Kind of stole you idea a little. Hope you don't mind.
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.
I vaguely recall that Boston Market was once owned by McDonald’s.
LOL. Perfect!
More from Debbie Schlussel.
About as different as you can get. This whole article is about the choice’s on the menu. Closing on Sunday is about hours of operation.
Looks like it’s the same company that owns Caribou Coffee:
“Caribou Coffee Company went public on September 30, 2005. The stock trades on the NASDAQ National market under the symbol CBOU. Our majority shareholder since 2000 is an affiliate of Arcapita Bank B.S.C.©.”
Does Baltimore have Sharia law yet?
Did the Muzzie bank buy ALL Churches or are they just financing a few of the franchise locations??
The story deals with contractual ramifications and misrepresentations which broke a family.
As to the religious aspect, it is different enough that I would never eat a piece of Church's Chicken as long as rag heads own the company.
And they should change the name from Church's to "Mosque's Fried Chicken"--so people will know what they are getting. Their Kid's Meal prize could be one of those suicide vests for children they are so proud of.
Just how is this different than “Chick-fil-a” not open on Sundays...
********************************************
Chik-Fil-A , has CONSISTENT rules about days of operation that apply to ALL their locations.
And to think there are people who want to ENCOURAGE Islamic “investment” in our businesses. It’s called control, folks, and it is going to be increasingly used against us. And like the couple that bought this restaurant franchise, most of us will never know until it’s too late.
I wish I ate fried chicken so I could not eat it at Church’s. I can’t stand the stuff anywhere, as it happens!
It is. They jump through a lot of hoops to get customers to pay them but they don’t call it interest. The bottom line is that it usually ends up costing more to borrow from an Islamic bank because of all the accounting involved.
In the U.S. Constitution? No. As many on this forum could tell you, the expression comes up only in a letter of Jefferson's to the Danbury Methodists. There's no reason under the Constitution that anyone can't come up with any wacky reasons for franchise rules that he pleases, religious or not. If you don't like them, you don't buy the franchise.
Religion isn't legally relevant in the case at hand, it seems to me. If the complaint is accurate, the bank breached a contract. The racial angle is likewise dumb and irrelevant, but I understand that lawyers tell you to throw as much sand in their eyes as possible. And some judges and juries do love soap operas.
Now, from a pass-the-popcorn point of view, I can understand why it would be fun to watch a Sharia bank being made to squirm. I'd like to think we can squash these nutcases within the actual Constitution, but maybe that's too much to ask.
Those who do practice a religion have the right to do so, and neither you nor the government can object to that.
I only get angry when someone who wants freedom from religion wants to tear down everything for the vast majority who do have a religion.
My opinion is, if a person sees some religious symbol or service that they object to, look the other way and go on.
I am however an intolerant bigot as pertains to Islam. It is fundamentally incompatible with American democracy.
I believe Chick Fil A has all of its stores closed on Sundays, but this would be in the franchise agreement and upfront from the start. It sounds as if the Beasleys weren’t really aware of the sharia restriction, though.
Church’s Chicken, Oceanside Blvd. and Coast Hwy., Oceanside, CA.
“A prospective franchise owner who is denied because he intends to open on Sunday. To see where the arguments go.”
Actually, that’s a pretty cut-and-dried argument. You don’t like the policy, don’t sign the paper.
McDonald’s is VERY tough about franchisees toeing the line on all its policies. You have to apply for variances, or risk losing your distribution rights.
That’s what you are, after all, a third-party distributor.
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.