red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #101
Wow. Where'd you come up with THIS?
this for starters
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=49637
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow. Where'd you come up with THIS?
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."
--------
Comparing the actual article to your header, the NYT would be proud to have you on staff.
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.
Let me know when it happens
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.
where is the personal attack?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.