Muslim Who Won’t Sell Pork Loses Dunkin’ Donuts Franchise

[Sunni Man]

Jews killed Jesus, a more relevant and greater crime than 9/11. It sucks to be Jew in the hands of an angry God, or in a nation that wakes up. That's just a a fact. I don't sympathize.

Actually, it was the Romans who killed Jesus according to the N.T.

Just sayin..........

 

[Ariux]

Jews killed Jesus, a more relevant and greater crime than 9/11. It sucks to be Jew in the hands of an angry God, or in a nation that wakes up. That's just a a fact. I don't sympathize.

Actually, it was the Romans who killed Jesus according to the N.T.

Just sayin..........

Matthew 16
21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Matthew 27
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. 25 Then answered all the [Jews], and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

1 Thessalonians 2
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

Just sayin......

 

[Intense]

Just more evidence of prejudice in the U.S. against muslims.

Nothing new; muslims see and experience it every day.

Or, you can start your own Franchise.

 

[techieny]

I think they should sell pork at service stations and in taxi cabs !

 

[Ariux]

I think they should sell pork at service stations and in taxi cabs !

And, in synagogues.

 

[Intense]

In matters of Faith and Conscience, to He which something is Clean, that something remains clean, to he which something is Unclean, to him, it remains unclean. In truth we should not be antagonizing others, nor leading them around by the nose, nor should we be allowing others to lead us around by the nose. Live and let live, without imposing our will on others, nor allowing others to impose arbitrary, unreasoned Bullshit on us. Bottom line, know what you are agreeing to before you enter into Contract. If you find it that offensive, consider going into competition with it, learn to compete. In strong Muslim Communities, one should not have such a hard time getting support.

 

[Mr Natural]

Just one more case of religion getting in the way of rational behavior.

 

[Intense]

Just one more case of religion getting in the way of rational behavior.

Only when You make it an issue. I would have no expectation of you or Sunni to act against principle. Is it that you think Everyone needs to bend to your will? Where exactly does Individual Liberty rate with you?

 

[Polk]

If it's a franchise and the franchisor demands that the druggist (who likely doesn't own the franchise but is an employee of the franchisee) who refuses to sell birth control pills should be fired since he's only an employee.

A druggist who owns his own independent drug store should be able to sell anything, or not sell anything they damn well please. A franchise should be able to allow or not allow the sale of contraceptives if they so choose.

A muslim can start a donut franchise of their own and refuse to sell pork nationwide and fire anyone who comes in smelling like bacon.

The last of three or four excellent posts on the point I raised about the druggist. I agree with all of you on this - except, while I suppose an independent druggist has a right to refuse to sell birth control products to customers of the drug store, I'm not sure I agree with his refusing to do so. Seems to me the needs of the customers should override the personal views of the (individual) druggist.

The customers have other places that can fulfill their needs. You cannot force private business to sell products that they do not want to sell.

Personally, I would sell as many products and services as possible, that is why I am in business- to serve a market and profit from that service. But if an independent drug store owner decides that he or she does not want to sell certain products, it is their decision. Freedom.

In general I agree, but it's a bit more problematic when we're talking about small towns. In that case, they don't really have an alternative venue to get the medication.

 

[George Costanza]

If it's a franchise and the franchisor demands that the druggist (who likely doesn't own the franchise but is an employee of the franchisee) who refuses to sell birth control pills should be fired since he's only an employee.

A druggist who owns his own independent drug store should be able to sell anything, or not sell anything they damn well please. A franchise should be able to allow or not allow the sale of contraceptives if they so choose.

A muslim can start a donut franchise of their own and refuse to sell pork nationwide and fire anyone who comes in smelling like bacon.

The last of three or four excellent posts on the point I raised about the druggist. I agree with all of you on this - except, while I suppose an independent druggist has a right to refuse to sell birth control products to customers of the drug store, I'm not sure I agree with his refusing to do so. Seems to me the needs of the customers should override the personal views of the (individual) druggist.

The customers have other places that can fulfill their needs. You cannot force private business to sell products that they do not want to sell.

