From Reuters via Fox:
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.
All together now: Islam is not a race!
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.
'Tis very true: O wise and upright judge! Obviously relocating a store is a mere trifle and remodeling no inconvenience at all.
Everyone go grab a donut and some coffee and discuss.
Until American companies get it through their thick skulls that doing business with Islamists is as stupid as it gets, they will continue to experience said Islamists filing crap lawsuits based on their "race."
One more time....Islam is not a race. Hell, until it is cleaned up, starting with the Koran, it shouldn't even be considered a legitimate religion.
STOP HIRING MUSLIMS, you ding-dongs.
Apparently it's not just Muslims. There are Jewish franchisees whose stores are kosher; they are also under pressure from the corporation.
Islam is not a ‘race’ and most probably not even a ‘religion’ but more a violent political ideology and most specifically a mental disease.
on a somewhat related note:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8Q9TMB81.htm
Denied retail employment for insisting on wearing viel.
My own asessment is that Dunkin Donuts will prevail due to call for uniformity in franchise agreement, but, this jewelry saleperson may have the better case.
...LESSON LEARNED: do not hire Muslims, do not sell franchises to Muslims.....ever!...
The thing with having muslims invoking their religious rights, excessively, over all things possible, unlike other religions, is this: we get to "Pay" all the legal fees with defense, court costs, lost time etc etc. Soon they will want all pictures and cartoons of pigs banned, ban handling and selling of pork, ban pork farms because they are close to where they live. In other words, we shall do all the accommodating and paying, irrespective of the fact these people knew of our customs and practices before they begged to come here from the s*it hole they were living in.
This stuff will not stop. It will only expand beyond reason. It is submission on our part, falling right into the trap of Islam.
And it is incumbent upon us to avoid moslem owned businesses.
I can't see Dunkin Donuts folding to this, as that would mean the contamination of their brand name. One of the key elements of brand marketing - not just franchises - is that if your corporate name is going to be behind a product, then any variation in the product/service would undermine that brand name.
It's true that with franchises, there is sometimes a variation between locations - like at a Burger King, I may not get the same range of choices in Fresno that I may get in Oakland. But within a locale, when there are variations, that's a problem.
Elkhatib should instead consider working for Krispy Kreme. It is 11.3% Kuwaiti-owned, and as Debbie Schlussel points out, abides by the Arab boycott of Israel - there ain't one in Israel. They probably may even have halal donuts, which would make him happier.
Leave Dunkin Donuts to us Infidels, while you Mohammedans gorge on Krispy Kreme. But then again, just as Mohammedans don't believe in leaving Infidels alone, they don't believe in splitting and sharing either.
And if Dunkin Donuts folds, just go off Donuts altogether. Maybe gorge on those Danish cookies instead.
I don't know, I think the franchisee has a point. He had a contract back in 1979 -- "before the company began selling pork." What if a franchisee doesn't want to sell certain kinds of sandwiches? Why should selling pork be made mandatory? After all, it's a Donut Shop. When I think "dunkin' donuts" I'm not thinking of pork products...it's not "Porky's".
Another question comes to mind - would a Jew have any problems owning or working at a Dunkin Donuts if (s)he had to sell bacon sandwiches or sausage rolls? Not eat, but just sell?
J.S., if the corporate leadership in a company decides to introduce a product, an employee can't block that product introduction because (s)he disagrees with it - the right thing to do is either go with that decision, or bail out. What if a Muslim working at a burger joint refuses to add bacon to a sandwich when I specifically request it? Should a Hindu who chooses to work @ In 'n Out Burger be able to force that joint to carry non beef options, say chicken?
Sure, people don't go to Dunkin Donuts for pork, but they don't go there for coffee either - so should a franchise be free to not offer coffee, given that that's what one goes to Starbucks or Peets' for? Typically, at breakfast, if they were to want to choose standard breakfast fare, instead of going to the nearest McDonald's, they could have a sausage roll right there if they wanted to, even if that wasn't the original reason to go there. Or since when is it written that a donut joint should only be able to offer donuts as standard fare, and all other things as options?
Just boycott his stupid franchise.
Infidel Pride: "What if a Muslim working at a burger joint refuses to add bacon to a sandwich when I specifically request it?"
