Sounds like a set up to me

I just came across this piece:

A discrimination lawsuit filed by a Muslim Dunkin' Donuts franchisee who was not allowed to renew his contract with the chain because of a refusal to sell pork products can proceed, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The decision reversed an Illinois federal court judge's 2004 ruling that rejected Walid Elkhatib's argument that Dunkin' Donuts discriminated against him based on his race by making the sale of breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage a mandatory part of his franchise agreement.

I am usually sympathetic to discrimination claims, but I'm not on board with this one. Face it, Dunkin' Donuts is largely a breakfast place, and to many, many Americans, breakfast includes bacon, ham or sausage. A Dunkin' Donuts place that didn't sell those would be rather unpopular among most Americans, I would think, and it's very existence might well taint the Dunkin' Donuts' experience for those dining there and not being able to get their normal breakfast. That, in turn, could taint the whole image of the brand.

And, if you're going to pick a franchise to join, why pick one that, almost by definition, sells things that you already know you don't want to sell? It's a bit like becoming a McDonalds' franchisee and then saying you have religious objections to selling Big Macs.

This sounds more like a deliberate set up of Dunkin' Donuts to me. Join the franchise and then sue on discrimination grounds.