Personally, I would sell as many products and services as possible, that is why I am in business- to serve a market and profit from that service. But if an independent drug store owner decides that he or she does not want to sell certain products, it is their decision. Freedom.

Your point here is hard to dispute. I am trying to think of an example of private business being required to sell a certain product. I guess there are such examples, but none come to mind right now.

Then there is the "free market" aspect of the issue. At some point, one would think that when it comes to a conflict between adhering to principle (declining to sell birth control products) and making money (added income derived from sale of birth control products), sooner or later, there will be those private entrepreneurs who will opt for the latter in spite of their principles.

But, after all is said and done, I still have a problem with principled druggists refusing to sell birth control products to customers who might need them. It smacks of "if I don't like it, you can't have it" and you KNOW how us liberals react to that one.

 

[Katzndogz]

The last of three or four excellent posts on the point I raised about the druggist. I agree with all of you on this - except, while I suppose an independent druggist has a right to refuse to sell birth control products to customers of the drug store, I'm not sure I agree with his refusing to do so. Seems to me the needs of the customers should override the personal views of the (individual) druggist.

The customers have other places that can fulfill their needs. You cannot force private business to sell products that they do not want to sell.

Personally, I would sell as many products and services as possible, that is why I am in business- to serve a market and profit from that service. But if an independent drug store owner decides that he or she does not want to sell certain products, it is their decision. Freedom.

Your point here is hard to dispute. I am trying to think of an example of private business being required to sell a certain product. I guess there are such examples, but none come to mind right now.

Then there is the "free market" aspect of the issue. At some point, one would think that when it comes to a conflict between adhering to principle (declining to sell birth control products) and making money (added income derived from sale of birth control products), sooner or later, there will be those private entrepreneurs who will opt for the latter in spite of their principles.

But, after all is said and done, I still have a problem with principled druggists refusing to sell birth control products to customers who might need them. It smacks of "if I don't like it, you can't have it" and you KNOW how us liberals react to that one.

Liberals act quite well with that one judging from the number of stores that no longer sell cigarettes because the owner doesn't like smoking.

 

[Zander]

The last of three or four excellent posts on the point I raised about the druggist. I agree with all of you on this - except, while I suppose an independent druggist has a right to refuse to sell birth control products to customers of the drug store, I'm not sure I agree with his refusing to do so. Seems to me the needs of the customers should override the personal views of the (individual) druggist.

The customers have other places that can fulfill their needs. You cannot force private business to sell products that they do not want to sell.

Personally, I would sell as many products and services as possible, that is why I am in business- to serve a market and profit from that service. But if an independent drug store owner decides that he or she does not want to sell certain products, it is their decision. Freedom.

Your point here is hard to dispute. I am trying to think of an example of private business being required to sell a certain product. I guess there are such examples, but none come to mind right now.

Then there is the "free market" aspect of the issue. At some point, one would think that when it comes to a conflict between adhering to principle (declining to sell birth control products) and making money (added income derived from sale of birth control products), sooner or later, there will be those private entrepreneurs who will opt for the latter in spite of their principles.

But, after all is said and done, I still have a problem with principled druggists refusing to sell birth control products to customers who might need them. It smacks of "if I don't like it, you can't have it" and you KNOW how us liberals react to that one.

I agree with you on a personal level, I don't need some do-gooder refusing to sell alcohol or cigarettes (even though I don't drink very often and I never smoke cigarettes) because "it's for your own good".....but from a libertarian stand point I will defend their rights to do so.

 

[George Costanza]

The customers have other places that can fulfill their needs. You cannot force private business to sell products that they do not want to sell.

Personally, I would sell as many products and services as possible, that is why I am in business- to serve a market and profit from that service. But if an independent drug store owner decides that he or she does not want to sell certain products, it is their decision. Freedom.

Your point here is hard to dispute. I am trying to think of an example of private business being required to sell a certain product. I guess there are such examples, but none come to mind right now.

Then there is the "free market" aspect of the issue. At some point, one would think that when it comes to a conflict between adhering to principle (declining to sell birth control products) and making money (added income derived from sale of birth control products), sooner or later, there will be those private entrepreneurs who will opt for the latter in spite of their principles.

