Sharia Law Hits Dunkin Doughnuts

I think what he was referring to was in the link to the original post. I cut it out for you.
-------
"In an opinion Tuesday, U.S. Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner wrote that because three other Dunkin' Donuts franchisees in the area were allowed to continue operating without selling breakfast sandwiches for reasons other than the owners' religious views such as space or lease restrictions, that there was sufficient evidence to take the suit to trial.

"There is significant evidence that the carrying of breakfast sandwiches was not an issue of importance to Dunkin Donuts. It allowed other franchises in the area to refuse to carry any breakfast sandwiches at all, when merely relocating the stores, or in one case merely rearranging the displays, would have allowed them to carry the full line," Rovner wrote.

She added that "there is no evidence that there was any change in corporate policy, or even regional policy, on the matter."
--------

Okay ... I missed that the first time around. I would be interested to see what the brand's stance would be if those 3 exceptions were to rennovate/rebuild in a new location. Consistency would dictate they also require these 3 exceptions under such circumstances to accomodate the entire product line.

I don't agree with an exception based solely on religious beliefs.
 
Okay ... I missed that the first time around. I would be interested to see what the brand's stance would be if those 3 exceptions were to rennovate/rebuild in a new location. Consistency would dictate they also require these 3 exceptions under such circumstances to accomodate the entire product line.

I don't agree with an exception based solely on religious beliefs.

Well except those exceptions are NOT about race or religion, they are dealing with a LEASE ( a legally binding agreement one signs and must abide by) and physical space.

Again race is not an issue, for one thing all people of those fellows race are NOT Muslims, nor do they believe selling pork is evil. He is not being singled out as Palestinian or an Arab. He may be being singled out as a Muslim though.

I wonder how many Arabs own Franchises with Dunkin Donuts and of those number how many have been refused renewal. As far as I know there is no law about private Buisness "discriminating against religion, thus the first courts ruling, the second ruling wants to allow a claim that on its face is false to address an issue that needs to be addressed by a Legislature, by pretending it is something it is not.
 
Well except those exceptions are NOT about race or religion, they are dealing with a LEASE ( a legally binding agreement one signs and must abide by) and physical space.

Again race is not an issue, for one thing all people of those fellows race are NOT Muslims, nor do they believe selling pork is evil. He is not being singled out as Palestinian or an Arab. He may be being singled out as a Muslim though.

I wonder how many Arabs own Franchises with Dunkin Donuts and of those number how many have been refused renewal. As far as I know there is no law about private Buisness "discriminating against religion, thus the first courts ruling, the second ruling wants to allow a claim that on its face is false to address an issue that needs to be addressed by a Legislature, by pretending it is something it is not.

I'm in agreement with you. I don't think he should be granted an exception just because of his religious beliefs. I also think misrepresenting the brand as discriminating against religion for offering a product is pretty far-fetched.

The guy needs to sell his Dunkin Donuts and invest in a pork-free Motel 6 on I-95 and STFU.
 
I'm in agreement with you. I don't think he should be granted an exception just because of his religious beliefs. I also think misrepresenting the brand as discriminating against religion for offering a product is pretty far-fetched.

The guy needs to sell his Dunkin Donuts and invest in a pork-free Motel 6 on I-95 and STFU.

which is what I've and may others have been saying for three days
 
So, you have not compared our military to terrorists? You have not asked if we dropped bombs on people? You did not claim our military is murdering ( Homicide) people, You did not say Wacko right wing nutjobs that think pharmasists should not have to fill prescriptions on religious grounds were just like Muslim Extremists blowing people up?

You haven't done any of that?

I have compared our military to terrorists, that does NOT, I repeat does NOT mean they are the same thing.

Yes I asked if we dropped bombs on people. I'm sorry, am I not allowed to do that? What the hell do you think the Military does?

Homicide is not murdering, homicide is killing someone.

And no I did not say wacko right wing nutjobs were "just like" Muslim Extremists blowing people up. I compared their numbers, thats all.

Well except those exceptions are NOT about race or religion, they are dealing with a LEASE ( a legally binding agreement one signs and must abide by) and physical space.

Leases expire. And in one of the cases they could make enough space by merely re-arranging things. Seems a bit less annoying than forcing someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs, I'd say.

Again race is not an issue, for one thing all people of those fellows race are NOT Muslims, nor do they believe selling pork is evil. He is not being singled out as Palestinian or an Arab. He may be being singled out as a Muslim though.

You have no idea what the issue is, or WHY his agreement got terminated. Nobody does...thats the point and why this guy is being allowed to sue, to delve into the why of his termination.

posted bu Gunny
Okay ... I missed that the first time around. I would be interested to see what the brand's stance would be if those 3 exceptions were to rennovate/rebuild in a new location. Consistency would dictate they also require these 3 exceptions under such circumstances to accomodate the entire product line.

Exactly...this is why he is crying racial discrimination. There is SOME reason that Dunkin Donuts is allowing other chains to continue, but not him...the question is why? It does NOT necessarily have to be his religion.

I'm in agreement with you. I don't think he should be granted an exception just because of his religious beliefs. I also think misrepresenting the brand as discriminating against religion for offering a product is pretty far-fetched.

The thing is, he is not really being granted an exception since 3 other area Dunkin Donuts do the same thing...rather he is being held to a higher standard than other stores around him.
 
As far as I know there is no law about private Buisness "discriminating against religion, thus the first courts ruling, the second ruling wants to allow a claim that on its face is false to address an issue that needs to be addressed by a Legislature, by pretending it is something it is not.

Religion, as well as race, is a basis on which private business (in almost all circumstances) cannot discriminate by law. See Title VII of the CRA of 1964.


Does knowing this now change your opinion?
 
This is actually very simple and I think almost all of us agree on the general idea that if he is being treated differently than other similarly situated persons because of his race or religion, that is illegal (and I think wrong).

If he is being treated like anyone else would be if they attempted to deviate from the product line, that is too bad for him.

I would hope that we can all agree with the top part of this. It cannot be permitted for him to be singled out because of his race or religion.
 
This is actually very simple and I think almost all of us agree on the general idea that if he is being treated differently than other similarly situated persons because of his race or religion, that is illegal (and I think wrong).

If he is being treated like anyone else would be if they attempted to deviate from the product line, that is too bad for him.

I would hope that we can all agree with the top part of this. It cannot be permitted for him to be singled out because of his race or religion.

And this has been the issue all along. We don't know WHY he is being treated differently than other similarly situated persons. Nor does the judge. Hence, he is allowing a lawsuit to proceed, not saying that he has an actual claim against Dunkin Donuts.
 
And this has been the issue all along. We don't know WHY he is being treated differently than other similarly situated persons. Nor does the judge. Hence, he is allowing a lawsuit to proceed, not saying that he has an actual claim against Dunkin Donuts.

I am with you G. Can we get a hallelujah from the choir?

I think we may have actually put this thread to rest. Well done all.
 
We don't know all the facts of the case..But let's think of a reason OTHER than race or religion why some DD's can alter their products while this one can't.

If a particular item, or item's, aren't selling well then this would be a time when DD's ok's them to not carry this particular item. However, if the pork products are selling well in his store, then I can see why they won't allow him to stop serving them. Or in this case, maybe they are wanting to introduce these items into his market to see how well they will sell.

There is one reason I can think other than race or religion to not allow him not to carry something.
 

Forum List

Back
Top