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

[Cecilie1200]

Personally, I think that all this Chick-fil-A brouhaha is much ado about nonsense. People on both sides need to get a life and stop acting so damn childish.

HOWEVER, it has managed to shed a light on some CfA internal requirements for franchisees that, in my humble opinion, is anathema to the notion of freedom in this country and what is and IS NOT appropriate for an employer to expect and demand out of an employee.

I don't read Daily Kos, but this was the first site where I could find this information. That's why I included it here.

Like others have already pointed out. a Franchise is not an Employee, People can choose not to Buy a Franchise.

Your own Article Says the Urge them to do it, not they Require them to.

Let me ask you a question.

Since C-f-A is a franchise, and a franchise is TOTALLY different from regular employment, why do you think that Cathy didn't state that his franchisees HAD to be Christian as a condition of being awarded a franchise?

Maybe because he doesn't wish to make that requirement?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If it's truly voluntary to engage in group prayer, then a person may decline to pray as well as agree to pray. Since declining obviously is not an option if one wants to maintain their franchise, then it's obviously not voluntary.

See how that works?

Knowing that, you might think twice about buying into that privately held corporation.

See it how it works. ?

Actually, most business owners are smart enough not to alienate any segment of the population. And do you know why? Because it's NOT good business. You see, everyone's money is green and contributes to the bottom line, regardless of THEIR politics. That's why. Cathy has likely endeared himself to RW Christians with his announcement, but he's also alienated a LOT of people. Once the lines have shortened because the immediacy of the controversy is over, their franchises will probably experience a dip in sales as people take their business elsewhere.

Gosh, you need to rush right over to Chick-Fil-A's corporate headquarters and tell them how they're violating your stated principles of good business. I can't imagine HOW they've managed to survive this long without you to cure their woeful ignorance.

 

[Mustang]

they're not employes.

no one forces them to buy a franchise.

you may or may not wish to unbunch your panties now.

have a pleasant day.

While franchisees supposedly are not 'required' to be Christian, my guess is that most (if not all) franchisees are (or profess to be) Christians. Regardless, as a condition for being awarded a franchise, the operators are required or coerced into participating in group prayer.

Now, let's start with a premise at this point. IF there actually ARE some franchisees who are NOT Christian, doesn't it stand to reason that they feel that they're required to pray to a God they don't believe in just to maintain their franchise?

There is no coercion involved in a freely-disclosed contract stipulation to which one has voluntarily agreed.

Let's start with a premise at this point. If someone is a franchisee, he has CHOSEN of his own free will to purchase that franchise, knowing before the fact that group prayer is part of the deal. Doesn't it stand to reason that if he felt group prayer was a problem for him, he would have bought a Burger King store instead?

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, most business owners are smart enough not to alienate any segment of the population. And do you know why? Because it's NOT good business. You see, everyone's money is green and contributes to the bottom line, regardless of THEIR politics. That's why. Cathy has likely endeared himself to RW Christians with his announcement, but he's also alienated a LOT of people. Once the lines have shortened because the immediacy of the controversy is over, their franchises will probably experience a dip in sales as people take their business elsewhere.

I seriously doubt that.

Well, once things are back to normal, we'll see. Normal means that Christians aren't going to be lining up just because of the controversy. They'll go back to their usual eating habits which is what most people would do. If other people refuse to buy from C-f-A in the future (which COULD happen), then their business will drop off unless Christians (and others who support Cathy) decide to eat there more often than they otherwise would.

You seem to think that "usual eating habits" means that Chick-Fil-A is struggling for customers. You DO realize that even when there isn't a controversy going on, their stores are still quite busy, right?

You also seem to think that left-wing bullies have longer memories than Christians do, for some reason. The truth is, the left is going to go try to bludgeon their next victim du jour, but Christians are going to have Chick-Fil-A marked out as one of their favorite fast-food joints from here on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In other words, yes, Chick-fil-A does engage in religious discrimination, but in this case, loopholes in our laws against such discrimination allow Chick-fil-a to get away with it.

What loophole? A franchise is a agreement between two owning parties of a proposed business? Where is the law that says you cannot include morals clauses (which this is) in contracts?

Including sharia law in businesses that are in the USA?

As long as it doesn't involve inherently illegal activities, then sure, I suppose that if a Muslim-owned company was offering franchises and included aspects of Sharia into the franchise contract, that would be the business of the company and the franchisees.