That would be discrimination against you solely based on religious grounds. It's intolerant on their part. See how they would use the very thing they demand of us, against us all?
sounder, when one of us runs across this - it will be up to us to pursue it then.
I won't even go into a store if there is a muslim in it. A Starbucks had a muslim behind the counter - I walked in and made a 180 degree turn right out the door. I will not give my money to anyone who supports muslims. The USA gives way too much money to muslim countries - and I won't do it with the money in my pocket.
You guys can give me all the reasons in the world why I should not be this way - I will not support people who think a murdering thug is their prophet and they want me, and mine, dead.
"Sure, people don't go to Dunkin Donuts for pork, but they don't go there for coffee either - so should a franchise be free to not offer coffee, given that that's what one goes to Starbucks or Peets' for?"
Wrong. That is, it's not necessarily true. Lots of people go to Dunkin Donuts for a cheap cup of coffee, unlike the $4.00 bad boy you get at the Starbucks. Coffee and Donuts go together like America and Apple Pie. :)
The fact of the matter is, Dunkin Donuts has their hands full here becuase other stores are not required to sell the sandwhiches...this poses a problem for them...
Although I must say, again echoing someone elses comments.... he's the owner of the damn franchise, he's not being forced to EAT the pork, or necessarily even handle it. Only order it, if that is what he does. Grow up already!
There's a difference between purchasing a franchise and being an employer/employee. The two are not the same. Clearly, an employee cannot dictate what will or will not be served, etc. (most Jews have no problems selling pork, etc.)
A franchise is different. the Franchisee is purchasing the equivalent of a brand name. (So the purchaser then has the right to use the name, say "Harveys", "McDonalds," "Starbucks", etc.) There are some requirements with respect to uniformity (that's why franchises tend to be so successful -- there are few surprises for the customers. but the question becomes Why would Dunkin Donuts require pork sandwiches to be sold? I think that's a fairly draconian demand and that it could be used as a means of discrimination. I imagine that a line of pre-packaged sandwhiches (bearing a Dunkin' Donuts label) are put out on display -- but what's the problem if the pork sandwhiches aren't offered by this Franchise owner? Does that really cause enormous harm for the Dunkin Donut brand name? (i don't see it.) (Btw, there is a Kosher mcDonalds in Israel.)
R_not, fully agree with you - that's what I generally would do.
ThinkForYourself, I get your point, but the difference here is that while other stores don't offer sandwiches period, this Mohammedan wants to offer some sandwiches but not others, thereby disrupting the expectation that a customer might have: "If they are selling sandwiches, I should be able to get a ham sandwich". If he wants to follow the lead of others and not offer sandwiches at all, he'd be high and dry.
I would say, though, that if he were a business owner, he would be well within his rights not to sell pork. If a Jewish store owner refused to sell pork, or a Hindu store owner refused to sell beef, would you hold it against him? However, if a Hindu franchise owner at In&Out Burger (which sells beef, but no other meat) were to try his stunt, he would deserve the same opprobrium: trying to disrupt a franchise.
J.S., once Dunkin Donuts determines that they want to sell sandwiches, why is it draconian of them to require that franchises that carry sandwiches must offer all of the recommended brands?
It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
Guys,
I admire all the scholarly legal effort on this thread as to whether Dunkin Donuts should be able to impose a sausage sandwich capability on its franchisees. But lets not forget the big picture. This crap is another of the "proof positives" that the silent Jihad is definitely "ON" in our beloved USA. I have great faith in our legal system to handle stuff like this from a purist standpoint. But I have NO faith when the cases come before liberal-agenda-driven activist judges. Then we are at the mercy of an appeals process, assuming there is one, which will get the case overturned by a judge with a little better understanding of the Constitution. ... We shouldn't have to be going down this road in the first place! The standard muslim victimization card is one of the preliminary tactics of the silent Jihad conquest, and needs to get called out as such. We really are being assulted on many levels.
...seems like the only thing you can do to irritate muslims is to remove them...
ban muslim immigration...
