have no choice but to agree to the provisions if you want the franchise. In that sense, it's an arbitrary requirement that has nothing to do with the operation of the business. Anything that's business related (like business or restaurant schooling and or experience) is a valid prerequisite. But anything outside of a business-related requirement is not a relevant or valid prerequisite. For example, if Cathy had it written into the contract that only married men could get a franchise (no single or divorced men would be approved), he would be creating a requirement that's not relevant to the role of a franchise owner. It could be anything. Only men. Only men with children. Only men with a full head of hair. They're all arbitrary requirements.

And if I don't like the provisions, WHY WOULD I WANT THE FRANCHISE? Don't be such an ignorant shitstain, please. And by the way, prospective franchisees are not called "applicants", because IT IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN EQUALS. Both sides have something that the other side wants very much.

As a prospective franchisee, what I know is that if I don't like the provisions of that contract, I can go buy a different business. It's not like Chick-Fil-A is the only successful fast-food restaurant in America, or even the only successful chicken-based fast-food franchise, so why in the fuck are you fraudulently talking as though these franchisees are desperate and helpless and over some sort of fucking barrel in these negotiations? They gotta have THAT franchise, no matter what the provisions, or nothing?

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of this drivel, because it's all based on the insane premise that franchise owners are helpless victims.

Why do you think someone would want the franchise? TO MAKE MONEY!

Dumbfuck, the question is, why would I want THAT franchise, if I don't like the provisions of the contract? Is Chick-Fil-A the only successful fast food franchise in the country? I don't think so. Are they giving the franchises away for an enormous discount over KFC, McDonald's, and Taco Bell? Again, I don't think so.

So perhaps you could wrap your peabrain around the fact that franchisees are spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS on these franchises, and explain to me why they would do so for a franchise whose contract is undesirable to them?

Jesus, it amazes me how willing you leftists are to look like total, brick-thick morons in service of your bigoted agenda.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How many times do I have to repeat the fact that a person can't be required to relinquish their constitutional rights as a condition for entering a contract? Nor can they be held to provisions which deny them their rights.

But perhaps you constitutional and legal illiterates need more concrete examples. So be it.

Let's say that a person signs the contract in good faith. Later on, he either converts to a different faith OR becomes an atheist after never really having any strong feelings about religion one way or the other. So, he no longer wants to participate in these group prayers because he no longer believes what he previously did.

Will C-f-A attempt to force this person to adhere to what is essentially a religious requirement in order to keep his franchise? Or will he be forced to relinquish his livelihood?

Now, IF Christians can't see the injustice of this because, after all, they are in possession of THE truth, perhaps they might see it differently if a franchise tried to require someone to openly state a belief that there was no God (essentially, an atheist requirement) in order to get a franchise in the first place. And what if that person, an avowed atheist, later has a religious conversion and commits his life to Christ? Should the owner of the business be allowed to discriminate against the holder of the franchise based solely on his new-found faith? Yes or no? If the answer is yes (that a business owner is legally able to discriminate against a person on the basis of his faith alone despite the fact that the business has no overt religious component to it), then, a precedent would be set that contracts could be used to deny people their 1st Amendment rights (and probably other constitutional rights, as well).

Please show us where the Constitution mentions private entities, because I could swear the rights enumerated in the Constitution involved GOVERNMENT interference.

This is like saying, "What if a woman signs her prenuptial agreement in good faith, and then later on decides she's in love with another man? Can she still be forced to adhere to the conditions of the pre-nup, or lose her home and her meal ticket?" The answer is YES. A contract is a contract. You knew the conditions before you signed it, and you agreed to them. If you're going to make a life decision that puts you in conflict with your legal obligations, then you are going to have to deal with the consequences. Only liberals automatically jump to, "I'm a victim! I can't be expected to manage my own life, so someone else should be blamed!"

Thanks, though, for sharing a hypothetical situation that has never happened to justify your desire to be outraged on behalf of people who have no problem with their situation whatosever, because damn it, you're going to rescue the world from that evil Christianity whether they want to be rescued or not! They're just too stupid to realize how miserable they would be if they were just smart enough to see the world the way you do!

Fucking busybody.

Analogies are not your forté.

Coming from the fucktard who thought rental agreements were comparable to franchise contracts - and who thinks he has some holy obligation to be outraged about a franchise agreement he doesn't have on behalf of people who are perfectly happy with it and never asked his opinion - that just means you know you're wrong, and you're too big a liberal religion-hater to admit that you fucked up.

