Posted on 04/21/2008 12:14:51 PM PDT by LSUfan
A Baltimore couple has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Islamic investment bank that owns the Church's Chicken fast-food chain, alleging their franchise failed because the bank's strict adherence to the religious code of Shari'ah prohibited the couple from selling pork.
Marcus and Denise Beasley, who are black, claimed they were treated differently by the bank, now known as Atlanta-based Arcapita Inc., than non-black franchisees who were allowed to continue serving breakfast dishes containing pork after the chain was acquired by the bank in December 2004.
The couple did not benefit from the grandfather policy allowing the sale of pork even though their contract with the chain's former owners, AFC Enterprises Inc., to open a location in Baltimore/ Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport's new terminal predated the takeover and policy change, according to the suit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore.
In the lawsuit, which seeks $5 million in actual damages, $5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages, the Beasleys contend the bank's "stated reason" for disallowing the sale of pork in their case -- they had not yet opened for business - - was "pretextual."
"Arcapita permitted all of the other breakfast franchisees, which were approximately 30 Church's Chicken restaurants, to do so, all of which were owned by persons who are non-African American or Caucasian," the complaint states. "Of the Church's Chicken breakfast franchises that existed when Arcapita acquired the chain, plaintiffs are the only ones who are African American."
Calls to Arcapita were not returned Wednesday.
Shari'ah law
The Beasleys began negotiations with Atlanta-based AFC in May 2004 and inked a franchise agreement Dec. 17, 2004.
Church's Chicken, which serves American Southern comfort food, was founded in San Antonio in 1952 and has approximately 1,500 franchises worldwide, some of which trade as Texas Chicken, according to the company's Web site.
On Dec. 26, Crescent Capital Investments Inc., the U.S. affiliate of Bahrain-based First Islamic Investment Bank BSC, bought Church's, according to the suit. First Islamic changed its name to Arcapita in March 2005, the compliant states.
In April 2005, the Beasleys entered into a sublease with BAA Maryland Inc., the developer of retail and concession space in the airport, to operate their restaurant in the Pier A/B Core Food Court, according to the suit. The franchise's menu, which included pork items, had to be submitted for approval and became part of the sublease, the suit states.
According to the complaint, the Beasleys had been assured they would be receiving the same letter Arcapita had sent to other existing franchisees, which said the parent company would not be collecting royalties on pork products.
But "approximately one week before" the Beasleys' May 18 opening, the suit states, Arcapita informed them that, as new franchisees who had not yet opened, they may not serve pork, which Islam considers unclean.
The restaurant opened on schedule -- but never served pork -- and closed in late July 2006.
Substantial losses
Part of the "substantial economic losses" the Beasleys suffered was the loss of their house, according to their attorney, Paul M. Vettori of Kenny & Vettori LLP in Towson.
"As the result of the failure of their business at the BWI airport, they were unable to repay the bank for the loan they took out and the [home] was sold at foreclosure," Vettori said.
Vettori declined to comment on other aspects of the suit, including other potential reasons for the short tenure of the restaurant.
Vettori is also the latest attorney to represent the Beasleys in a separate breach of contract suit against AFC, Arcapita, BAA Maryland and the Maryland Aviation Administration. That suit, filed in February 2007, is working its way through the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court.
James C. Rubinger of Plave Koch PLC in Reston, Va., who represents Arcapita in the state case, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Wednesday.
You are perfectly free to do just that. You just don’t get to call the shots on when I do mine.
Yes, but why?
After rereading the story, I do think that is the case. No Church’s Chicken for me!
I wonder how much moola he milked from us for his jihadist toys before they cut him loose? If there’s going to be a sharia advisory board it shouldn’t be staffed by “sharia scholars,” it should be staffed by counter-terrorism experts who specialize in dealing with sharia-lovers. Duh.
You have to be joking...
If you're not, there are plenty of resources out there that you should quickly get your hands on.