"this Mohammedan wants to offer some sandwiches but not others.." The article doesn't make this entirely clear (ie, that the Muslim wants to offer some sandwiches, but not the pork ones -- or does the Muslim not want to sell sandwiches at all (?). The judge noted, however, that because other Dunkin' Donuts in the area (3, in fact) did not sell any sandwiches at all (thus suggesting that these breakfast sandwiches are not really integral to the brand name of Dunkin' Donuts), the fellow does have a case. Also, given the history of Dunkin' Donuts (the Muslim here had purchased the franchise back in 1979 -- and no pork), again, why suddenly make the sale of pork products mandatory? (Couldn't a compromise be reached -- offer the beef/lamb/chicken sandwiches for sale -- case closed (?). (Again, everything would be quite different if this were a chain that sold -- routinely -- pork products, which had a history of selling this -- there wouldn't be a case. but, it's like the "Suzie CreamCheese Factory" demands its franchisees to sell pork loins.
It would be a healthier world if people avoided doughnuts anyways. I eat cereal and strawberries for breakfast.
Surprisingly, some muhammedans actually agree that all muslims should be removed:
So if I want to sell whoppers at my Mcd franchise the licenser cant say anything about how I run the franchise?
R_not -
I'm with you too. I consciously avoid stores with muslims, or places of business owned by muslims. How can we trust them ? Who knows what they might be slipping into our coffee ?
This case, and others like it, are just examples of what we will have to put up with more and more as muslims gain power in North America. It's like the cabbies refusing to carry passengers with alcohol, or seeing eye dogs; or like the workers at the Swift's plant quitting because they weren't given time to pray five times a day. Etc., etc., etc..........this BS just goes on and on and I am SO SICK of it !
Donuts are unhealthy dietary fare anyway.
Quit eating them and DO NOT patronize Muslim-establishments in the US.
...can I sue my local gas station for not carrying bacon in the refrigerator....
This case, and others like it, are just examples of what we will have to put up with more and more as muslims gain power in North America. It's like the cabbies refusing to carry passengers with alcohol, or seeing eye dogs; or like the workers at the Swift's plant quitting because they weren't given time to pray five times a day. Etc., etc., etc..........this BS just goes on and on and I am SO SICK of it !
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at July 12, 2007 3:32 PM
Yes, ImNoDhimmi, this is the big picture I am so concerned with. Have you seen one of the latest of these points of contention, the San Diego public school letting the students take a timeout to recite Muslim prayers? (hello ACLU, selectively asleep on this one?) We are taking the same stupid steps down our eventual demise that the UK is taking (e.g. allowing Sharia into the UK legal process, excluding teaching of the holocaust in some UK public schools to avoid offending Muslims). Too much of the U.S. is not properly dialed in to the threat of Islam, even after 911. I am short on optimism with this.
I have no idea how this will turn out...the franchise owner may have a point, or he may be looking for a way to get rid of a nearly 30 year old store, and make a couple of million dollars extra from Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. due to insensitivities to his "race." I stay clear of Caribou Coffee Shops, as I have heard that the Saudis own a majority in that company. I was going to purchase a new coach from an Ethan Allen Furniture Store until a friend told me that the CEO and owner is a Pakistani whose son was killed fighting in Afghanistan. The CEO claims his son was fighting the Russians, although his date of death indicates that he was probably fighting for the Taliban. So, I bought my coach from a local furniture company. I buy my sweet rolls from a locally-owned bakery, which also has a coffee pot going in the morning. The sweet rolls are fresh and the coffee is fresh and reasonable.
J.S. said
Or the freshly porked lamb ... sandwich, sold only to customers from a neighboring village, if you know what I (and Ayatollah Khomeini) mean. And slaughtered before your eyes in the dining room with no anaesthesia so it can be conscious as it slowly bleeds to death while they chant incantations to Allah.
But I must say, J.S., you have convinced me in this case. Let this franchisee sell whatever subset of the parent company's products he wants, if any. And let us infidel customers purchase whatever subset of his offerings we want, if any. Let our pocketbooks send a clear message. The message.
Pigs have no problem touching humans.
Only humans are so stupid and superstitious enough to think that any form of DNA (from heavy elements originating in the cores of supernova'd stars, ultimately) are "unclean".
If the store sells ANY sandwiches, it has to sell the entire line of sandwiches.