 

[Mustang]

They have no "greater power or leverage", you douchewad. The contract is between EQUALS, with either side having complete freedom to refuse to sign. There is no compulsion to buy THAT franchise.

Franchisees are not employees, for the last time. There is no helpless underdog being bullied by a mean boss here. Those people have put together hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy this franchise, money which Chick-Fil-A wants and needs, since that's how the corporation itself makes money. They can easily go to any other franchising fast-food company and be welcomed with open arms, if that's what they want. They choose to purchase Chick-Fil-A franchises for their hundreds of thousands of dollars because THAT is the corporate culture, complete with group prayer, that they CHOOSE to be part of, for whatever reason.

In what fantasy universe is this a contract between equals? One party is applying for a franchise to the other party who has the power to grant or deny the application.

You just cannot understand the world in any context other than your own pathetic experience of being a loser begging someone for a minimum-wage job, can you?

Do you know what business Chick-Fil-A Corporate is in? If you said, "Selling chicken sandwiches", you're wrong. Chick-Fil-A Corporate is in the business of selling and maintaining franchises. That's where they make their money. It's their franchisees who are in the business of selling chicken sandwiches.

This means that, far from "applying" for a franchise - which is not even remotely how this works - the franchisee is the CUSTOMER in this scenario. They have decided to purchase a franchise; they have researched which of the many, MANY companies vying to sell franchises they wish to purchase from . . . exhaustively, if they have any brains; and they have chosen to make their purchase from Chick-Fil-A, knowing perfectly well what the contractual provisions are going to be, since they're certainly not a secret.

Because this is an ongoing business relationship, rather than a one-time purchase, Chick-Fil-A has an equal opportunity to decide if they wish to enter into the contractual obligations involved, as well. Mostly, that involves being sure that they are going to be able to operate the franchise profitably, since franchisees continue to pay a regular fee for the franchise.

But it most certainly is a business contract between equals.

C-f-A is not only in the business of selling and maintaining franchises. They retain ownership and get a large share of the revenue generated by sales.

Here's there business model:

Chick-fil-A uses a model significantly different from other restaurant franchises, notably in retaining ownership of each restaurant. Chick-fil-A selects the restaurant location, builds it, and pays the rent, while retaining ownership. Whereas franchisees from competing chains need about $2 million to operate a franchise, Chick-fil-A franchisees need only a $5,000 initial investment to become an operator. The company gets 10,000-25,000 applications from potential franchise operators for 60-70 slots they open each year. Chick-fil-A gets a larger share of revenue from its franchises than other chains, but the formula works well for operators — franchisees make an average of $190,000 per year. In 2010 Chick-fil-A took the industry lead in average sales per restaurant, making an average of $2.7 million per restaurant in 2010 (McDonald's was second with $2.4 million per restaurant).[10]

It's not a contract between equals in the least, especially since they reportedly get 10-25 K applications (yes, that's what a person does. They APPLY for a franchise) for only 60-70 slots that open every year.

 

[Samson]

A franchisee is not an employee. CFA is not the Federal government. If people dont like it, they dont have to do business with CFA.
So other than being completely off base your post is stupid.

While the Franchisee is not an employee, I do not believe they are immune to the same Federal Laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion, etc.,etc....

I could be wrong....a seach of "Franchise Antidiscrimination" doesn't yield very satifactory results.

 

[Samson]

In what fantasy universe is this a contract between equals? One party is applying for a franchise to the other party who has the power to grant or deny the application.

You just cannot understand the world in any context other than your own pathetic experience of being a loser begging someone for a minimum-wage job, can you?

Do you know what business Chick-Fil-A Corporate is in? If you said, "Selling chicken sandwiches", you're wrong. Chick-Fil-A Corporate is in the business of selling and maintaining franchises. That's where they make their money. It's their franchisees who are in the business of selling chicken sandwiches.

This means that, far from "applying" for a franchise - which is not even remotely how this works - the franchisee is the CUSTOMER in this scenario. They have decided to purchase a franchise; they have researched which of the many, MANY companies vying to sell franchises they wish to purchase from . . . exhaustively, if they have any brains; and they have chosen to make their purchase from Chick-Fil-A, knowing perfectly well what the contractual provisions are going to be, since they're certainly not a secret.

