Subway removes ham and bacon from nearly 200 stores [in the UK]
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Who cares? You're not going to eat there anyway. There is a bigger picture here and it has very little to do with Muslim dietary restrictions.
How many other ridiculously minuscule sub-segments of society are we going to bend over backwards to accommodate?
Clem72
Well-Known Member
If they think it makes solid financial sense to cater, then what the hell. Apparently Muslims make up about 5% of the population of the UK. You ever go to a restaurant/deli/market that serves Kosher food in the US, because Jews are only 2% of the us population.
But please, tell me about how far backwards you bent for a Subway in Leeds to stop putting bacon on their Chicken-Bacon-Ranch sandwich.
If I go to a kosher deli, which on occasion I do, I expect my choices to be limited by that. If I go went to a subway I would expect a full menu.
And as far as bending over backwards, it isn't about subway... Its about any business accommodating, as you put it, 5% instead of 95%.
If Subway makes money on 5%... Then good for them, but a rational business model generally want's a large customer base. At some point in the future, a fair number of those shops will either change back or close.
I don't think altering a fast food menu in certain markets constitutes "bending over backwards". The bigger problem is that the UK has allowed the Muslim population to grow so large that fast food companies are changing their menu to accommodate them. Don't look at the bacon, look at the crowd. Tree/forest. London already has a Muslim mayor, which just floored me. They allowed their immigrant population to get so big that they are overtaking the British government.
And that's fine - if England wants to become a Muslim country, that's certainly their right. But I doubt this is what they had in mind when the British citizens agreed to allow all these "refugees" sanctuary in their country. This is happening all over the world. And again, if countries want to decimate their culture and become Muslim, that's their prerogative. But US progs need to take a look outside their own bellybuttons and consider how all this "love" is working out in other countries. And PS, Muslims don't traditionally love women and gays and casual sex and drugs - that is evidenced in European countries where Islam has been allowed to proliferate. Imagine what will happen to all the trans darlings when the Muslims take control?
I have nothing against mainstream Muslims, but I DO NOT want to live by their religion. And neither do the progs - they are just too stupid to understand the consequences of allowing "diversity" to get out of control. The "feminists" run around in hajibs as a fashion statement, but if we allow a Muslim majority in this country they'll be wearing that bitch for real and I guarantee they won't like it.
Calling Muslims a "ridiculously minuscule sub-segments" misses the point, IMO. They will not be a minuscule sub-segment for long.
Last edited:
Kim Kardashian wears a hajib while she shows off her boobs and big ass - I'll bet devout Muslims can't wait until they have the power to string her guts up on a railing. For now she's a useful idiot, but you know they're gritting their teeth and dreaming of the day they can cut her throat in the name of Allah.
Stopping that from happening takes a commitment to the nation/citizens that NO political animal will ever have.
And I do not understand that. Do they think they'll still have power when we become an Islamic theocracy? That has historically been the Democrat way: suck up and appease so the people who hate you will miraculously change their mind and be your BFF; but in reality it has never - ever - worked out that way. Like, ever. Hell, politician heads will be the first ones to roll. Probably literally.
Look at Iran in the 70s. Good grief, that wasn't even that long ago.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
Could be that they do go back. Or maybe not, if there are limited options and the Muslims are not widespread (meaning much greater than 5% in areas) then they may do well. Unless it's different in the UK Subway is almost entirely franchised, so these would be individual business owners (probably a good number of whom are Muslim) making the business decision to change to halal.
It does seem like a good number of franchise sandwich shops around here are owned/operated by Muslims, and they don't seem to have any issues handling the non-halal food for the rest of us, so if I were a betting man I would guess this was strictly a business decision and not about corporate image or making a political statement.
PsyOps
Pixelated
We? This is in Britain. This hardly defines "we". If the Subway in Prince Frederick decided to do this, I'd just go to a different place to get my subs. There are plenty of them. When business plummets as a result, they will rethink their decision.
Now, if you have Muslims threatening violence against businesses to remove pork products, then we have something more serious to talk about. But I don't get that this is happening.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
Could be that they do go back. Or maybe not, if there are limited options and the Muslims are not widespread (meaning much greater than 5% in areas) then they may do well. Unless it's different in the UK Subway is almost entirely franchised, so these would be individual business owners (probably a good number of whom are Muslim) making the business decision to change to halal.
It does seem like a good number of franchise sandwich shops around here are owned/operated by Muslims, and they don't seem to have any issues handling the non-halal food for the rest of us, so if I were a betting man I would guess this was strictly a business decision and not about corporate image or making a political statement.
The "we" I'm thinking of is "Western Civilization" rather than simply the U.S.
The U.S. is going to get there too. Count on it.
Absolutely count on it. And if folks are sitting around fretting about bacon and ham while our city and state governments, not to mention our Congress and White House, are taken over by religious zealots, I'm going to punch every single one of them in the throat.
PJay
Well-Known Member
This^ would be my prediction as well.
Look how easily our government is/has rolled over for the minority in this country. Scary.
TWL
Kernel panic: Aiee.......
As far as I can tell, none. I can say, though, between approx. 2005 - 2009 at least one SOMD Papa Johns franchise (Leonardtown, Solomons, Prince Frederick, Chesapeake Beach, and Dunkirk) dropped beef from their menu. This was the period Nigel Travis was CEO of Papa John's and he implemented several changes. One of note; The Meats pizza didn't come with beef during this period. This resulted in the named locations throwing away more beef than was sold, so the franchisee decided to drop beef from the menu.
Paki's have been emigrating to the UK way longer then the most recent refugee debacle
Yes, I understand that.
We have actually been there.....just sayin'
"History[edit]
Filet-O Fish
The sandwich was created in 1962 by a McDonald's franchise owner in Cincinnati, Ohio, named Lou Groen.[8][9] Groen owned a McDonald's in a predominantly Roman Catholic neighborhood where his Catholic customers engaged in the practice of not eating meat on Fridays.[9]
The product was named by Cye Landy of Cye Landy Advertising Agency, which was the advertising firm for that particular McDonald's franchise.
It has become popular with people with dietary restrictions concerning meat-based products. For example, in Judaism, the fish used in the sandwich is considered kosher even without special preparation, while other meats would require special slaughter techniques to be considered kosher.[10] However, the preparation of the fish alongside non-kosher meat products and in a non-Kosher kitchen renders the Filet-O-Fish non-kosher."
No dog in this fight but I thought a little history would be welcome