I suggest "The politically incorrect guide to Islam" as a starter.
"Answering Islam" for another.
And, maybe if you can find a reference to "Allah" in our founding documents, your question wouldn't be as laughable.
You have to be joking...
If you're not, there are plenty of resources out there that you should quickly get your hands on.
I suggest "The politically incorrect guide to Islam" as a starter.
"Answering Islam" for another.
And, maybe if you can find a reference to "Allah" in our founding documents, your question wouldn't be as laughable.
Thanks for the idea. When you are down here go to eight street and find a place called SARUSSI. They make the best and most unique sandwich in MIA!
Funny, I see that they are going to turn the one in Lodi into a McDonalds. I wonder why, if they don't own them anymore.
I can see the argument going to court easily. The claim will be that the denial is religion based. Don’t know where it would go, but I am surprised someone hasn’t put an oar in that water yet.
CFA is still privately owned so far, which is likely why the challenge has not happened.
CFA’s claim will be that the policy is based on a day of rest for all employees and the idea that if you can’t make a profit in 6 days a week, you aren’t running the business very well.
I’d like to see where the arguments would end up in such a lawsuit.
IMO, the policy is clearly religion based, with a good cover.
Overall though, I think a private business is a private business and they can have such rules if they wish.
I’m trying to picture any food service that would go under in an airport. You basically have a captive clientele, who are going to eat whatever they can find there. I’ve been at BWI and Philly many times and no matter what food is being sold - pretzels, Dippin’ Dots, cinnamon buns, hot dogs, premade subs - there are people buying it. It always appears to me that people scan the menu board and choose from whatever is there. So no pork or ham? They’ll take a chicken sandwich. I just can’t imagine they had no business at BWI because of a lack of pork.
Well folks! No more Churches Chicken for me. From now on it’s Popeye’s or KFC.
As do I, but the leftist ACLU (anti-american criminal lawyers' union) would be all over a company that implemented Christian values that "harmed" someone.
I’m not trying to. Seems like some here are a projecting their own religious insecurities.
KFC is being courted to offer halal meals .......
Who knows what Pepsico will do.
******************************************
Pepsico spun off Taco Bell/KFC/Pizza Hut years and years ago , they are now “YUM brands”.
I don’t think Pizza Hut would do so well with “turkey” pepperoni and sausage on their pies.
btt
Sounds like they bought the corporation and all corporate-owned restaurant locations. No doubt the agreements with franchisees gave the corporation sufficient oversight regarding menu items that the "Halal" provisions could now be enforced by the owners.
I'll bet the company name was the first thing that drew the Isamic bank's attention... another bunch of "churches", about to go up in flames.
Side note: Most Church's locations in my area seem to be co-located with gas station convenience stores. Figures...
Well they were owned by McDonalds at the time so I doubt it has anything to do with Shariah. My guess would be not popular enough for the cost, because of the dangers of under cooking pork is actually pretty expensive to have on a menu. They probably wanted to focus the menu a little more too, BM was really all over the place with no focus, that makes it hard to grow the market, jettisoning less popular foods and concentrating on the big few (the rotisserie chicken and the meat loaf) is a good fix for that.
Funny they have a different name in raghead land.
I don't see any pork products anywhere on their website, but I suspect this business failing had more to do with their expensive lease agreement at the airport. I like Fried Chicken, but I certainly wouldnt eat any prior to getting on a long flight.
Plus there is the "airport premium" which would add two bucks to any meal.
Here is where to get good, flavorful, healthy chicken cuisine:
http://www.elpolloloco.com/company/history.html
If you want pork, too—try this one:
http://www.chipotle.com/#flash/restaurants_locations
If there are none in your area, take my word for it—the food is great in both places.
” I just can’t imagine they had no business at BWI because of a lack of pork.”
It killed their most lucrative business time. Breakfast.
No bacon and eggs? No sausage and eggs?
Only eggs and a chicken thigh?
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.