Because this is an ongoing business relationship, rather than a one-time purchase, Chick-Fil-A has an equal opportunity to decide if they wish to enter into the contractual obligations involved, as well. Mostly, that involves being sure that they are going to be able to operate the franchise profitably, since franchisees continue to pay a regular fee for the franchise.

But it most certainly is a business contract between equals.

C-f-A is not only in the business of selling and maintaining franchises. They retain ownership and get a large share of the revenue generated by sales.

Here's there business model:

Chick-fil-A uses a model significantly different from other restaurant franchises, notably in retaining ownership of each restaurant. Chick-fil-A selects the restaurant location, builds it, and pays the rent, while retaining ownership. Whereas franchisees from competing chains need about $2 million to operate a franchise, Chick-fil-A franchisees need only a $5,000 initial investment to become an operator. The company gets 10,000-25,000 applications from potential franchise operators for 60-70 slots they open each year. Chick-fil-A gets a larger share of revenue from its franchises than other chains, but the formula works well for operators — franchisees make an average of $190,000 per year. In 2010 Chick-fil-A took the industry lead in average sales per restaurant, making an average of $2.7 million per restaurant in 2010 (McDonald's was second with $2.4 million per restaurant).[10]

It's not a contract between equals in the least, especially since they reportedly get 10-25 K applications (yes, that's what a person does. They APPLY for a franchise) for only 60-70 slots that open every year.

What is the statute that Chick-Fil-A is breaking?

 

[Mustang]

Please show us where the Constitution mentions private entities, because I could swear the rights enumerated in the Constitution involved GOVERNMENT interference.

This is like saying, "What if a woman signs her prenuptial agreement in good faith, and then later on decides she's in love with another man? Can she still be forced to adhere to the conditions of the pre-nup, or lose her home and her meal ticket?" The answer is YES. A contract is a contract. You knew the conditions before you signed it, and you agreed to them. If you're going to make a life decision that puts you in conflict with your legal obligations, then you are going to have to deal with the consequences. Only liberals automatically jump to, "I'm a victim! I can't be expected to manage my own life, so someone else should be blamed!"

Thanks, though, for sharing a hypothetical situation that has never happened to justify your desire to be outraged on behalf of people who have no problem with their situation whatosever, because damn it, you're going to rescue the world from that evil Christianity whether they want to be rescued or not! They're just too stupid to realize how miserable they would be if they were just smart enough to see the world the way you do!

Fucking busybody.

Analogies are not your forté.

Coming from the fucktard who thought rental agreements were comparable to franchise contracts - and who thinks he has some holy obligation to be outraged about a franchise agreement he doesn't have on behalf of people who are perfectly happy with it and never asked his opinion - that just means you know you're wrong, and you're too big a liberal religion-hater to admit that you fucked up.

Rental agreements ARE analogous to franchise agreements because they're both legally binding business contracts which spell out the individual rights and responsibilities of the signatories.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Personally, I think that all this Chick-fil-A brouhaha is much ado about nonsense.

Agreed.

Now, I have to assume that there's nothing illegal about any of this, because that would have been in the news when I searched for it. Obviously, the law allows for companies to be more discriminating (pun intended) in selecting franchise operators -- who are essentially business partners of the owners -- than in hiring employees, where this kind of open religious preference for Christians would be patently illegal (I would assume, though I'm not a lawyer).

No, there’s noting illegal, but it is troubling and demonstrative of conservatives, who, for the most part, are motivated by the authoritarianism exhibited here; and if not for the First Amendment, would work to see such policies enforced upon the Nation as a whole.

 

[Mustang]

A franchisee is not an employee. CFA is not the Federal government. If people dont like it, they dont have to do business with CFA.
So other than being completely off base your post is stupid.

It's not off base in the least. It's religious discrimination which, by the way, is something that conservatives are always crying about. Chick-fil-A is imposing their religious values on people who essentially work FOR them, whether they're called employees, or franchisees, or contract workers. The end result is still the same.

No, idiot. You miss the point. A franchisee simply has a cotnract with the company. He is not an employee. He cannot be fired. It is a completely different relationship.
But even so, why couldn't an employer impose this on an employee? What's wrong with it? If you dont like it, go work somewhere else.

C-f-A retains ownership of the individual franchise operations. Are you trying to tell me that they couldn't take possession of the franchise and award the franchise to someone else if they so choose?

