Posted on 04/01/2009 4:39:00 PM PDT by CMoran325
An Arab-American owner of a Chicago-area Dunkin' Donuts store has to give up his franchise after he lost his long-running legal battle with the restaurant chain over his religious objections to selling pork products.
A lawyer for Walid Elkhatib said Tuesday that his client is in the process of removing Dunkin' Donuts signs from his Westchester outlet, but apparently not fast enough for the company.
Dunkin' Donuts went to federal court in Chicago on March 27 to stop Elkhatib, 59, from using the company's trademarks and other proprietary materials.
The company's lawsuit came two weeks after a federal jury found that the chain did not discriminate against Elkhatib for refusing to renew his franchise agreement because he declined to sell breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage.
The dietary restrictions of Elkhatib's Muslim faith forbid him from eating or handling pork. When he decided to go into the restaurant business, his faith was one of the reasons why he invested in Dunkin' Donuts in 1979. The chain did not introduce breakfast sandwiches until 1984.
For nearly 20 years,
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
If Avon started to sell products that had ingredients harvested from aborted fetuses, and a pro-life Catholic representative didn't want to sell those products -- I would say that would be a pretty similar situation.
And of course it's also not too unlike the healthcare providers who don't want to go against religious beliefs.
Once again, liberal judges are telling the faithful that they must check their religion and their consciences at the door.
I agree.
Didn’t seem to bother him too much for the first 25 years.
Good Point
‘This is one time I have to stand with a Muslim. This is absolutely religious discrimination. “
Nonsense, he knew they sold pork products when he bought the franchise. The franchise has the right to determine how their name is used and to set the standards.
“If Avon started to sell products that had ingredients harvested from aborted fetuses”
Hardly a sane comparison.
“Once again, liberal judges are telling the faithful that they must check their religion and their consciences at the door.”
The judge may be liberal but you have to agree to certain rules when you buy a franchise. Failure to abide by those rules will result in losing the franchise. Or don’t you think a franchise owner has the right to their intellectual property and brand value?
I disagree
How can he be a Dunkin Doniuts franchise if he does not want to sell their products? (or Avon)
You can has reading comprehension? He *never* sold anything with pork. Dunkin donuts demanded he did and revoked his franchise after 25 years.
Sounds like they’re tighening the screws.
Dunkin donuts didn’t sell pork products until 5 years after he bought the franchise. Did you actually read the article?
You know there are KOSHER Dunkin’ Donuts, too. I think there is something here that is NOT being said about this case. I fail to see any religious discrimination here just as it’s presented.
It’s a chain, he can deal with it or start his own donut and not bacon shop.
This is one time I have to stand with a Muslim. This is absolutely religious discrimination.
Horsesh*t
Of course a muslim can’t tell Dunkin Donuts what he can serve.
I suppose if a Jew owned a Burger King franchise, he could tell BK that he wasn’t selling non kosher hamburgers??
Nonsense. - If this is contrary to your religion, you get another business.
Nobody tells him he has to own a DK, so he is free to leave.
Leave religion, as such, out of this.
He bought a dunkin donuts franchise because *they didn’t use pork*. 5 years after he bought it the added pork products.
If burger king added non kosher products after he bought the franchise he would have a case.
As noted in another post — if you read the whole story, they did not sell the products when he first bought the franchise.
They allowed him to not sell the products with pork for almost 20 years. Now they decide he must.
Surely, franchisers should have plenty of control — but this was not a practice that *harmed* the brand name. It’s Dunkin’ Donuts not Dunkin’ Pork.
It’s purely about dollars here. I really wonder exactly how much money DD thinks they’re losing. Is it really worth forcing their hand?
They had an opportunity to promote healthier eating — using turkey or veggie options — but nope, gotta pressure a long-time partnership to go bust.
I uderstand that, but the franchise is not obligated to him, he is obligated to them
They are not locked into a product line, people pay for the franchise rights.
If I go to dunking donuts in that area I want a breakfast sausge (OMG they are good)
If he does not want to sell them, then they can license the franchise to someone who does.
If you buy a product or service and they change it on you you can claim bait and switch.
No, he would not.
The courts have ruled against that case
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.