The franchisee can't pick and choose.
He needs to sell NO sandwiches.
Or go back to Mecca and try selling falafels.
Hey, if that was the rules when he got the franchise, then Dunkin' Donuts is in the wrong. Let the guy continue the practice until he sells.
The donuts suck in comparison to Tim Horton Donuts from Canada. They are too soft and gooey. The wheat they use does not have enough duram in it.
Posted by: exsgtbrown 12:38 PM
...LESSON LEARNED: do not hire Muslims, do not sell franchises to Muslims.....ever!...
------------------------
Unfortunately, applications for franchises here in the USA probably don't include an entry for "religion". Ooops!
profitsbeard said
Have you ever been to a McDonald's in Tokyo? They don't have the entire line of sandwiches, and they have a few things you'd never see here. I tried to order a "biscuit and gravy", and "iced tea", from a KFC in Manchester, UK, and they looked at me like I was nuts. Who says that every franchise of a chain needs to sell exactly the same line of products?
It's not like the Muslim cabbies who refuse to pick up passengers because they have a seeing-eye dog or a bottle of wine. Franchisees should have some freedom to tailor their product lines.
And we customers should have the freedom to decide which businesses we want to patronize, and which ones we don't want to patronize. And franchise chains should have the freedom to decide to whom they want to sell a franchise, and to whom they do not want to sell a franchise. This is a land of freedoms, and those freedoms will work better than any fascist "YOU MUST CARRY THE SAME PRODUCT LINE" edicts that not even the other restaurants in the chain follow.
Posted by J.S. 2:02 PM
"but the question becomes Why would Dunkin Donuts require pork sandwiches to be sold?"
--------------------------------------
I think they offer sausage, or bacon & egg, on croissant or English muffin - competing with McDonald's and Burger King for the breakfast market.
As another poster mentioned earlier, if other local franchisees don't have to carry sandwiches, why should this guy? But a big caveat: he should carry ALL or NONE of their sandwich offerings. It's not up to the franchisee to select WHICH items within a like group he will carry: Can't say "I'll sell Sprite but not Pepsi". If he wants to sell some sandwiches but not others, he should give up the franchise and go independent.
The reason for franchising is: (1) from the franchisee point of view, they don't have to go out and push like heck to attract customers, the company's brand is already established and there's an existing customer base; (2) from the franchisor point of view, the franchisee will expand that brand's presence into the new location, while maintaining the brand's quality and reputation; (3) from the patron's point of view, you trust you're getting the quality, cleanliness, and familiarity of that brand.
Imagine going into a franchised Domino's and being told "We're Muslims, so we don't sell pepperoni pizza... or ham or sausage either. Want to try pineapple?" A typical pizza afficionado (such as myself!) would be furious, and let the parent company have an earful immediately. Domino's wouldn't stand for the negative impact this would cause to its brand name. Neither should Dunkin' Donuts. A no-sandwich store is one thing; a no-pork-products store (or vegetarian store, or gluten-free store) needs to be pre-approved by the franchisor first.
Infidel Pride: Another question comes to mind - would a Jew have any problems owning or working at a Dunkin Donuts if (s)he had to sell bacon sandwiches or sausage rolls? Not eat, but just sell?
Most wouldn't. Some would.
I have strong feelings against jihad and mujahidin, so strong that some of my recent posts have been deleted. But I support Mr. Elkhatib's right to run his business the way he pleases. Whether I would patronize his business or not depends on my opinion of him, not a prejudice against his religion. I think Dunkin Donuts will lose this case, and it will also be a loser for anyone who backs DD. Let's focus on better cases. This one is about individual liberty.
Elderly Zionist-
Franchise agreements give the franchisee a ready-made customer base, massive advertising, a finely and expertly honed and tested image and product line etc. The customer EXPECTS one Dunkin Donuts to be pretty much like the next. If this Muslim cannot live up to this agreement he should sell his franchise. If he is capable of carrying the breakfast line he must.
It is NOT an issue of individual liberty because a franchise is not an 'individual's' restaurant.
From post above:
"I have great faith in our legal system to handle stuff like this from a purist standpoint. But I have NO faith when the cases come before liberal-agenda-driven activist judges."