 

[Samson]

Personally, I think that all this Chick-fil-A brouhaha is much ado about nonsense.

Agreed.

Now, I have to assume that there's nothing illegal about any of this, because that would have been in the news when I searched for it. Obviously, the law allows for companies to be more discriminating (pun intended) in selecting franchise operators -- who are essentially business partners of the owners -- than in hiring employees, where this kind of open religious preference for Christians would be patently illegal (I would assume, though I'm not a lawyer).

No, there’s noting illegal, but it is troubling and demonstrative of conservatives, who, for the most part, are motivated by the authoritarianism exhibited here; and if not for the First Amendment, would work to see such policies enforced upon the Nation as a whole.

"Troubling," to whom? Anyone who cannot appreciate individual freedom?

A private company has private property rights, and may choose whatever policies it wishes: including promoting Christian beliefs........of course, this wouldn't be the case in say, Saudi Arabia.

 

[Samson]

It's not off base in the least. It's religious discrimination which, by the way, is something that conservatives are always crying about. Chick-fil-A is imposing their religious values on people who essentially work FOR them, whether they're called employees, or franchisees, or contract workers. The end result is still the same.

No, idiot. You miss the point. A franchisee simply has a cotnract with the company. He is not an employee. He cannot be fired. It is a completely different relationship.
But even so, why couldn't an employer impose this on an employee? What's wrong with it? If you dont like it, go work somewhere else.

C-f-A retains ownership of the individual franchise operations. Are you trying to tell me that they couldn't take possession of the franchise and award the franchise to someone else if they so choose?

The franchisee knows this BEFORE he enters into an agreement with Chick-Fil-A.

Pretty standard.

Your inability to get your head around this is really amazing, but, I appreciate the intellectual freak-show you've added to the board.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In what fantasy universe is this a contract between equals? One party is applying for a franchise to the other party who has the power to grant or deny the application.

You just cannot understand the world in any context other than your own pathetic experience of being a loser begging someone for a minimum-wage job, can you?

Do you know what business Chick-Fil-A Corporate is in? If you said, "Selling chicken sandwiches", you're wrong. Chick-Fil-A Corporate is in the business of selling and maintaining franchises. That's where they make their money. It's their franchisees who are in the business of selling chicken sandwiches.

This means that, far from "applying" for a franchise - which is not even remotely how this works - the franchisee is the CUSTOMER in this scenario. They have decided to purchase a franchise; they have researched which of the many, MANY companies vying to sell franchises they wish to purchase from . . . exhaustively, if they have any brains; and they have chosen to make their purchase from Chick-Fil-A, knowing perfectly well what the contractual provisions are going to be, since they're certainly not a secret.

Because this is an ongoing business relationship, rather than a one-time purchase, Chick-Fil-A has an equal opportunity to decide if they wish to enter into the contractual obligations involved, as well. Mostly, that involves being sure that they are going to be able to operate the franchise profitably, since franchisees continue to pay a regular fee for the franchise.

But it most certainly is a business contract between equals.

C-f-A is not only in the business of selling and maintaining franchises. They retain ownership and get a large share of the revenue generated by sales.

Here's there business model:

Chick-fil-A uses a model significantly different from other restaurant franchises, notably in retaining ownership of each restaurant. Chick-fil-A selects the restaurant location, builds it, and pays the rent, while retaining ownership. Whereas franchisees from competing chains need about $2 million to operate a franchise, Chick-fil-A franchisees need only a $5,000 initial investment to become an operator. The company gets 10,000-25,000 applications from potential franchise operators for 60-70 slots they open each year. Chick-fil-A gets a larger share of revenue from its franchises than other chains, but the formula works well for operators — franchisees make an average of $190,000 per year. In 2010 Chick-fil-A took the industry lead in average sales per restaurant, making an average of $2.7 million per restaurant in 2010 (McDonald's was second with $2.4 million per restaurant).[10]

It's not a contract between equals in the least, especially since they reportedly get 10-25 K applications (yes, that's what a person does. They APPLY for a franchise) for only 60-70 slots that open every year.

Oh, the great Wikipedia has spoken!

Sorry, dumbass. Your ability to misinterpret Wikipedia entries means nothing.

