Posted on 05/05/2009 3:36:20 AM PDT by RightSideNews
Part Eight of Nine: Last month, the longtime owner of a Chicago Dunkin' Donuts was forced to give up his franchise. The owner claimed his Muslim faith forbade him from handling pork, making it impossible for him to serve Dunkin' Donuts breakfast sandwiches. Dunkin' Donuts had willingly accommodated the owner's faith based restrictions over the course of their twenty-year partnership. But in 2002, the chain issued a sudden ultimatum: offer your customers every Dunkin' Donuts product -- or none at all. Seven years later, the fast food giant won the case, and the owner lost his store.
Increasingly, large companies like Swift, UPS and McDonald's have been sued by Muslim employees demanding the right to wear religious garb, pray on company time and refuse to handle pork. These expensive legal battles do more than just raise prices for customers and drain company coffers. Employee morale suffers (and with it, productivity) as workers view each other with suspicion and resentment.
The number of such cases accelerated in the 1990s, according to an exhaustive 2007 survey by Jeffery Breinholt at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. Historically, he explains, Arabs had been considered "Caucasian", but in 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court "established that Arabs were an ethnic minority for purposes of our federal anti-discrimination laws."
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.com ...
Went to the website. Where are parts 1-7?
“But in 2002, the chain issued a sudden ultimatum: offer your customers every Dunkin’ Donuts product — or none at all. Seven years later, the fast food giant won the case, and the owner lost his store.”
OTH, dispense the morning after pill or lose your job.
Take pics of the lesbo wedding or else...
These are the case decisions that make the precedents for other unpopular rulings.
Just sayin....
“At some point,” says Corcoran, “big businesses like meatpackers discovered they could keep wages low by using immigrant labor. During the Clinton Presidency, the State Department’s Refugee Resettlement Program brought in over 100,000 Bosnian Muslims” who ended up working in Midwestern meatpacking plants.
“Somalis are the most obvious group demanding workplace accommodation,” Corcoran points out. “We have brought to the US over 80,000 Somali refugees in the last 25 years. The State Department has cut off all family reunification because they found through DNA testing that a very high percentage of Somalis lied to get into the US.”
Corcoran points to well publicized disputes between Somali Muslim workers and meat packing plants in Shelbyville, Tennessee, and Greeley, Colorado.
In Grand Island, tensions led to interracial conflict. In 2008, “about 500 Swift workers, all Muslim and most Somali, walked off the job and marched a mile to Grand Island City Hall to protest for religious freedom,” according to a news report.
“They wanted prayer time during the holy month of Ramadan.
“The plant’s attempt to accommodate the requests led to counter protests staged by Caucasians, Hispanics, Vietnamese and African-Americans.”
In St. Cloud, Minnesota, Somali Muslim employees were awarded $1.35-million for “discrimination” when a meat packing plant refused to let them pray during work hours.
Is this sort of civil unrest, resentment and disharmony among neighbors really worth the dubious monetary benefits of “cheap labor”?
Ann Corcoran wonders who is behind it all.
“Some one or some group is organizing the Somalis,” she says. “There is no way on earth, they became that savvy in organizing without being taught the fine art of ‘community organizing’ using the Saul Alinsky playbook. Is it a coincidence that in Greeley and Grand Island, well-educated, English-speaking Somalis, just happened to arrive in those towns and get hired by Swift & Co. in the weeks prior to the demonstrations and walkouts?”
Echoing observations by others that the late Saul Alinsky’s radical theories have shaped the thinking of President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others currently weilding power in the political realm, Corcoran explains that Alinsky, “taught that you must create chaos to bring about change. A good agitator eventually wears people down. They don’t have to win this year or next, it’s the wearing down process that will ultimately succeed if we don’t counter it....
Must read article, thanks for posting.
On the flip side, he can now take down the Dunkin Donuts sign, buy his materials from any cheaper source, and put up a sign sayin “Muhammad’s Donuts” and not pay a franchise fee.
When you have to fight stupid lawsuits brought on by muslims who want time off for prayer, the right wo wear headdresses and all that other nonsense, the cheap labor aint so cheap anymore. The sooner these companies realize this the better for everyone
During the Clinton Presidency, the State Department’s Refugee Resettlement Program brought in over 100,000 Bosnian Muslims”
Bill Clinton, the gift that keeps on giving. Stay tuned to see what cultural nightmares "The 0ne" visits on this country.
Sounds like a win win situation to me. He can start his own franchise called Muhammad’s Donuts where you have to get down and pray five times a day. There will be appropriate signs within pointing out which direction Mecca is. No pork served.
Good for Dunkin' Donuts. They deserve the extra business because of that.
I agree.
But the closest I can come up with without more coffee is a pharmacist who hires on with a CVS then claims he can’t sell the morning after drug.
He didn’t have to work there.
Such rulings can be used against any conscience driven objection....be it religious or not.
I think if you’re a pharmacist working somewhere and don’t want to sell the morning after pill and it’s a requirement of your job then that’s a problem. That pharmacist needs to go somewhere else. Now, if you own the pharmacy and someone comes along and tries to force you to sell the morning after pill (i.e. the gubmint) then that’s a problem. If you own the store, you should be able to make the rules. If you own the franchise, you should be able to make the rules.
The Oregon (liberal) legislature is currently considering what I call the BURQUA Protection bill.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/sb0700.dir/sb0786.a.pdf
I absolutely agree.
But do you recall that lesbian couple who is suing the photgrapher who refused to do “wedding” pictures?
She is her own boss and she is being or was sued for setting her own rules.
Now that I disagree with. If it’s her own business, who is the government to say how she can run her business.
I believe he is allowing in Palestinian "refugees". God help us.
bttt
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.