I do not share the same faith in the system as it stands. The franchise owner can use the discrimination card ( or "race" card) for quite abit of mileage. That is becuase our laws dislike any form of discrimnation by race OR religion in personal , private, and public affairs.
The woman salesperson in the above linked story, who insists on wearing her viel while selling jewelry behind the counter claims religious discrimination and, she is 100% correct, it is discrimination. The burden is on the jeweler to show why he needs to choose his sales crew. But he will have to deal with a serious challenge and who knows if he wins.
Some day we will need to amend our constitution in a way that specifically excludes discrimnation of muslims from coverage under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution. This would probably require congressional hearings offering proof as to why Islam should not be considered a religion like all others. This will all become a monumental task.
This should have *nothing* to do with discrimination, let alone 'race'.
It should come down only to what the contract between the franchisee and Dunkin Donuts says. If there is a clause in there saying that the franchisees can pick and choose what they sell (for whatever reason they like, religion included), then he has a case. But I doubt it!
If the contract says that only Dunkin Donuts gets to decide, on business grounds (i.e. customer demand and brand name), what a store can and can't sell, then he has no case at all. I expect that Dunkin Donuts thinks the local customers want pork and expect to be able to get it if breakfast is offered at all.
Nobody, including us, should be sidetracked by the 'discrimination' line.
If muslims wish to run pork-less shops, sure, go ahead, but not when the franchise owner or customer has different expectations.
So, what happens if the customers are majority Muslim and expect pork-less products?
Anywho, it is interesting that someone mentioned Domino's Pizza -- apparently said poster has yet to read "Lightning Out of Lebanon." Domino's Pizza was (according to the authors) a Hezbollah front operation...and, I'm sure (at that time) they'd have no qualms about Infidels buying pork pizzas..hmm., yes, always be careful of the establishments one supports (although i hear Domino's ownership has changed.) (The Lebanese were also into cigarette smuggling.) just saying..
When in Rome....comes to mind. If he does not like the Western way of life he should scuttle back to Saudi and open up a prayer mat shop. Alternatively he should sell his DD franchise and start up a "dunkin chapatti" outlet that does not sell pork products. ( Breakfast specials to include Chapattis filled with sheeps eyes, camels testicles, goats penis, none of which are "haram").
Race vs religion? Discrimination and double standard either way (and I'm no dhimmi)
Dunkin Donuts does not require franchisees with Kashrut (Jewish dietary law) certification to carry the pork products.
That's the issue here.
What's the issue? There are kosher Dunkin Donuts in Los Angeles. A kosher deli owner in Northern California tells me that customers sometimes enter, demand a salami and cheese sandwich, then turn indignant and leave in a huff when told that the establishment is kosher and does not prepare or serve such foods. Why are people intolerant over such an issue? This is America! God forbid that we should turn intolerant like some places and demand uniformity AND conformity.
sounder refers to the banning of pictures and cartoons of pigs. i would be in favor of this only because that would ban every member of congress from ever having his/her picture shown.
Hillbilly, since when did eating squirrel, possum, Little Debbie cakes, and pigs' feet become a test of one's "western-ness" or "American-ness"? I've seen the crap that hillbillies eat and I'm not so sure you have anything up on what you think Muslim fare is. Middle Eastern food is actually varied, tasty, and much healthier than our standard American diet.
Live and let live!
And to those of you who say "Don't go into Arab businesses or Muslim businesses": How many of you had grandparents who boycotted Jewish stores or lived in neighborhoods with "covenants"?
Again: Live and let live.
I than friend with than Supermarket Manger of than big Chain local stores are free to carry or not carry some items of food. Than Suppermarket store in than Asian area will carry more asian type food and less mexician type food. This chain is very sucueful due to not micro mangent very stores.Some suppermatket in Utah carry no beer or liquik due to state law and in New Hampston only state run store can sell alcholic drinks.
Hmmm, well, as you can imagine, since I live in Jerusalem, Palestinians are just about my least favorite people on the planet, but I'm going to have to stand with the Muslim franchise owner on this one. He has been in business many years, many years before Dunkin' Donuts decided to sell pork breakfast sandwiches, so why should he have to give up his whole business after all these years because they decided to implement something new? Maybe I don't understand franchise business well enough, but, I think this is the wrong battlefield, people. I really do. The man owns a business; let him run it. When the Muslims try to outlaw pork in OTHER people's domains, then we have a problem. But in this case, I can understand his position.
