Dearborn: Two Muslim women sue McDonalds for $10 million for not hiring them over Islamic attire

Why would muslims want to work for a capitalistic conglomerate that promotes the values of the "great satan" and serves pork? What if they are hired, will the McDonald's not be allowed to serve sausage McMuffins or bacon double cheeseburgers? Maybe they would file a lawsuit stating they were made to touch pork.

Oh spill some hot coffee already. Gee, who knew one might be expected to wear uniform clothing while handling peoples food?

Mmm, double bacon cheeseburgers! iInfidel, you be making me hungry!

Just how long did these burkababes intend to flip burgers at $6.55/hour to figure they deserve $10M??? Okay, I presume a part of that sum is for the poor dears' "suffering" -- but that's a lot of suffering over a minimum wage job. I'd hate to see what they'd want if turned down for a more lucrative position.

Interesting that two women should apply to the same MickyD's, both be turned down because they would not wear clothing appropriate to the job, and sue together. Almost sounds ... planned.

(And Whitfield and Pugh -- sounds like converts)

They will win .Thats a lot of money for jihad,
remember at target they are not touching bacon, they are touching plastic and they are catered to.
Maybe they can sue playboy for refusing to pose nude after asking to appear in the pages!

CJ's post above compelled me to consult my trusty calculator. At $6.55 an hour, with BOTH women working full time, it would take 381 years to accumulate the 10 million dollars they calculated as their loss.

Maybe they figured the "loss of prestige" from not being able to flip burgers for minimum wage was worth 9 million...?

"When I walked away, I was definitely hurt by it and disturbed. I was confused that it could happen here in Dearborn, with so many Muslims," she said.

________________

Sorry, you haven't established a mini-Caliphate yet in Dearbon. It's America, with American laws, private business, and dress codes set by the company.

Now for the irony:

It's McDonalds - they serve sausage.

Final Thought - Lawsuit Jihad at it's worst. This BETTER get thrown out, or ruled in favor of McDonalds.

I worked there - in highschool - and geez.. I never complained about having to wear their dorky uniforms. I didn't sue because I couldn't wear my t-shirt and jeans. Don't apply for a job you aren't willing to do.

This echoes the "interview Jihad" experienced by the British Hairdresser recently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7457794.stm

I suspect that we can expect to see much more of this kind of thing happening for as long as our legislators allow it to happen.

Has there ever been a group of humanity quite so adept at shooting themselves in the foot?

The only long term consequence of such frivolous and transparently mischievous action, "veiled" in the disguise of discrimination accusations, is that employers will be reluctant to even interview muslims for jobs, never mind employ them.

They talk about being victimised constantly. It's true. They ARE victims. Victims of their own inability to see the wider picture and the damage they cause to their fellow muslims.

Pathetic. Truly and utterly and mind-bogglingly pathetic.

Since MacDonald's also promotes homosexuality, this will be a good turn of events. They want diversity but diversity has come to bite them on their MacBehind.

This is the consequence of lie-brul values.

"Toy" and "Quiana"...
-- from the article above

Converts, or "reverts," victims of Da'wa, aimed in this case at those who may fit into either of the categories of groups targetted by those conducting Da'wa -- the psychically and economically marginal.

They are described as coming from Dearborn. Does that mean they were raised in Dearborn, with its heavy Muslim-Arab presence, and so more susceptible to the atmosphere, to what was in the air? Or did they, upon conversion, move to Dearborn?

And was the lawsuit their very own idea, or were they used, as easily-manipulable people, by others, including perhaps an Arab Muslim lawyer, or even conceivably CAIR, eager for one more case with which to frighten and bully American employers, and to force widespread acceptance of the burga and other Muslim dress even though, in this most obvious of cases, such dress presents a hazard, to the health and safety of everyone, including fellow employees and customers, for if such articles of clothing were to impede the wearer's sight, as something was being carried, or were to more easily catch fire, near a kitchen with all the attendant dangers and heightened risk, then the victory would result in fewer people going to Macdonald's.

