Chick-fil-A: Franchise Operators Must "Participate in Group Prayers"

[Quantum Windbag]

One can, however, be informed in advance of the requirements of the job, which can actually include provisions that are religious. and either agree to them or get another job. Your problem is you assume people have a right to work for a company and that said company actually has to hire people that actively disagree with its religion. You are, as usual, wrong.

Umm No, if we were talking about Employees then they COULD NOT discriminate based on Religion. But CFA does not Discriminate when Hiring Employees, They do not Require Employees to Pray, or Espouse Christian Ideals, Because they Legally Can not.

What they do, Is not sell Franchises to People that do not share their Beliefs, and they have every right to do so.

You're wrong. According to what I read, the franchisees are not required to BE Christian. They're just required (among other things) to participate in group prayer. Personally, I find that very strange. They're essentially saying that they would willingly pray with non believers.

I do it all the time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A franchisee is not an employee. CFA is not the Federal government. If people dont like it, they dont have to do business with CFA.
So other than being completely off base your post is stupid.

I love how when walmart does this people freak the fuck out and call it a cult, but when chik fil a does it it is just freedom. Chik fil a is treading a thin line of discrimination in a commercial enterprise.

Oh well, it will be fun to watch them be forced to have health insurance which allows for birth control.

The only people I have seen freak out over WalMart are the progressives that are saying that there is a massive conspiracy not to promote women. I am pretty sure not a single one of them is now supporting Chick-fil-A.

 

[hortysir]

A franchisee cannot be fired? Cathy has stated that "he would probably terminate the contract of an operator who had done something sinful..."

We're talking about a distinction without a difference. "Oh, I'm not firing you! I'm terminating your contract." See, it's COMPLETELY different."

Do you understand the difference between "firing" someone and "terminating a business contract"? Probably not, since you've already demonstrated you don't know shit about business contracts or franchises.

We're talking about something that's NONE OF YOUR FRIGGING BUSINESS. Are you a Chick-Fil-A franchisee? Someone hold a gun to your head and force you to sign a contract to open one of their stores, did they? No? Then what's it to you what contracts other people decide to sign?

My God, educate yourself a little and stop sounding like such a schmuck.

What is franchise? definition and meaning

Franchising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Franchise Definition | Investopedia

I can't doing anything about it since I don't have standing. But I certainly hope some franchisee takes them to court.

I love listening to the rabid dogs trying to play armchair lawyer with Franchise agreements.

Thing is, contrary to what Obama has spoon-fed you, people work hard to build their companies up to the point where they can Franchise out their business.

Notice the bold?

If you don't like the company's business model or core principles you are absolutely free to go buy a McDonalds franchise or a Taco Bell.

Easy, really.

At the end of the day it, CFA's name that is on the line when you buy into the franchise.
You pay franchise fees to be able to use that name.

If it bothers you that much, how about opening your OWN business with your OWN original thought and business model.
But I know that's too hard to do.

 

[Mustang]

They can if they determine that the act violated civil rights.

where in the Constitution does it say that you cannot agree to pray at work.....?

Agree...yes. Coerced into it...no!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They can if they determine that the act violated civil rights.

where in the Constitution does it say that you cannot agree to pray at work.....?

Agree...yes. Coerced into it...no!

Let's see the first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say anything about a private business. Short of forcing their workers to work in unsafe conditions or forcing their employee's to work more than 40 hours a week their is no civil rights violation, people are free to leave a company anytime they choose to.

 

[martybegan]

They can if they determine that the act violated civil rights.

where in the Constitution does it say that you cannot agree to pray at work.....?

Agree...yes. Coerced into it...no!

I think I missed the part where every Chic-fil-a franchisee has a gun to thier head when they signed the franchise agreement.

 

[Conservative]

You're wrong. According to what I read, the franchisees are not required to BE Christian. They're just required (among other things) to participate in group prayer. Personally, I find that very strange. They're essentially saying that they would willingly pray with non believers.

kind of the whole point, dumb ass. Passive proselytizing. No law against it.

 

[Katzndogz]

No one has to own a Chick Fil A franchise, they can go to any of hundreds of others.

 

[Mustang]

where in the Constitution does it say that you cannot agree to pray at work.....?

Agree...yes. Coerced into it...no!

Let's see the first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say anything about a private business. Short of forcing their workers to work in unsafe conditions or forcing their employee's to work more than 40 hours a week their is no civil rights violation, people are free to leave a company anytime they choose to.