I once lived in a city that had only a small Orthodox Jewish population and no kosher restaurants whatsoever save a bagel shop that had kashrut certification from one of the local rabbis. It was "dairy" and they did have lox. It was the only place in town where an observant Jew could eat out, so it was really precious to us. At a certain point, the owner became intimidated by customers who were angry that they couldn't get meat and cream cheese on their bagel, and he decided to give up the kashrut certification and do what the other bagel franchises were doing, which was offering meat.
Two points: one, this is a case where clearly the franchise allowed some stores to refrain from selling meat if they wanted to, and the owner made an independent decision to give up his kashrut certification based on customer satisfaction; and two, why should customers get so angry that they eventually wore down the shopowner and caused a loss in the Jewish community? The day it lost its certification was like a funeral for those in the observant community. Now there was nowhere to go out to eat, not that a bagel shop is a fine dining experience, but it was better than nothing. Not exactly the same situation as this story, because the owner's religious principles were not being compromised and he was not forced to sell meat, but it does seem sad to me that the public couldn't cope with going a few blocks down the street to another store in the franchise that did sell meat. After all, there are many items that are not sold at all groceries stores in a particular chain, because as someone pointed out, grocery stores cater to their population base. Nothing wrong with that. The bagel shop was in the Jewish neighborhood and had a big KOSHER sign on the awning. What's the big deal? By the way, I do not blame the owner at all -- if I blame anyone, I blame the complaining customers.
It is another matter entirely when Muslims lobby to get pork removed from a public school menu or to have foot baths installed in public restrooms, etc. I think that as ElderlyZionist pointed out, we need to focus on the bigger issues at hand. I don't think picking on a Dunkin' Donuts owner is the way to solve our terrorism problem.
In a Sainsbury's store here in the UK I overheard a non-Muslim supervisor ask a Muslim woman who was stacking shelves whether she was ok about putting the packets of bacon on the shelf. The Muslim woman said that she did not have a problem with it.
She could easily have protested - and would no doubt have been appeased - but chose not to.
Apples and cacti. Jews in the 30's didn't have geo-political ambitions period, nor did they have any world conquest strategy of subjugating all Gentiles and either killing them or making them second class citizens after breeding themselves up to a major critical mass. That's not the case with Muslims - in countries like Lebanon and Malaysia where they've grown from minority to plurality to majority, they've ended up costing Infidels their rights and prosperity.
So why should we stop Muslims who live honest lives from prospering here? Simple: that makes such countries, like the US, attractive to other Muslims who want to come here, not to mention the possibility of resident Muslims breeding themselves like in Lebanon into a majority. Knowing what it entails, we don't want that. So while nobody is advocating a vigilante approach towards them, boycotting them is a perfectly civil way to send them a message that we know that they are the enemy just as much as they do, and that consequently, they are not welcome.
Your last line - Live & let live - is exactly how Muslims don't view the world:
In other words, live (or die) and let die. Islam's mission statement!American Jewess
Reading your story, it was unclear whether the store owner was a part of a franchise or not, since that would affect whether customers would receive what they expected from that store. If it was an independent store, then the customers would be fully unjustified in demanding what they did. Of course, the store owner was there to maximize his customers, and their satisfaction, so I agree with you there.
However, one thing I don't get - is there something in Judaism whereby simply providing kosher food isn't enough, but that one has to not provide non-Kosher food in order to be certifiable? Reason I ask - it seems to me that a simple solution here would have been to have a kosher section of the freezer/kitchen where the kosher food was available, and a non-kosher section, where customers who wanted their meat and dairy could have it. Normally, any business owner might want to segment their market, and offer different items to different customers, but from what you are describing, it seems to be an either-or situation - either service the Jews, or service the Gentiles.
