Sharia Law Hits Dunkin Doughnuts

[ReillyT]

Libs say we need to be more tolerant and strive for diversity. Yea, diversity is working out well in Britian, Spain, and France

I gues we are playing "catch up"

You wanna play catch? Do you pitch?

 

[red states rule]

and we have to make sure not to offend the peace loving Muslims in the world

 

[Larkinn]

When losing, libs will go over the top. What I am saying, if you accept a job - you can't tell the bos what you will and will not do

If Muslims do not wnat to handle pork items - let them get another job. They are not handicapped - they are arrogant and expect all of us to give in to their lame demands

Err, yes, actually you can. If I get hired as a lawyer at an NGO, I am certainly NOT going to spend my days making coffee for people. And if the Boss tries to tell me too, I will tell him to shove it.

By the way, I am a man, but I hope that this won't prevent us from becoming closer.

You could always dress like a woman. Rsr seems to have a certain penchant for crossdressing politicians...he might like them at home as well.

 

[red states rule]

Err, yes, actually you can. If I get hired as a lawyer at an NGO, I am certainly NOT going to spend my days making coffee for people. And if the Boss tries to tell me too, I will tell him to shove it.



You could always dress like a woman. Rsr seems to have a certain penchant for crossdressing politicians...he might like them at home as well.

Is there any logic to your posts?

If the poor little Muslims do not want to handle pork items - let them get another job

Does that make to much sense to them and the left that wants to appease them?

 

[ReillyT]

I feel that we have gotten a bit off track, and as amusing as it is to mock you, over time, even this begins to become tiring.

Let us see if we can come to some basic agreement of the subject of your post.

IF (throwing in some assumptions here):

1. Dunkin Donuts does allow other franchisees to modify product lines;
2. Dunking Donuts does not allow this franchisee to modify product lines;
3. Dunkin Donut's decision in this case has been made on the basis of the race or religion of the franchisee; and
4. The law prohibits treated similarly situated persons differently on the basis of race and religion (CRA 1964)

Do you agree, on these assumptions (no need to argue with them, they are just assumptions for the purposes of discussion), that the franchisee should be allowed to sue?

If yes, we can all happily agree to have resolved this particular issue.

 

[red states rule]

I feel that we have gotten a bit off track, and as amusing as it is to mock you, over time, even this begins to become tiring.

Let us see if we can come to some basic agreement of the subject of your post.

IF (throwing in some assumptions here):

1. Dunkin Donuts does allow other franchisees to modify product lines;
2. Dunking Donuts does not allow this franchisee to modify product lines;
3. Dunkin Donut's decision in this case has been made on the basis of the race or religion of the franchisee; and
4. The law prohibits treated similarly situated persons differently on the basis of race and religion (CRA 1964)

Do you agree, on these assumptions (no need to argue with them, they are just assumptions for the purposes of discussion), that the franchisee should be allowed to sue?

If yes, we can all happily agree to have resolved this particular issue.

If the guy does not want to sell pork - he should sell his interest and find another way to make a living

End of discussion - he has no other choice

 

[ReillyT]

If the guy does not want to sell pork - he should sell his interest and find another way to make a living

End of discussion - he has no other choice

Well, apparently he does, as he will be allowed to sue.

I assume your answer to my prior post was "no" then. Even if Dunkin Donuts decision was based upon the fact that they just don't like Muslims, you think that is too bad for him.

What if they didn't like Christians? What if they wanted to offer, in a particular market, a "Praise be to Allah" donut, or a "Here is my false idol" flan, and a particular Christian didn't want to sell it? What if they terminated the franchise of the Christian because, in truth, it wasn't that he didn't offer the donuts, but merely because they don't like Christians. You are fine with that? Because if you are, then you are consistent, and while I would think you are wrong, I would respect that opinion.

 

[red states rule]

Well, apparently he does, as he will be allowed to sue.

I assume your answer to my prior post was "no" then. Even if Dunkin Donuts decision was based upon the fact that they just don't like Muslims, you think that is too bad for him.

What if they didn't like Christians? What if they wanted to offer, in a particular market, a "Praise be to Allah" donut, or a "Here is my false idol" flan, and a particular Christian didn't want to sell it? What if they terminated the franchise of the Christian because, in truth, it wasn't that he didn't offer the donuts, but merely because they don't like Christians. You are fine with that? Because if you are, then you are consistent, and while I would think you are wrong, I would respect that opinion.

So by making a person comply with the agreement they SIGNED - they do not like Muslims?

Libs will draw the race card when they are backed into the corner

 

[ReillyT]

So by making a person comply with the agreement they SIGNED - they do not like Muslims?

That was part of the assumption for the purposes of argument. A jury would have to decide the whys and whatfores? About that, I am not interested. I am interested in exploring what you believe. The hypothetical is merely illustrative, there is not reason to debate it.

So....

Assume all the same facts in my hypothetical as in the Dunkin Donuts case. Same agreement. Same 15 or so years without selling the product previously. Everything the same, except, now it is a Christian who doesn't want to sell donuts shaped like Allah. DD wants to fire him because he is a Christian, and is using the failure to sell products as a pretext (this part is an assumption for the purpose of argument - no need to disagree with it). Do you support DD in such a case?

 

[red states rule]

That was part of the assumption for the purposes of argument. A jury would have to decide the whys and whatfores? About that, I am not interested. I am interested in exploring what you believe. The hypothetical is merely illustrative, there is not reason to debate it.

So....

Assume all the same facts in my hypothetical as in the Dunkin Donuts case. Same agreement. Same 15 or so years without selling the product previously. Everything the same, except, now it is a Christian who doesn't want to sell donuts shaped like Allah. DD wants to fire him because he is a Christian, and is using the failure to sell products as a pretext (this part is an assumption for the purpose of argument - no need to disagree with it). Do you support DD in such a case?