But, after all is said and done, I still have a problem with principled druggists refusing to sell birth control products to customers who might need them. It smacks of "if I don't like it, you can't have it" and you KNOW how us liberals react to that one.

Liberals act quite well with that one judging from the number of stores that no longer sell cigarettes because the owner doesn't like smoking.

Not this liberal! I am a non-smoker, but totally respect the rights of others to smoke if they choose. I call bull shit on the secondhand smoke argument - it's a pretext. My analysis of store owners who refuse to sell cigs would be the same as druggists who refuse to sell birth control products.

That's one of the main differences I have noticed between many liberals and many conservatives - the ability of liberals to separate their personal viewpoints on personal habits and ways of life, from their respect for the wishes of others in that regard, as opposed to conservatives, who all too often are unable to do that and who have no problem at all with "if I don't like it, you can't have it."

 

[George Costanza]

The customers have other places that can fulfill their needs. You cannot force private business to sell products that they do not want to sell.

Personally, I would sell as many products and services as possible, that is why I am in business- to serve a market and profit from that service. But if an independent drug store owner decides that he or she does not want to sell certain products, it is their decision. Freedom.

Your point here is hard to dispute. I am trying to think of an example of private business being required to sell a certain product. I guess there are such examples, but none come to mind right now.

Then there is the "free market" aspect of the issue. At some point, one would think that when it comes to a conflict between adhering to principle (declining to sell birth control products) and making money (added income derived from sale of birth control products), sooner or later, there will be those private entrepreneurs who will opt for the latter in spite of their principles.

But, after all is said and done, I still have a problem with principled druggists refusing to sell birth control products to customers who might need them. It smacks of "if I don't like it, you can't have it" and you KNOW how us liberals react to that one.

I agree with you on a personal level, I don't need some do-gooder refusing to sell alcohol or cigarettes (even though I don't drink very often and I never smoke cigarettes) because "it's for your own good".....but from a libertarian stand point I will defend their rights to do so.

Yes, I guess there is never going to come a time when a private store owner is going to be forced to sell a particular item, so I don't think you are ever going to have to worry about that.

It's a helluvan interesting issue.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The last of three or four excellent posts on the point I raised about the druggist. I agree with all of you on this - except, while I suppose an independent druggist has a right to refuse to sell birth control products to customers of the drug store, I'm not sure I agree with his refusing to do so. Seems to me the needs of the customers should override the personal views of the (individual) druggist.

The customers have other places that can fulfill their needs. You cannot force private business to sell products that they do not want to sell.

Personally, I would sell as many products and services as possible, that is why I am in business- to serve a market and profit from that service. But if an independent drug store owner decides that he or she does not want to sell certain products, it is their decision. Freedom.

Your point here is hard to dispute. I am trying to think of an example of private business being required to sell a certain product. I guess there are such examples, but none come to mind right now.

Then there is the "free market" aspect of the issue. At some point, one would think that when it comes to a conflict between adhering to principle (declining to sell birth control products) and making money (added income derived from sale of birth control products), sooner or later, there will be those private entrepreneurs who will opt for the latter in spite of their principles.

But, after all is said and done, I still have a problem with principled druggists refusing to sell birth control products to customers who might need them. It smacks of "if I don't like it, you can't have it" and you KNOW how us liberals react to that one.

You claim to be a lawyer and don't know case law? Hell in the last 2 years as I recall one Corporation sued their franchise owners to sell certain products at the price they the Corporation established. And won. I am sure case law is full of other examples of how and why this man lost his Case.

 

[jillian]

The customers have other places that can fulfill their needs. You cannot force private business to sell products that they do not want to sell.

Personally, I would sell as many products and services as possible, that is why I am in business- to serve a market and profit from that service. But if an independent drug store owner decides that he or she does not want to sell certain products, it is their decision. Freedom.

Your point here is hard to dispute. I am trying to think of an example of private business being required to sell a certain product. I guess there are such examples, but none come to mind right now.

Then there is the "free market" aspect of the issue. At some point, one would think that when it comes to a conflict between adhering to principle (declining to sell birth control products) and making money (added income derived from sale of birth control products), sooner or later, there will be those private entrepreneurs who will opt for the latter in spite of their principles.