 

[Cecilie1200]

While franchisees supposedly are not 'required' to be Christian, my guess is that most (if not all) franchisees are (or profess to be) Christians. Regardless, as a condition for being awarded a franchise, the operators are required or coerced into participating in group prayer.

Now, let's start with a premise at this point. IF there actually ARE some franchisees who are NOT Christian, doesn't it stand to reason that they feel that they're required to pray to a God they don't believe in just to maintain their franchise?

if they find that to be unreasonable, why would they buy a franchise in the first place?

i'm not sure what part of voluntary is troubling you.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? It's not voluntary if it's a requirement.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Signing the contract was voluntary. They knew what it said and what they were agreeing to when they signed it. I have no sympathy with someone who signs a contract and then bitches because of the "loss of freedom" inherent in abiding by the contract.

Of course, that hasn't happened, since not a single franchisee has said a word about being unhappy with the provisions of the contract. The only person who has a problem with it is an nosy Internet dingleberry who thinks it's his job to be outraged about other people's lives.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One can, however, be informed in advance of the requirements of the job, which can actually include provisions that are religious. and either agree to them or get another job. Your problem is you assume people have a right to work for a company and that said company actually has to hire people that actively disagree with its religion. You are, as usual, wrong.

Umm No, if we were talking about Employees then they COULD NOT discriminate based on Religion. But CFA does not Discriminate when Hiring Employees, They do not Require Employees to Pray, or Espouse Christian Ideals, Because they Legally Can not.

What they do, Is not sell Franchises to People that do not share their Beliefs, and they have every right to do so.

You're wrong. According to what I read, the franchisees are not required to BE Christian. They're just required (among other things) to participate in group prayer. Personally, I find that very strange. They're essentially saying that they would willingly pray with non believers.

I find it odd that you find that odd, but then, I'm not the sort of person who refuses to associate with people who aren't just like me.

Interesting how the Christians are more tolerant than you are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I love how when walmart does this people freak the fuck out and call it a cult, but when chik fil a does it it is just freedom. Chik fil a is treading a thin line of discrimination in a commercial enterprise.

Oh well, it will be fun to watch them be forced to have health insurance which allows for birth control.

I'm sorry, but what does WalMart have to do with any of this? As far as I know, 1) WalMart doesn't sell franchises, and 2) WalMart has never asked anyone to pray.

I don't doubt for a second that a "tolerant freedom-lover" like you will enjoy immensely the sight of people being forced to do what you want against their will. Petty tyrants usually do. Personally, I enjoy watching dipshits like you advertise what hate-filled, bullying hypocrites you are.

 

[Mustang]

if they find that to be unreasonable, why would they buy a franchise in the first place?

i'm not sure what part of voluntary is troubling you.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? It's not voluntary if it's a requirement.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Signing the contract was voluntary. They knew what it said and what they were agreeing to when they signed it. I have no sympathy with someone who signs a contract and then bitches because of the "loss of freedom" inherent in abiding by the contract.

Of course, that hasn't happened, since not a single franchisee has said a word about being unhappy with the provisions of the contract. The only person who has a problem with it is an nosy Internet dingleberry who thinks it's his job to be outraged about other people's lives.

Well, nobody without standing could take this matter to court. But it is my opinion that if anyone with standing ever took this matter to court, they would win their case. And if they could prove economic damages (like losing income because they lost a franchise due to no other reason than a change in their religious affiliation or their marital status), I'm very sure that they would be awarded both compensatory AND punitive damages.

There are times when requirements are work-related. So, having height and weight requirement for police officers makes perfect sense. Having the same requirements for someone who works in an office is arbitrary.

But more importantly, C-f-A is engaging in discriminatory practices because they're equating people who don't hold the same religious values as they do as being undesirable and therefore unfit to own a franchise.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a preposterous concept.

Problem: "Don't like the fact that your rights are being infringed over here?"

Solution: "Go over there where you and your rights will be respected!"

Your rights can't be infringed WHEN YOU WILLINGLY SIGN A CONTRACT AGREEING TO A GIVEN ACTION YOU THUNDERING IDIOT.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

As if you have any experience with either...

As if anyone asked him what he thought, or cares.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can't doing anything about it since I don't have standing. But I certainly hope some franchisee takes them to court.

Why would they? Because YOU don't like the contract? Who cares? You just don't seem to be getting it into your rock skull that these people KNEW WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING AND SIGNED IT ANYWAY. They don't have any objections to the provisions, or they wouldn't be Chick-Fil-A franchisees.

