Sharia Law Hits Dunkin Doughnuts

[red states rule]

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

It is not Racial discrimination it is Religious... and I was not aware religion was protected in this manner. The Judge needs to have an intelligence check... The Palestinian "race" doesn't exist, though I guess he could claim to me semite? And last I checked the RACE is not restricted racially, just religiously.

He does have a point though, they allowed him to do buisiness for 20 years , why the sudden change.

 

[red states rule]

It is not Racial discrimination it is Religious... and I was not aware religion was protected in this manner. The Judge needs to have an intelligence check... The Palestinian "race" doesn't exist, though I guess he could claim to me semite? And last I checked the RACE is not restricted racially, just religiously.

He does have a point though, they allowed him to do buisiness for 20 years , why the sudden change.

A liberal Judge making law from the bench

Nothing new here sir

 

[Larkinn]

A liberal Judge making law from the bench

Nothing new here sir

And what law is it that was made, rsr?

It is not Racial discrimination it is Religious... and I was not aware religion was protected in this manner. The Judge needs to have an intelligence check... The Palestinian "race" doesn't exist, though I guess he could claim to me semite? And last I checked the RACE is not restricted racially, just religiously.

You need to read the justification for why the judge ruled the way he did. There are other stores in the area who don't carry the full line, for various reasons. None of them were penalized...this guy was. Why? It could be for racial reasons...which is why the lawsuit will be allowed to proceed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What part of it is not race related do you not understand? It is religious bias if any bias at all.

 

[Gunny]

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

Total bullshit. If it's a standard Dunkin Donuts fare, and standard part of the franchise agreement, this whiney-ass piece of trash need to just sit down, shut up, and eat a freakin' donut.

What's next? Indian McDonald's owners who won't sell burgers?

 

[mattskramer]

This is a tough call. On the one hand, the Muslim could sell his interest in the franchise and find a different job. “If you don’t like it, find another job”. Yet, should a business be allowed to discriminate, intentionally or not, against someone on religious grounds? What if my boss changed the rules and the new rules went against my religious beliefs? What if my job required me to work on Sunday when my religious practice (or “Christian Law” as I understand it) required me to not work on Sunday?

 

[Annie]

This is a tough call. On the one hand, the Muslim could sell his interest in the franchise and find a different job. “If you don’t like it, find another job”. Yet, should a business be allowed to discriminate, intentionally or not, against someone on religious grounds? What if my boss changed the rules and the new rules went against my religious beliefs? What if my job required me to work on Sunday when my religious practice (or “Christian Law” as I understand it) required me to not work on Sunday?

Umm, find another job. However, as someone wrote above, the article mentions that other franchise owners change the menu, seems to me that is a problem, rules need to be applied across the board.

 

[Larkinn]

What part of it is not race related do you not understand? It is religious bias if any bias at all.

*sigh* Please tell me the REASON that the owners shut down his shop. You don't know it? Hey, thats because its unknown...and the owner thinks it is race.

He is saying Dunkin Donuts wants him to have things that violate his religion, BECAUSE of his race.

posted by Gunny
Total bullshit. If it's a standard Dunkin Donuts fare, and standard part of the franchise agreement, this whiney-ass piece of trash need to just sit down, shut up, and eat a freakin' donut.

Its NOT a standard part, because other franchises are allowed to get away with not doing it...but he is not. The question is why...he thinks its race.

 

[red states rule]

*sigh* Please tell me the REASON that the owners shut down his shop. You don't know it? Hey, thats because its unknown...and the owner thinks it is race.

He is saying Dunkin Donuts wants him to have things that violate his religion, BECAUSE of his race.



Its NOT a standard part, because other franchises are allowed to get away with not doing it...but he is not. The question is why...he thinks its race.

I wish Muslims would stop whining, suck it up, and stop demanding special treatment

 

[actsnoblemartin]

The people renewing the contract have a legal right not to renew the contract. And since are people forced to do business with each other, i hate liberals judges, they write law from the bench.

A liberal Judge making law from the bench

Nothing new here sir

 

[actsnoblemartin]

agreeed 100%

I wish Muslims would stop whining, suck it up, and stop demanding special treatment

 

[red states rule]

Ah, give him a sausage biscuit, a copy of Playboy, and send him on his way

 

[lieberalism]

the aclu is working hard to arab-ize america.

 

[red states rule]

the aclu is working hard to arab-ize america.

and remove all images of God from the public view

 

[ReillyT]

The people renewing the contract have a legal right not to renew the contract. And since are people forced to do business with each other, i hate liberals judges, they write law from the bench.

That is not entirely true. If someone worked on a yearly contract and new management came in and said that they would not renew his contract because he was black, and they don't want to hire black people, this is obviously illegal. Presumably, the same rules must also apply to franchise agreements.

It is not new law. I am guessing it is an application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Whether or not this is actually discrimation based on religion or race is for a jury to decide. The judge just said he could bring his case. What's wrong with that.

 

[red states rule]

That is not entirely true. If someone worked on a yearly contract and new management came in and said that they would not renew his contract because he was black, and they don't want to hire black people, this is obviously illegal. Presumably, the same rules must also apply to franchise agreements.

It is not new law. I am guessing it is an application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Whether or not this is actually discrimation based on religion or race is for a jury to decide. The judge just said he could bring his case. What's wrong with that.

They are teling him he has to carry the same menu as all stores

He is asking for special treatment - let him carry the products or sell his share of the business

 

[ReillyT]

They are teling him he has to carry the same menu as all stores

He is asking for special treatment - let him carry the products or sell his share of the business

For once, I don't disagree with all of what you said. They are telling him he has to carry the same menu or they won't renew the franchise agreement. However, if this rule is applied differently to him than others, or even if he thinks they are just using this rule as a pretext (since they haven't applied it before), then the question becomes why are they trying to enforce this rule against him and now. He deserves the right to present evidence to a jury showing that it is a decision based upon his race (or anything other criteria in the CRA 1964). The judge didn't grant him a victory. The judge just said he could bring forth his case.

 

[red states rule]

For once, I don't disagree with all of what you said. They are telling him he has to carry the same menu or they won't renew the franchise agreement. However, if this rule is applied differently to him than others, or even if he thinks they are just using this rule as a pretext (since they haven't applied it before), then the question becomes why are they trying to enforce this rule against him and now. He deserves the right to present evidence to a jury showing that it is a decision based upon his race (or anything other criteria in the CRA 1964). The judge didn't grant him a victory. The judge just said he could bring forth his case.

What is next with this guy - he will not serve blind people who have seeing eye dogs?

 

[ReillyT]

What is next with this guy - he will not serve blind people who have seeing eye dogs?

First, then he would be violating the ADA, and his blind customers could sue him. Those fucking liberal judges and their concern for the blind!!!!!

Second, your post made such little sense that I regret the 7 seconds of my life that have been wasted in reading it.