A corporation may find that for marketing or other reasons they may not want to sell breakfast products at all; for example, a McDonald's operating near a night-shift only plant. But because they allow one of their franchises to operate without breakfast does not mean the franchisees are suddenly given the right to abrogate all of their obligations to McDonald's. The Judge was mistaken in this case. A business has a right to operate one way because of lease or space considerations, those are physical or contractual barriers. But allowing an operation based on personal or religious preferences is not the same.

If this case wins for the Muslim, then Scientologists would be able to stop drugs being sold in pharmacies simply by becoming employees there? What next, PETA getting jobs at McDonald's to stop them from selling beef?

How about fast food places owned by Muslims that serve Coca Cola; should they be able to refuse to sell Coke because of the Boycott Israel Campaign?

How about poor socialists who want to protest Coca Cola's trade union policies in Colombia? Isn't that a free speech issue? How about we don't sell anything anywhere that offends anyone anywhere? Wouldn't that be just fair?

I already warned everyone in a previous post not to deal with Muslims ever:

Planck's Constant,
7 Oct 2006,
if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out

...I suppose next will be Muslim doctors refusing to treat Jewish patients, Muslim pharmacists refusing to dispense gelatin capsules because of its pork content, Muslim checkout clerks refusing to ring up bacon, and on and on.
...
I certainly would never hire a Muslim person for any job. Not because I hate Muslims but because their faith is at war with my country and the Western World. It is time Americans and Europeans stopped hiring them as well. They cannot perform the duties of the job assigned them because everything of Western Civilization offends them.

---

If you like the legalese details:

Here is an mp3 of the oral argument.

Here is the PDF of the Opinion.

And more:

The Religion Case Reporter,
Franchise Not Renewed Because Franchisee Refuses to Serve Pork Products at His Stores

Plaintiff, a Palestinian-Arab, owned three Dunkin’ Donuts franchise stores. The agreement, as entered into by plaintiff and defendants, required all franchisees to carry the full food product line of Dunkin’ Donuts. However, for over 20 years, plaintiff had refused to serve breakfast sandwiches, which contained pork products. Although aware of this practice, Dunkin’ Donuts never objected. In fact, a Dunkin’ Donuts district manager even provided for one of plaintiff’s stores a sign that read "No Meat Products Available.” Then, in 2002, plaintiff was informed that he was not eligible for relocation of his stores or renewal of his current franchise agreements because of his failure to carry Dunkin’ Donuts’ full breakfast sandwich product line. Plaintiff Plaintiff alleged civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982. The complaint alleged that "Plaintiff, as an Arab is forbidden from dealing, buying or selling pork products, because of his race’s traditions and religious practices.” However, the district court construed plaintiff’s claim to be one of religious discrimination rather than racial discrimination. The dietary restrictions plaintiff pointed to were associated with religion rather than race and all Arabs are not Muslims. The complaint was therefore dismissed because claims of religious discrimination are not cognizable under § 1981 and § 1982. Plaintiff claimed that because defendants had not required him to sell pork products for twenty years, they had waived any right to require him to sell their complete line of food products in future agreements. But, because plaintiff could not proceed under either § 1981 or § 1982, this argument was moot. And even if plaintiff had successfully raised a claim of racial discrimination on the part of defendants, the complaint still could not survive defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as there was no proof, either direct, or indirect, that degendants acted out of a racially discriminatory motive. Rather, they acted solely based on plaintiff’s refusal to sell the entire line of Dunkin’ Donuts food products. Nor had plaintiff shown that similarly-situated franchisees were treated more favorably than himself. Although three other franchisees did not sell pork products, one did not sell pork, or any type of sandwich because of its lease agreement with the landlord, one did not sell sandwiches because of space restrictions, and one store was Kosher and did not sell pork products based on customer demographics. Because plaintiff could not perform his obligations under the franchisee agreements, or show that similarly situated people were treated more favorably, he failed to make out a prima facie [ more details by subscription: Case # 1780N (N.D. Ill.),

Yet more:

Religion Clause,
Franchise Story 1: 7th Circuit Allows Race-Based Discrimination-in-Franchising Case to Proceed

A panel of the Seventh Circuit has unanimously ruled that an Arab and Muslim franchisee who refused to serve pork products in his store could proceed with his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1982 claims against Dunkin Donuts. The case is Elkhatib v Dunkin Donuts, No. 04-4190 (7th Cir July 10, 2007). ... Somewhat surprisingly, the Seventh Circuit accepted this characterization without comment (and without examining the district court's contention) and treated the claim as a race-based one.

Related:

Foehammer's Anvil,
Islamic Glacier Alert: Muslim Dunkin’ Donuts Owner Can Sue Over Pork

Here we go again. This story especially irritates me because I happen to love bacon and sausage and Dunkin’ Donuts coffee. I’d love to ask this Muslim shop owner if he serves bagels or are those too Jewish for him, but I digress.
...
If Elkhatib doesn’t want to follow suit along with the rest of Dunkin’ Donuts, then what’s stopping him from opening his own Muslim-oriented shop? Oh, I know what — he’d much rather make us all assimilate to Islamic ways.

---

---