But, after all is said and done, I still have a problem with principled druggists refusing to sell birth control products to customers who might need them. It smacks of "if I don't like it, you can't have it" and you KNOW how us liberals react to that one.

Liberals act quite well with that one judging from the number of stores that no longer sell cigarettes because the owner doesn't like smoking.

what are you babbling about?

i always love the inability of rightwingnuts to properly analogize.

logic problems not your thing, katz?

 

[George Costanza]

The customers have other places that can fulfill their needs. You cannot force private business to sell products that they do not want to sell.

Personally, I would sell as many products and services as possible, that is why I am in business- to serve a market and profit from that service. But if an independent drug store owner decides that he or she does not want to sell certain products, it is their decision. Freedom.

Your point here is hard to dispute. I am trying to think of an example of private business being required to sell a certain product. I guess there are such examples, but none come to mind right now.

Then there is the "free market" aspect of the issue. At some point, one would think that when it comes to a conflict between adhering to principle (declining to sell birth control products) and making money (added income derived from sale of birth control products), sooner or later, there will be those private entrepreneurs who will opt for the latter in spite of their principles.

But, after all is said and done, I still have a problem with principled druggists refusing to sell birth control products to customers who might need them. It smacks of "if I don't like it, you can't have it" and you KNOW how us liberals react to that one.

You claim to be a lawyer and don't know case law? Hell in the last 2 years as I recall one Corporation sued their franchise owners to sell certain products at the price they the Corporation established. And won. I am sure case law is full of other examples of how and why this man lost his Case.

When I said "private businesses," I was referring to independent businesses, not franchises, being forced by the government to sell a certain product. If you are aware of an example of this, I would be pleased to hear about it.

And I don't know how to break this to you, Sarge, but I am indeed an attorney at law. Been one for over 45 years.

 

[LAfrique]

An Arab-American owner of a Chicago-area Dunkin’ Donuts store has to give up his franchise after he lost his long-running legal battle with the restaurant chain over his religious objections to selling pork products.

The company’s lawsuit came two weeks after a federal jury found that the chain did not discriminate against Elkhatib for refusing to renew his franchise agreement because he declined to sell breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage.

The dietary restrictions of Elkhatib’s Muslim faith forbid him from eating or handling pork. When he decided to go into the restaurant business, his faith one of the reasons why he invested in Dunkin’ Donuts in 1979. The chain did not introduce breakfast sandwiches until 1984.

For nearly 20 years, Dunkin’ Donuts accommodated his religious beliefs, even providing him signs for his store that said, “No meat products available,” Elkhatib asserted in court documents. But in 2002, the company reversed course and told him it would not renew his franchise agreement if he did not sell its full line of products.

Elkhatib sued the company but because he is not an employee of Dunkin’ Donuts, he could not sue under federal laws banning religious discrimination in the work place. Instead, he invoked a law that bars racial and certain forms of ancestry discrimination in the making of contracts.

A Chicago federal judge rejected Elkhatib’s claim, finding that it was a religious rather than a racial claim. But in 2007 an appellate court allowed the case to go to trial, finding that Dunkin’ Donuts did not consistently apply its rules on franchise holders. In fact, Elkhatib’s lawyer found a Chicago location that did not sell breakfast sandwiches with pork because many of the customers followed Jewish dietary laws that ban the consumption of pork products.

Elkhatib’s franchise agreement expired in April 2008, but Dunkin’ Donuts allowed him to keep operating the store until the end of the trial.

Muslim Who Won’t Sell Pork Loses Dunkin’ Donuts Franchise | Chill Yo Islam Yo

I wonder why Mr. Elkhatib's franchise was not grandfathered. If he got into deal with DD when pork products were not on menu and has excluded pork products from his store since introduction, then I think the man had a case. But again, if I were Mr. Elkhatib, I will simply go solo and keep DD clienteles by serving very healthy line of products -

I am not Muslim and I do not like pork. Pork is very nasty meat. Go solo, Mr. Elkhatib, and good-luck!