Freedom of religion does not translate into people having the freedom to coerce others into participating in their religious practices, whether it's based on sincerely held beliefs, or not. Additionally, this franchise agreement is an example of someone using a disparity in power to coerce someone. In fact, it goes beyond mere coercion since the franchises are not free to anyone. A person must PAY to be awarded a franchise, and a religious requirement should have no bearing on a business relationship when that business relationship doesn't involve a religious institution or religious dietary requirements.

 

[del]

Agree...yes. Coerced into it...no!

Let's see the first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say anything about a private business. Short of forcing their workers to work in unsafe conditions or forcing their employee's to work more than 40 hours a week their is no civil rights violation, people are free to leave a company anytime they choose to.

Freedom of religion does not translate into people having the freedom to coerce others into participating in their religious practices, whether it's based on sincerely held beliefs, or not. Additionally, this franchise agreement is an example of someone using a disparity in power to coerce someone. In fact, it goes beyond mere coercion since the franchises are not free to anyone. A person must PAY to be awarded a franchise, and a religious requirement should have no bearing on a business relationship when that business relationship doesn't involve a religious institution or religious dietary requirements.

your density qualifies you to be a black hole

kudos

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Agree...yes. Coerced into it...no!

Let's see the first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say anything about a private business. Short of forcing their workers to work in unsafe conditions or forcing their employee's to work more than 40 hours a week their is no civil rights violation, people are free to leave a company anytime they choose to.

Freedom of religion does not translate into people having the freedom to coerce others into participating in their religious practices, whether it's based on sincerely held beliefs, or not. Additionally, this franchise agreement is an example of someone using a disparity in power to coerce someone. In fact, it goes beyond mere coercion since the franchises are not free to anyone. A person must PAY to be awarded a franchise, and a religious requirement should have no bearing on a business relationship when that business relationship doesn't involve a religious institution or religious dietary requirements.

I think you're wrong people are not slaves they can choose to do as they please Chick Fili A is a private business and can be run the way the owners so choose to run it.

 

[signelect]

A franchisee is not an employee. CFA is not the Federal government. If people dont like it, they dont have to do business with CFA.
So other than being completely off base your post is stupid.

It's not off base in the least. It's religious discrimination which, by the way, is something that conservatives are always crying about. Chick-fil-A is imposing their religious values on people who essentially work FOR them, whether they're called employees, or franchisees, or contract workers. The end result is still the same.

You still don't get it. No one makes anyone buy a franchise, if you don't like the deal don't buy. McDonald franchisees wear a certain uniform, if that desrimnation, no it is part of the deal. Let move on to something important. CFA is getting tons for free advertising.

 

[martybegan]

Agree...yes. Coerced into it...no!

Let's see the first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say anything about a private business. Short of forcing their workers to work in unsafe conditions or forcing their employee's to work more than 40 hours a week their is no civil rights violation, people are free to leave a company anytime they choose to.

Freedom of religion does not translate into people having the freedom to coerce others into participating in their religious practices, whether it's based on sincerely held beliefs, or not. Additionally, this franchise agreement is an example of someone using a disparity in power to coerce someone. In fact, it goes beyond mere coercion since the franchises are not free to anyone. A person must PAY to be awarded a franchise, and a religious requirement should have no bearing on a business relationship when that business relationship doesn't involve a religious institution or religious dietary requirements.

Why does your opinion matter when it comes to a legal business agreement between two competent parties?

This is no different then requiring a franchisee to attend monthly meetings at corporate.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's like moving into a homeowner's association and painting your house with verses from the Bible. Then complaining that you can't be coerced into giving up your religious beliefs just to engage in the business enterprise of the homeowner's association. If you know that the color of your house is dictated by the rules of the group, don't buy there. If you know that CFA wants participation in group prayer and you don't want to do that, don't buy a franchise. Don't give them your money.

 

[Full-Auto]

Personally, I think that all this Chick-fil-A brouhaha is much ado about nonsense. People on both sides need to get a life and stop acting so damn childish.

HOWEVER, it has managed to shed a light on some CfA internal requirements for franchisees that, in my humble opinion, is anathema to the notion of freedom in this country and what is and IS NOT appropriate for an employer to expect and demand out of an employee.

I don't read Daily Kos, but this was the first site where I could find this information. That's why I included it here.

Chick-fil-A: Franchise Operators Must "Espouse Christian Values" and "Participate in Group Prayers"


Listening to Randi Rhodes yesterday, I heard something that struck me. So I did a little research and found this, which I thought worth sharing with you all.