You're determined to think of this in terms of your own sad-sack, applying-for-minimum-wage-jobs life, so it's not even worth getting any farther into the minutiae of franchise deals with you. Let's just stick to the basics here: MIND YOUR OWN DAMNED BUSINESS. No one who is actually doing business with Chick-Fil-A is complaining. None of them have asked you to be outraged on their behalf. So quit peeking through people's windows and trying to live their lives for them. You are not obligated to have and express an opinion on everything. Learn to stop trying to vote on things for which you've never been handed a ballot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Analogies are not your forté.

Coming from the fucktard who thought rental agreements were comparable to franchise contracts - and who thinks he has some holy obligation to be outraged about a franchise agreement he doesn't have on behalf of people who are perfectly happy with it and never asked his opinion - that just means you know you're wrong, and you're too big a liberal religion-hater to admit that you fucked up.

Rental agreements ARE analogous to franchise agreements because they're both legally binding business contracts which spell out the individual rights and responsibilities of the signatories.

By definition, that is true of ALL legal contracts, fucktard. That is, in fact, the PURPOSE of a legal contract. Christ, you're a moron.

 

[Mustang]

Coming from the fucktard who thought rental agreements were comparable to franchise contracts - and who thinks he has some holy obligation to be outraged about a franchise agreement he doesn't have on behalf of people who are perfectly happy with it and never asked his opinion - that just means you know you're wrong, and you're too big a liberal religion-hater to admit that you fucked up.

Rental agreements ARE analogous to franchise agreements because they're both legally binding business contracts which spell out the individual rights and responsibilities of the signatories.

By definition, that is true of ALL legal contracts, fucktard. That is, in fact, the PURPOSE of a legal contract. Christ, you're a moron.

Well, either rental agreements and franchise agreements are or are not analogous to one another. Pick one instead of argument both sides of the issue.

 

[The Rabbi]

Analogies are not your forté.

Coming from the fucktard who thought rental agreements were comparable to franchise contracts - and who thinks he has some holy obligation to be outraged about a franchise agreement he doesn't have on behalf of people who are perfectly happy with it and never asked his opinion - that just means you know you're wrong, and you're too big a liberal religion-hater to admit that you fucked up.

Rental agreements ARE analogous to franchise agreements because they're both legally binding business contracts which spell out the individual rights and responsibilities of the signatories.

Uh no they are not analogous in part because rental agreements are governed by the Fair Housing Act and others while franchise agreements are not.

 

[The Rabbi]

A franchisee is not an employee. CFA is not the Federal government. If people dont like it, they dont have to do business with CFA.
So other than being completely off base your post is stupid.

While the Franchisee is not an employee, I do not believe they are immune to the same Federal Laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion, etc.,etc....

I could be wrong....a seach of "Franchise Antidiscrimination" doesn't yield very satifactory results.

I dont know as I am not a lawyer. However if they were to offer franchises only to white people, that would be an issue. Or only to christians, that would probably be a problem.
I haven't seen any agreement to know what they have in there and how it is worded.

 

[Mustang]

Coming from the fucktard who thought rental agreements were comparable to franchise contracts - and who thinks he has some holy obligation to be outraged about a franchise agreement he doesn't have on behalf of people who are perfectly happy with it and never asked his opinion - that just means you know you're wrong, and you're too big a liberal religion-hater to admit that you fucked up.

Rental agreements ARE analogous to franchise agreements because they're both legally binding business contracts which spell out the individual rights and responsibilities of the signatories.

Uh no they are not analogous in part because rental agreements are governed by the Fair Housing Act and others while franchise agreements are not.

Analogous: a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rental agreements ARE analogous to franchise agreements because they're both legally binding business contracts which spell out the individual rights and responsibilities of the signatories.

Uh no they are not analogous in part because rental agreements are governed by the Fair Housing Act and others while franchise agreements are not.

Analogous: a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

OK, so they are similar in that they are both areas of contract law. They are different in every other respect.
Got it?

 

[Politico]

A franchisee is not an employee. CFA is not the Federal government. If people dont like it, they dont have to do business with CFA.
So other than being completely off base your post is stupid.

It's not off base in the least. It's religious discrimination which, by the way, is something that conservatives are always crying about. Chick-fil-A is imposing their religious values on people who essentially work FOR them, whether they're called employees, or franchisees, or contract workers. The end result is still the same.

No. They are laying down guidelines for people if they want to do business with them. Not at all the same.