Even if they went to court, the court would say, "Did you read the contract before you signed it? Yes? So you knew these provisions were in it? And you signed it anyway? Too bad for you."

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

While franchisees supposedly are not 'required' to be Christian, my guess is that most (if not all) franchisees are (or profess to be) Christians. Regardless, as a condition for being awarded a franchise, the operators are required or coerced into participating in group prayer.

Now, let's start with a premise at this point. IF there actually ARE some franchisees who are NOT Christian, doesn't it stand to reason that they feel that they're required to pray to a God they don't believe in just to maintain their franchise?

There is no coercion involved in a freely-disclosed contract stipulation to which one has voluntarily agreed.

Let's start with a premise at this point. If someone is a franchisee, he has CHOSEN of his own free will to purchase that franchise, knowing before the fact that group prayer is part of the deal. Doesn't it stand to reason that if he felt group prayer was a problem for him, he would have bought a Burger King store instead?

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? It's not voluntary if it's a requirement.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Signing the contract was voluntary. They knew what it said and what they were agreeing to when they signed it. I have no sympathy with someone who signs a contract and then bitches because of the "loss of freedom" inherent in abiding by the contract.

Of course, that hasn't happened, since not a single franchisee has said a word about being unhappy with the provisions of the contract. The only person who has a problem with it is an nosy Internet dingleberry who thinks it's his job to be outraged about other people's lives.

Well, nobody without standing could take this matter to court. But it is my opinion that if anyone with standing ever took this matter to court, they would win their case. And if they could prove economic damages (like losing income because they lost a franchise due to no other reason than a change in their religious affiliation or their marital status), I'm very sure that they would be awarded both compensatory AND punitive damages.

There are times when requirements are work-related. So, having height and weight requirement for police officers makes perfect sense. Having the same requirements for someone who works in an office is arbitrary.

But more importantly, C-f-A is engaging in discriminatory practices because they're equating people who don't hold the same religious values as they do as being undesirable and therefore unfit to own a franchise.

Well, it's also your opinion that you need to get outraged on behalf of people who have no problem with their circumstances, so we can see what your opinion is worth. Perhaps you should investigate the possibility of minding your own business and waiting to form an opinion until someone asks you to have one.

 

[Mustang]

Why would they? Because YOU don't like the contract? Who cares? You just don't seem to be getting it into your rock skull that these people KNEW WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING AND SIGNED IT ANYWAY. They don't have any objections to the provisions, or they wouldn't be Chick-Fil-A franchisees.

Even if they went to court, the court would say, "Did you read the contract before you signed it? Yes? So you knew these provisions were in it? And you signed it anyway? Too bad for you."

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.

 

[Mustang]

There is no coercion involved in a freely-disclosed contract stipulation to which one has voluntarily agreed.

Let's start with a premise at this point. If someone is a franchisee, he has CHOSEN of his own free will to purchase that franchise, knowing before the fact that group prayer is part of the deal. Doesn't it stand to reason that if he felt group prayer was a problem for him, he would have bought a Burger King store instead?

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!

 

[hortysir]

Agree...yes. Coerced into it...no!

Let's see the first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say anything about a private business. Short of forcing their workers to work in unsafe conditions or forcing their employee's to work more than 40 hours a week their is no civil rights violation, people are free to leave a company anytime they choose to.

Freedom of religion does not translate into people having the freedom to coerce others into participating in their religious practices, whether it's based on sincerely held beliefs, or not. Additionally, this franchise agreement is an example of someone using a disparity in power to coerce someone. In fact, it goes beyond mere coercion since the franchises are not free to anyone. A person must PAY to be awarded a franchise, and a religious requirement should have no bearing on a business relationship when that business relationship doesn't involve a religious institution or religious dietary requirements.

Who forced you to buy that home lobotomy kit?

 

[Mustang]

Your rights can't be infringed WHEN YOU WILLINGLY SIGN A CONTRACT AGREEING TO A GIVEN ACTION YOU THUNDERING IDIOT.

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.

 

[Samson]

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.

I don't know.

However, after reading your posts, I'm astonished you would be unable to answer the question.

Business transactions have nothing to do with social equality. Only the false economy created through government regulation forces the issue. Consequently, franchisees cannot be denied based on sexual orientation or religion. Anyone who feels they are being discriminated agains can easily contact one of the countless, and very expensive regulatory agencies, present their evidence, and seek recourse.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.