I do however disagree with you on your contention that this is a trivial issue - that's how you get creeping shariah. It need not be achieved with Jihad - the way it's more likely to be pulled off is a concession here with pork sandwiches, a concession there with foot washbasins at Dearborn, another one with tombstones re-oriented to face Mecca - before you know it, it's a community where shariah is the de-facto norm. Which is why, even if on principle I agreed with franchises being able to deviate from the rule, I'd still oppose it here with Muslims, despite being willing to be more generous towards Jews or anybody else. In case it sounds unfair to you (and it is), think of it as reverse shariah, where we have one set of rights for Infidels, and another lesser set of rights for Muslims.
Let them walk the dhimmi walk.
Infidel,
Somehow I doubt that the Pakistani laundrette and the little Arab who sells me my wine care about "world conquest" as you put it. Many people in the 30's were convinced that Jews were behind Bolshevism and world conquest. Paranoid and psychotic as that idea was...and as factual as Islamo-nazi dreams of world conquest ARE...let's not get carried away with it to the point we start seeing Osama bin Ladin's ugly goat face in the eyes of every Muslim we meet. Most are just people trying to make a living.
Infidel,
Somehow I doubt that the Pakistani laundrette and the little Arab who sells me my wine care about "world conquest" as you put it. Many people in the 30's were convinced that Jews were behind Bolshevism and world conquest. Paranoid and psychotic as that idea was...and as factual as Islamo-nazi dreams of world conquest ARE...let's not get carried away with it to the point we start seeing Osama bin Ladin's ugly goat face in the eyes of every Muslim we meet. Most are just people trying to make a living.
Infidel Pride, no Orthodox Rabbi would certify a kitchen where treife (non-kosher) food was prepared as kosher. There would be too much possibility of cross-contamination. No restaurant serving treife food could be certified kosher. The owner would have to maintain seperate kitchens and dining rooms, with a wall between them at least. Seperate buildings would be better.
It's acceptable to buy kosher food from a general grocery store only because the food is in sealed packages. What about the fruit and vegetables in the produce section? Couldn't they be contaminated by treife salami molecules wafting over from the deli section? Mmmm, better don't think about it. Most practising Jews compromise on kashrut. "Waiter, give me a plate of what that guy is having." "You want the sweet and sour pork, sir?" "Did I ask you what it was?"
However, the strict Orthodoxen take satisfaction in making kashrut as restrictive and difficult as possible. It's called 'building a fence around the law'. It's both an act of worship and a competitive game, a 'can you top this' contest.
The story is told that when the late Lubavitcher Rabbi Schneerson, whose followers proclaimed him Messiah as he lay dying, passed and came to heaven's gates, he saw all the angels running frantically around as he was met personally by the arch-angel Gabriel. "What's all this commotion?" asked Reb Schneerson.
"Oy Rebbeniu!" said Gabriel, "It's all in your honor, to express our joy that you've come to your eternal reward! Tonight there will be a great banquet in your honor. Avrohom Avinu will be the master of ceremonies. Maimonides will be your waiter. Our Mother Rachel will be your dinner partner. There will be toasts, speeches. Everyone is rushing to prepare."
"A banquet." said Reb Schneerson, and he cocked a suspicious eyebrow. "Who is catering?"
"Oy Rebbeniu!" said Gabriel, "The Rabbanim Hillel and Shammai have put aside their ancient rivalry and requested the privilege of jointly preparing the dinner. And Moshe Rabbeinu himself will inspect the kitchen!"
"Well then," said Reb Schneerson, somewhat mollified, "I'll have the fruit plate."
I think this is a really important discussion, because our pocketbooks are really the main way we can have any influence on what's happening.
"If it was an independent store, then the customers would be fully unjustified in demanding what they did. "
I'm absolutely amazed to hear this from an American - the country of free trade????
With all due respect, I disagree that customers are unjustified asking for anything they want, as long as they are polite. Stores should be grateful when customers give them feedback, even if they choose not to base business decisions on the feedback. If the store owner chooses to not meet customer requests for any (including religious) reasons, they can simply (again politely) refuse.
BTW, if that ex-kosher store decided it was not in his business interests to continue being kosher, it may have been sad for the orthodox locals, but surely if they wanted to have an outing venue that met their requirements they needed to organise one or make one worth the owner's while?
