So, here are all 4 angles on this story:
- Signed up prior to meat products being sold
- When they were sold, for 20 years was allowed to sell without these meat product
- Was given a sign that said ‘meat products not available’
- He is a franchisee, this isn’t his brand or product range
So, you either say ‘a franchise can do what it likes! You can’t use your religious beliefs to discriminate against the people who want to buy meat products!’ or you say ‘If you open a franchise you agree to play by their rules.
But, it is more complicated than that.
It is unreasonable for Dunkin’ Donuts to enforce the brand and product line management across all their stores? They make the food, they do the marketing. The owner has benefited somewhat from the rise of Dunkin’ Donuts, and now refuses to adhere to their own interests and beliefs for the food product line.
Is there a limit to what can be construed as grounds for discrimination based on religious beliefs? It isn’t why he is refusing to sell these products, it is the very fact that he is refusing to sell these products.
Let me give your addled brains a breather, I know all this PC writing is making you reach for the nearest life-affirming forum of users to dictate your own liberal thinking ways:
Imagine this person was a vegetarian. They decide to run a franchise but refuse to start selling meat products. Is it reasonable that a international chain should have its product line and policies dictated by the existing whims and desires, beliefs or business accument of its store managers, or that of the people they are serving?
Is there ever a fair reason not to sell a product when you are a franchisee?
Let’s say it costs a lot to stock, and you don’t make much of a margin, or perhaps it is being advertised as on special, and you don’t want to participate in selling low margin menu items. Franchises do give some leeway on this, but should they allow you to freely pick and choose any item based on margins?
What about basing your stocking philosophy on how readily identifiable the food is to color blind people? Dunkin’ Donuts make a lovely range of various colorful things. Imagine someones disdain at those icing / sprinkle combinations that aren’t appealing for those with protanopia, deuteranopia or tritanopia.
What if you are a McDonalds franchisee owner, and you suddenly decide you aren’t going to sponsor industrial farming, aside from being managerial suicide (can I have a … mcveggie please…) is it right for McDonalds to decide that franchisee owners are not allowed to boycott the very products they sell?
Regardless of reason (let’s be sane and imagine all products being sold are legal), is it ever allowable for a franchisee to boycott a product?
Is a religious belief stronger than a life choice not to eat meat? Does the fiscal logic of not stocking low margin items win over the franchisees marketing dollar?
Although the playing field changed for this franchisee owner, the very nature of a franchise is not something to be sniffed at. In fact, it is a lot like taking on a new nationality. By accepting the terms and conditions of the franchise, wouldn’t it be sane if countries has their own Ts&Cs? I guess things like constitution are similar, or is this a complete dystopian idea?
Many xenophobics amongst the world would love the idea of rationalizing their nationality and define it by everything they don’t like about immigrants to that geographical location. But then that is why the freedoms in the US are no longer freedoms.
How to conclude this?
Well, you can argue that the franchise has a right to market and maintain a product line, and no whim is stronger than the other as an excuse to not fulfill that obligation.
You can also say that there is a limit to the amount of change that a franchisee can accept during the life of the agreement.
Then, you can argue that, as a food establishment, serving meat is an entirely acceptable and economically necessity in moving the chain forward. Could you argue the other way that franchisees should be allowed to derail overall profitability of a company for their own interests?
The underlying question i: who gets to decide what food is sold. The question that everyone will focus on will be:
Should all companies adhere to guidelines of social and religious awareness, and provide facilities, marketing and products that cater for gay, bi, undecided, trans, hydrogenated, straight, upside down or goth people.
This isn’t a question about religion versus economics, or personal rights, or discrimination. Are there ever reasons why someone can selectively choose to stock items? If yes, can anyone selectively stock items regardless of any pre-existing definable reason for doing so?
This is one step from nullifying all rules from a franchise, or indeed, forcing them to write these rules in more and more truly discriminating terms.
Freedom of religion does not require other people, groups, or companies to accomidate you.
and
I’d have been a bit more skeptical of this suit, had it not been that Dunkin’ Donuts allowed him to not sell the meat for 20 years. In that case, the fact that they are suddenly jumping on his back after helping him not sell pork, I think gives him plenty of reason to sue and defend his shop.
The above accepts the reasoning as valid, as well as implying that ’selling meat’ is a big enough of a deal. Will we have to sign religious exemption and tolerance clauses in business? In this case, despite the time span given, I think not. I am sure the plaintiff will argue that Dunkin’ Donuts were AWARE of this impending issue – and then argue that they should be aware of it.
I don’t get this shit. You don’t want to handle pork? Don’t buy a franchise of a restaurant that sells fucking pork. Open your own damn restaurant. Dunkin Donuts owns the name and they are the suppliers, he has to comply.
He wasn’t discriminated against, he signed a contract and accepted it’s terms. They simply don’t have to renew his franchise agreement if he won’t respect it. This isn’t a public affair, it’s a private business. Property rights FTW.
I absolutely hate these ridiculous lawsuits. You simply don’t have rights on other people’s property. He doesn’t own dunkin donuts in any way, he has no right to anything that is owned by dunkin donuts.
.
So, I just got back from a pleasant evening to get a belly full of laughs from the Michelle Madigan is a stupid bitch story. Here is a simulated excerpt from the pre-DEFCON warm up:
George W. Bush’s presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.