Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Devils' advocate
In any business the proprietor has the right to decide what sells and doesn't sell. This owner based on his history is entitled to that right.
Where is it written that Dunkin donuts has the right to tell any franchise what they are to sell? Did the contract read sell what we say or out.
As an individual the proprietor runs the store based on precedent and not some new ruling. If rules can change easily any business could come under fire for not strictly adhering to some new arcane rule.
A good faith relationship over this much time should be respected if the owner's decisions do not in any sense reflect badly on the company. This would not.
Two areas intersect in this decision, religious respect and individual freedom, dunkin donuts is saying no Muslim (or other religion with similar traditions) can own a DD thus isolating and discriminating based only on religion. If I am in charge of a business why would I not be free to decide what products I wish to sell provided this decision is visible to all potential customers. Who are his customers. They should be decisive fact.
Even the business name implies one thing, and as a business the goal is sales and not enforcement of new and recent changes. Franchise decisions should be based on issues that critically reflect on DD company and in this case there is no clear reason why an owners decision could not be recognized as correct, in a tolerant society that recognizes differences of fundamental belief.
Devils' advocate
In any business the proprietor has the right to decide what sells and doesn't sell. This owner based on his history is entitled to that right.
Where is it written that Dunkin donuts has the right to tell any franchise what they are to sell? Did the contract read sell what we say or out.
As an individual the proprietor runs the store based on precedent and not some new ruling. If rules can change easily any business could come under fire for not strictly adhering to some new arcane rule.
A good faith relationship over this much time should be respected if the owner's decisions do not in any sense reflect badly on the company. This would not.
Two areas intersect in this decision, religious respect and individual freedom, dunkin donuts is saying no Muslim (or other religion with similar traditions) can own a DD thus isolating and discriminating based only on religion. If I am in charge of a business why would I not be free to decide what products I wish to sell provided this decision is visible to all potential customers. Who are his customers. They should be decisive fact.
Even the business name implies one thing, and as a business the goal is sales and not enforcement of new and recent changes. Franchise decisions should be based on issues that critically reflect on DD company and in this case there is no clear reason why an owners decision could not be recognized as correct, in a tolerant society that recognizes differences of fundamental belief.
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 companys 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 Elkhatibs 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 Elkhatibs 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, Elkhatibs 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.
Elkhatibs franchise agreement expired in April 2008, but Dunkin Donuts allowed him to keep operating the store until the end of the trial.
Muslim Who Wont Sell Pork Loses Dunkin Donuts Franchise | Chill Yo Islam Yo
Gotta love it dude.
The right brays on and on about religious "freedom" right up until it's a religion they don't like.
Then it's "Follow the rules, buddy".
Devils' advocate
In any business the proprietor has the right to decide what sells and doesn't sell. This owner based on his history is entitled to that right.
Where is it written that Dunkin donuts has the right to tell any franchise what they are to sell? Did the contract read sell what we say or out.
As an individual the proprietor runs the store based on precedent and not some new ruling. If rules can change easily any business could come under fire for not strictly adhering to some new arcane rule.
A good faith relationship over this much time should be respected if the owner's decisions do not in any sense reflect badly on the company. This would not.
Two areas intersect in this decision, religious respect and individual freedom, dunkin donuts is saying no Muslim (or other religion with similar traditions) can own a DD thus isolating and discriminating based only on religion. If I am in charge of a business why would I not be free to decide what products I wish to sell provided this decision is visible to all potential customers. Who are his customers. They should be decisive fact.
Even the business name implies one thing, and as a business the goal is sales and not enforcement of new and recent changes. Franchise decisions should be based on issues that critically reflect on DD company and in this case there is no clear reason why an owners decision could not be recognized as correct, in a tolerant society that recognizes differences of fundamental belief.
I agree with the court on this....does that make me a Mooslim hating Conservative?
He should have.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 companys 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 Elkhatibs 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 Elkhatibs 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, Elkhatibs 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.
Elkhatibs franchise agreement expired in April 2008, but Dunkin Donuts allowed him to keep operating the store until the end of the trial.
Muslim Who Wont Sell Pork Loses Dunkin Donuts Franchise | Chill Yo Islam Yo
He should have.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 companys 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 Elkhatibs 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 Elkhatibs 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, Elkhatibs 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.
Elkhatibs franchise agreement expired in April 2008, but Dunkin Donuts allowed him to keep operating the store until the end of the trial.
Muslim Who Wont Sell Pork Loses Dunkin Donuts Franchise | Chill Yo Islam Yo
Your thread title scared me. I thought Dunkin Donuts was using pork in their donuts.
He should have.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
Your thread title scared me. I thought Dunkin Donuts was using pork in their donuts.
Bacon stuffed donuts.....yum.
I don't understand, this is business. I buy all my liquor and beer from an Indian Muslim and he could care less, he tags it and bags it for me at the register.
To be fair ( I agree with DD on this) Muslims are not forbidden to handle alcohol just can't consume it. His faith forbids him from even touching pork. It would make him unclean. To have to sell it would mean he basically could not enter his own stores kitchen area or handle the product.
His law suit was reasonable on its face, I just happen to agree that DD has the right to enforce their product line on anyone with the franchise.
Devils' advocate
In any business the proprietor has the right to decide what sells and doesn't sell. This owner based on his history is entitled to that right.
Where is it written that Dunkin donuts has the right to tell any franchise what they are to sell? Did the contract read sell what we say or out.
As an individual the proprietor runs the store based on precedent and not some new ruling. If rules can change easily any business could come under fire for not strictly adhering to some new arcane rule.
A good faith relationship over this much time should be respected if the owner's decisions do not in any sense reflect badly on the company. This would not.
Two areas intersect in this decision, religious respect and individual freedom, dunkin donuts is saying no Muslim (or other religion with similar traditions) can own a DD thus isolating and discriminating based only on religion. If I am in charge of a business why would I not be free to decide what products I wish to sell provided this decision is visible to all potential customers. Who are his customers. They should be decisive fact.
Even the business name implies one thing, and as a business the goal is sales and not enforcement of new and recent changes. Franchise decisions should be based on issues that critically reflect on DD company and in this case there is no clear reason why an owners decision could not be recognized as correct, in a tolerant society that recognizes differences of fundamental belief.
Weird how freedom and respect for religion only count for the right when they are inline with their idea of freedom and respect. Anyone smell hypocrisy here?
Weird how freedom and respect for religion only count for the right when they are inline with their idea of freedom and respect. Anyone smell hypocrisy here?
Weird how freedom and respect for religion only count for the right when they are inline with their idea of freedom and respect. Anyone smell hypocrisy here?
I smell if coming off you like stink from a rotting corpse.
And it disappoints me because I always liked you too.