When I was heavily into organic food I knew that normal supermarkets didn't find stocking it worthwhile: I had to be part of the organic food co-op, where we all paid more and put in volunteer hours each month. Before my local suburb could support restaurants, the only night out was the weekly dinner cooked by the local ladies at the local community hall - and much enjoyed by all. Get my drift?
If store owners don't even want customers to ask for a particular item (e.g. non-kosher) in the first place, the equivalent of the old 'please don't ask for credit as a refusal may offend' sign should suffice - a sign reading 'please don't ask for non-halal (or non-kosher, or non-vegetarian, etc. etec) food, as a refusal may offend'. But many customers genuinely don't understand what kosher or halal means (and the rules can be quite complex), so perhaps if stores don't want the requests they need to add more information to the sign.
In summary: the franchisee could have his way IF his contract with Dunkin Donuts allows for his specific demands(nothing to do with religion per se).
Then, if he's going to be upset by people asking for ham/bacon sandwiches, he needs to put up a sign telling them that they aren't sold there.
Regarding boycotting stores: everyone must make their own decisions about whom they wish to support in their community. I support small, independent stores and restaurants wherever possible, including a Chinese vege shop, Thai restaurants and the local Indian restaurant. The woman wearing a headscarf and selling jewellery is telling me, by her headscarf, that she thinks I'm sinful for showing my hair to the world. So I choose not to buy anything from her.
See it as 'paranoid' if you wish, but why should I support someone who clearly despises me for my (lack of) religion?
Re the boycotting of jewish stores, wasn't there a whole lot more to it: violence against store owners, destruction of property, intimidation of customers? Also, anti-semitic defamation was surely illegal?
Look, if some idiots say 'boycott so and so because of this (nutcase) reason', and there is free debate on it, they aren't allowed to get away with defamation, and no violence or threat of violence is involved - well, that's a free society and the kind of stuff we see against constantly all kinds of businesses for all kinds of reasons.
However, if defamation, violence, intimidation, arson and other crimes are involved, that's waaaay beyond boycotts. That edges towards the terrorist tactics of intimidating barbers and record-sellers.
ElderlyZionist
Thanks for the explanation. I understand now where they are coming from, and will avoid getting into the thorny issue of how flexible a religion should be in order to accommodate modern practical considerations.
desertdawg29palms
You are making the same assumptions that most people do about the majority of Muslims being either harmless, moderate or not in the same camp as the Jihadis. As has been discussed on this site ad nauseum, that's a lethal assumption to make. I'm sure Malaysian Chinese and Tamils used to make the same assumptions, and today, they face situations where their rights are trampled on.
Point is - there is no evidence as to where a majority of Muslims stand on a host of controversial issues. The Pew research that was released recently came up with some scary findings, and even for that, one has to assume that a good segment of the population that took benign positions was practicing taquiyya. Given both the existing data, and the lack of it, about where mainstream opinion lies on a host of controversial issues (and from the many honor killing stories we see from Europe, we know where they like vis a vis Muslimahs marrying/dating Infidels and converting out of Islam), the safe assumption to make is that the majority of Muslims are our enemies, and within the law, we should at least boycott them so that their capability to hurt us later isn't enhanced.
Lili
You made the right call - any woman who's rude enough to tell you that you're sinful for letting out your hair deserves to be boycotted. But when I said that customers would be unjustified, I was referring to customers being pushy and raising hell about something not being sold by a store. Sure, every business appreciates feedback, but not all feedback, or even a majority of it needs to be acted on. For instance, if a whole lot of people try and press Taco Bell to provide french fries, which they don't, and Taco Bell refuses, the customers would be justified in taking their drive by's elsewhere, but unjustified in haranguing Taco Bell about it.
You mention that the store should put up a sign that says '_____ not sold here'. From the above story, that's what I thought they may have, although it wasn't mentioned. But the customers getting angry because they weren't getting what they wanted was what both American Jewess and I found unreasonable.
They should keep an eye on that franchisee. If he doesn't want to sell pork it's because he's catering to Muslim customers. He doesn't care if he loses non Muslims because he only wants to serve Muslims. Soon, we will see that there will be places like that in the US: Muslims only allowed or tolerated.
No sign needed. Just a creepy feeling when you walk by.