An article in the small business section of the Houston Chronicle reports on how one can win approval to become a franchise operator for Chick-fil-A.
First you fill out an application, and the company does some checking into your financial background, etc. Step 2 in winning approval mentions that the company wants franchisees to be "active" in their communities, and notes specifically that they "prefer" people who participate in "community, religious and professional organizations." Now it's getting interesting, but even that's pretty mild stuff compared to what's coming, especially after step 3, which merely emphasizes that operating the franchise should be the applicant's full-time job.

Step 4 Play an active role in your church. Chick-fil-A's owners are devout Christians and expect all of their operators to share Christian values. Operators do not need to be Christian, but must be willing to close the restaurant on Sundays, espouse Christian values and be willing to participate in group prayers during training and management meetings.
​

That's where I took a deep breath. Yes, it says that operators don't have to be Christian, but there's the part about values and prayers. We'll discuss that further in a bit. Step 5 asks applicants to be prepared for a long vetting process. Then Step 6 informs applicants that they will have to clearly declare their marital status, and notes that the chairman, S. Truett Cathy, "prefers" that all franchisees be married. The article goes on to explain that:

One-third of all Chick-fil-A operators have attended Christian relationship-building retreats at the urging of the company. Cathy notes that he would probably terminate the contract of an operator who had done something sinful or harmful to his family.​

Daily Kos: Chick-fil-A: Franchise Operators Must "Espouse Christian Values" and "Participate in Group Prayers"

Whats the problem........................


Democrats have been on their knees for the entire Obama term.

 

[Mustang]

No one has to own a Chick Fil A franchise, they can go to any of hundreds of others.

What a preposterous concept.

Problem: "Don't like the fact that your rights are being infringed over here?"

Solution: "Go over there where you and your rights will be respected!"

 

[GuyPinestra]

No one has to own a Chick Fil A franchise, they can go to any of hundreds of others.

What a preposterous concept.

Problem: "Don't like the fact that your rights are being infringed over here?"

Solution: "Go over there where you and your rights will be respected!"

Nobody's rights are being infringed, you do not have the RIGHT to purchase a CFA franchise, idiot.

 

[martybegan]

No one has to own a Chick Fil A franchise, they can go to any of hundreds of others.

What a preposterous concept.

Problem: "Don't like the fact that your rights are being infringed over here?"

Solution: "Go over there where you and your rights will be respected!"

Your rights can't be infringed WHEN YOU WILLINGLY SIGN A CONTRACT AGREEING TO A GIVEN ACTION YOU THUNDERING IDIOT.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one has to own a Chick Fil A franchise, they can go to any of hundreds of others.

What a preposterous concept.

Problem: "Don't like the fact that your rights are being infringed over here?"

Solution: "Go over there where you and your rights will be respected!"

What facts?

Next political move I foresee will be to force people to eat at restaurants owned by openly gay people.

 

[Mustang]

No one has to own a Chick Fil A franchise, they can go to any of hundreds of others.

What a preposterous concept.

Problem: "Don't like the fact that your rights are being infringed over here?"

Solution: "Go over there where you and your rights will be respected!"

Your rights can't be infringed WHEN YOU WILLINGLY SIGN A CONTRACT AGREEING TO A GIVEN ACTION YOU THUNDERING IDIOT.

How many times do I have to repeat the fact that a person can't be required to relinquish their constitutional rights as a condition for entering a contract? Nor can they be held to provisions which deny them their rights.

But perhaps you constitutional and legal illiterates need more concrete examples. So be it.

Let's say that a person signs the contract in good faith. Later on, he either converts to a different faith OR becomes an atheist after never really having any strong feelings about religion one way or the other. So, he no longer wants to participate in these group prayers because he no longer believes what he previously did.

Will C-f-A attempt to force this person to adhere to what is essentially a religious requirement in order to keep his franchise? Or will he be forced to relinquish his livelihood?

Now, IF Christians can't see the injustice of this because, after all, they are in possession of THE truth, perhaps they might see it differently if a franchise tried to require someone to openly state a belief that there was no God (essentially, an atheist requirement) in order to get a franchise in the first place. And what if that person, an avowed atheist, later has a religious conversion and commits his life to Christ? Should the owner of the business be allowed to discriminate against the holder of the franchise based solely on his new-found faith? Yes or no? If the answer is yes (that a business owner is legally able to discriminate against a person on the basis of his faith alone despite the fact that the business has no overt religious component to it), then, a precedent would be set that contracts could be used to deny people their 1st Amendment rights (and probably other constitutional rights, as well).