Libs do have a thing about holding people accountable for their own actions

I am with DD. They did not hold a gun to the guys head to sign the agreement

 

[ReillyT]

Libs do have a thing about holding people accountable for their own actions

I am with DD. They did not hold a gun to the guys head to sign the agreement

So you believe that DD should be allowed to terminate some franchises for not selling products, but not others, and that it is okay for the distinction between the two to be based on race or religion. As long, of course, that there is actual non-compiance with the terms of the franchise agreement. Sort of a buyer beware to the extreme sort of rule.

 

[red states rule]

So you believe that DD should be allowed to terminate some franchises for not selling products, but not others, and that it is okay for the distinction between the two to be based on race or religion. As long, of course, that there is actual non-compiance with the terms of the franchise agreement. Sort of a buyer beware to the extreme sort of rule.

He is working for the company - the company sets the rules

Let him open his own shop that does not sell pork

 

[ReillyT]

He is working for the company - the company sets the rules

Let him open his own shop that does not sell pork

I think I understand what you are saying. So the Christian who doesn't want to sell Allah donuts loses his franchise, but can open up his own shop without Allah donuts. And this is true, even if other Muslim franchise owners are allowed to pick and choose which products they sell.

So your position is that the company can pick and choose where to enforce the franchise agreements, but if you are the franchisee, your only means to remain secure in your agreement is to follow it to the letter.

As long as you are consistent across races and religions, I can respect that opinion, even if I disagree with it.

 

[red states rule]

I think I understand what you are saying. So the Christian who doesn't want to sell Allah donuts loses his franchise, but can open up his own shop without Allah donuts. And this is true, even if other Muslim franchise owners are allowed to pick and choose which products they sell.

So your position is that the company can pick and choose where to enforce the franchise agreements, but if you are the franchisee, your only means to remain secure in your agreement is to follow it to the letter.

As long as you are consistent across races and religions, I can respect that opinion, even if I disagree with it.

I am sick of any company bowing to the demands for special treatment from any group

Muslims are playing the race card to force companies (and individuals) to feel sorry for them - and cave to their demands

 

[Annie]

That was part of the assumption for the purposes of argument. A jury would have to decide the whys and whatfores? About that, I am not interested. I am interested in exploring what you believe. The hypothetical is merely illustrative, there is not reason to debate it.

So....

Assume all the same facts in my hypothetical as in the Dunkin Donuts case. Same agreement. Same 15 or so years without selling the product previously. Everything the same, except, now it is a Christian who doesn't want to sell donuts shaped like Allah. DD wants to fire him because he is a Christian, and is using the failure to sell products as a pretext (this part is an assumption for the purpose of argument - no need to disagree with it). Do you support DD in such a case?

A question for you, in your hypothetical it's 15 years in the future, US. Obviously the Muslims have won. You think they are going to keep our capitalistic system? I don't think so.

 

[red states rule]

A question for you, in your hypothetical it's 15 years in the future, US. Obviously the Muslims have won. You think they are going to keep our capitalistic system? I don't think so.

It will be a PC capitalistic system

 

[ReillyT]

A question for you, in your hypothetical it's 15 years in the future, US. Obviously the Muslims have won. You think they are going to keep our capitalistic system? I don't think so.

Actually, my hypothetical involved the past 15 years, not the next 15 years.

Hhhhmmmmm..... in fifteen years, when the Muslims have won the US (not entirely sure what that means, but what the hell?), will they keep the capitalistic system? Lets see, at that time, they will constitute about what... 2% of the population. Actually, lets be grandiose and say 5% of the population. Hmmmmm.... I just don't know. Maybe they will go communist to appeal to the blue states. On the other hand, they are social conservatives, so they may go full blown capitalist to appeal to the red states? It can be so hard to tell in this political environment.

Really Kathianne, that is about the dumbest post I have ever seen you make. My goodness, where is your head today?

 

[red states rule]

Actually, my hypothetical involved the past 15 years, not the next 15 years.

Hhhhmmmmm..... in fifteen years, when the Muslims have won the US (not entirely sure what that means, but what the hell?), will they keep the capitalistic system? Lets see, at that time, they will constitute about what... 2% of the population. Actually, lets be grandiose and say 5% of the population. Hmmmmm.... I just don't know. Maybe they will go communist to appeal to the blue states. On the other hand, they are social conservatives, so they may go full blown capitalist to appeal to the red states? It can be so hard to tell in this political environment.

Really Kathianne, that is about the dumbest post I have ever seen you make. My goodness, where is your head today?

I find her posts to be very intelligent - yours are the ones I find to be void of logic and common sense

 

[Gunny]

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?

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.

 

[Annie]

Actually, my hypothetical involved the past 15 years, not the next 15 years.

Hhhhmmmmm..... in fifteen years, when the Muslims have won the US (not entirely sure what that means, but what the hell?), will they keep the capitalistic system? Lets see, at that time, they will constitute about what... 2% of the population. Actually, lets be grandiose and say 5% of the population. Hmmmmm.... I just don't know. Maybe they will go communist to appeal to the blue states. On the other hand, they are social conservatives, so they may go full blown capitalist to appeal to the red states? It can be so hard to tell in this political environment.

Really Kathianne, that is about the dumbest post I have ever seen you make. My goodness, where is your head today?

You're right, I read it wrong, it happens:

Assume all the same facts in my hypothetical as in the Dunkin Donuts case. Same agreement. Same 15 or so years without selling the product previously. Everything the same, except, now it is a Christian who doesn't want to sell donuts shaped like Allah. DD wants to fire him because he is a Christian, and is using the failure to sell products as a pretext (this part is an assumption for the purpose of argument - no need to disagree with it). Do you support DD in such a case?