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.
You're right, I read it wrong, it happens:
Turn it around ...should he, as a business owner who provides a product/service to the general public be allowed to discriminate and not sell a product offered by the corporate line because of HIS religion?
Nobody's asking him to eat it.
That is the question. If DD is very protective of its product line and doesn't allow anyone to deviate it, then I think you have to say that this particular franchisee is out of luck. If however, franchisees are generally allowed to pick and choose from the product line, but DD has taken a different position with respect to this franchisee becaue he is Muslim, than that is illegal.
If the decision is wholly a business decision, that is not discrimation. If he is being treated differently than similarly situated persons because of his religion (or race, or sex, or whatever), then that is unlawful discrimination. We don't know enough facts to say one way or the other in this case, but if he believes he is being discriminated against, he should be allowed to present evidence in court. If he is wrong, he loses and he loses his franchise.
That is the question. If DD is very protective of its product line and doesn't allow anyone to deviate it, then I think you have to say that this particular franchisee is out of luck. If however, franchisees are generally allowed to pick and choose from the product line, but DD has taken a different position with respect to this franchisee becaue he is Muslim, than that is illegal.
If the decision is wholly a business decision, that is not discrimation. If he is being treated differently than similarly situated persons because of his religion (or race, or sex, or whatever), then that is unlawful discrimination. We don't know enough facts to say one way or the other in this case, but if he believes he is being discriminated against, he should be allowed to present evidence in court. If he is wrong, he loses and he loses his franchise.
Good answer, but it really doesn't allow much for message board speculation.
More insanity from the Courts and the Muslims
Muslim Dunkin' Donuts Owner Can Sue Over Pork, Appeals Court Says
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
LOS ANGELES — A discrimination lawsuit filed by a Muslim Dunkin' Donuts franchisee who was not allowed to renew his contract with the chain because of a refusal to sell pork products can proceed, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The decision reversed an Illinois federal court judge's 2004 ruling that rejected Walid Elkhatib's argument that Dunkin' Donuts discriminated against him based on his race by making the sale of breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage a mandatory part of his franchise agreement.
According to court papers, Elkhatib, a Palestinian Arab, has been a Dunkin' Donuts franchisee since 1979, before the company began selling any pork.
Once breakfast sandwiches were introduced in 1984, Elkhatib's Chicago-area Dunkin' Donuts outlets sold them without bacon, ham or sausage for nearly 20 years. The company did not object, even providing him with a sign that said "Meat Products Not Available."
In 2002, however, Elkhatib was told he would not be able to relocate a store or renew his franchisee agreements due to his failure to carry the full product line.
Elkhatib sued Dunkin' Donuts and its former parent company, Allied Domecq, later that year, claiming that the chain's refusal to renew his franchises constituted racial discrimination
for the complete article
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288845,00.html
Broadly speaking, without knowing the exact facts of the case or the case law, I think a franchise owner should sell the products that the parent company wants sold there.
Likewise, a pharmacist should not be able to cite "religious, moral objections", to dispensing contraceptives and the morning-after pills to consumers. If their pharmacy offers these products, they should be forced to dispense them to customers.
I hear a lot of Cons saying that these pharmacists should have their "religious convictions" protected. That seems hypocritical then, to suggest other religions can't use the same excuse.
I say treat them all the SAME.
What a shocker
A corporation being protective of its product line and doesn't allow anyone to deviate it
Broadly speaking, without knowing the exact facts of the case or the case law, I think a franchise owner should sell the products that the parent company wants sold there.
Likewise, a pharmacist should not be able to cite "religious, moral objections", to dispensing contraceptives and the morning-after pills to consumers. If their pharmacy offers these products, they should be forced to dispense them to customers.
I hear a lot of Cons saying that these pharmacists should have their "religious convictions" protected. That seems hypocritical then, to suggest other religions can't use the same excuse.
I say treat them all the SAME.
You do NOT hear a lot of conservatives making any such claim. At least no reputable ones. Provide evidence of such a claim. When it comes to medicine or a pharmacy the Government should and must ensure the welfare of the people are considered, not the religious background of some public company
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/156855.htm
About 100 people staged a protest outside a Chicago pharmacy where a pharmacist refuses to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. There's growing support for letting pharmacists get away with not doing their job and perhaps more public pressure like this will reverse the trend.
http://mediagirl.org/node/1490
On a Saturday in Menomonie, Wisconsin, Jane1returned to her neighborhood drugstore to refill her birth control prescription, which she needed to begin taking the following day. The pharmacist on duty asked personal questions of Jane, including whether she used the medication for contraceptive purposes. When Jane acknowledged that this was indeed her objective, the pharmacist refused to refill the prescription because of his religious beliefs.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0408/p01s02-ussc.html
From rural Texas to Chicago, more instances are cropping up of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill. As a result, politicians around the country are stepping into the fray.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm
For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.
We gotcha. Pharmacists should follow the law. Those that disagree should find a new job.
You do NOT hear a lot of conservatives making any such claim. At least no reputable ones. Provide evidence of such a claim. When it comes to medicine or a pharmacy the Government should and must ensure the welfare of the people are considered, not the religious background of some public company.
A private doctor can and should be allowed to determine whom he treats and how ( within legal bounds) a pharmacy should not. Nor a Hospital that recieves ANY government funding AT ALL.
Maineman:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...sts-pill_x.htm
Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.
Mattskramer:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/156855.htm
About 100 people staged a protest outside a Chicago pharmacy where a pharmacist refuses to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. There's growing support for letting pharmacists get away with not doing their job and perhaps more public pressure like this will reverse the trend.
http://mediagirl.org/node/1490
On a Saturday in Menomonie, Wisconsin, Jane1returned to her neighborhood drugstore to refill her birth control prescription, which she needed to begin taking the following day. The pharmacist on duty asked personal questions of Jane, including whether she used the medication for contraceptive purposes. When Jane acknowledged that this was indeed her objective, the pharmacist refused to refill the prescription because of his religious beliefs.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0408/p01s02-ussc.html
From rural Texas to Chicago, more instances are cropping up of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill. As a result, politicians around the country are stepping into the fray.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar27.html
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...sts-pill_x.htm
For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.
if the dunkin donuts dude does not to comply with the terms of his franchise contract he should have his franchise terminated....he signed up knowing he would have to sell pork.....either....sell them....quit....or lose you franchise and be sued for breach of contract
as for employees of a pharmacy refusing to sell products .... they took the job knowing they would have to sell them ....either .... sell them ...quit or be fired...
Yes....yes...yes.... yes....
and
yes...yes...yes...yes!
which is what I've and several others have been saying for 2 days.
just trying to help you put it to bed......
I know that, for Jillian's benefit, not yours.