And just how many non-Muslims would feel like going to a restaurant, or even a fast-food place, where some of the employees wore the outward and visible signs of female submission to male dominance, and the entire view of female sexuality (they reek of it, and must be covered up), and of the primitive male response (men just can't help themselves, and that's why the women must be covered up), and also the outward and visible signs of earnest submission to what Islam inculcates, and what it inculcates, what is at the very center of Islam, is the division of the universe between Muslim and non-Muslim, Believer and Infidel, and the former is taught that a permanent state of war (though not necessarily of open warfare) exists and must by right exist, between the two, until that time when all obstacles to the spread of Islam are removed, and Islam spreads, and then everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere.

When that is understood, not only such sinister cases as this will be treated with the attention, and the alarm, that they rightly merit, but no politician will be able to blithely state, as one did yesterday in Berlin, that we will simply "tear down the walls" between "Christian and Muslim and Jew." Such a person does not know what Islam is all about, and he had better learn the essence of Islam very very quickly.

Was their hijab the only issue? Or did these females demand also to wear the loose, flowing body-bags of true Islam -- the clothing that could potentially spread disease in a food-handling position, as well as endangering the wearer and the rest of the crew when exposed to hot oil and burning surfaces?

These small differences matter, when in court.

there probably mad because they could hide feaces in the burkas and conduct jihad against the kufer by contamnating our food. and if they cant were it thet could not pull stunts like that imo i hpoe this law suiit gets tossed

All Toi and Quiana have to do is show up in a scarf and a Clinton appointed ignorant-bleeding-heart judge will make the greedy corporation fo McDonald PAY for having hurt "hurt the feelings" of the "culturally alien" women with high "family values" (else, get slaughtered by their own dad/brothers). Da'wa 1, Kuffar 0.
Case closed.
BTW, USA, don't forget to thank Clinton for this :
http://www.blessedcause.org/clinton.htm

"I was confused that it could happen here in Dearborn, with so many Muslims," she said.

Confused, as in "I thought we already controlled Dearborn. Isn't it part of Dar el islam already?"

They need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that their lawsuit is frivolous and they owe the Golden Arches $5M a piece.

Scum.

Extortion, by any other name.

The Ummah is just the world's oldest and biggest organised crime gang.

I said it some time ago, when the British Muslim won the lawsuit against the hairstylist who would not hire her for the same reason..you can expect to see a flury of these "they won't hire me because I am a Muslim" lawsuits...

they should throw this lawsuit out and make a new rule, "loser pays".

Penguins should be in zoos, not serving food at at a restaurant. Besides, if they are such strict Koranists then why would they possibly want to handle haram pork by products and such?

Crusader, what the f**k does "McDonalds promotes homosexuality" even mean? And what does that have to do with this thread?

I suspect these young women, reverts ignorant of islam and all it means, have been put up to this with the promise of a portion of the payout should the suit be succesful. And this case is, no doubt, only the tip of the iceberg.

"When I walked away, I was definitely hurt by it and disturbed. I was confused that it could happen here in Dearborn, with so many Muslims," she said.

That statement is quite telling. Anyway, capitulation here will roll all the way up to Muslim doctors, who will then have their religious accomodation over patient health and safety.

Most likely a setup of these women by more insipid characters as "imnodhimmi" stated.

Toy and Quiana, if not completely successful at trial, will, at a minimum, squeeze McDonalds Corp. for several thousand before the case closes by settlement. The very foundation of our laws, i.e., the Constitution, must be amended to prevent the Toys and Quianas (and their muslim lawyers) among us from carrying out this part of the stealth jihad.

The basis for their claim rests on religious discrimination and their first amendment right to be muslims.

This country is unprepared to prevent the onslaught of these type cases. As long as the Supreme Court continues to provide such a wide definition of what consitutes "religion" under the first amendment, there are no, or little, or very weak, defenses to these claims.

We need to start thinking about an amendment to the Constitution now. One that recognizes how political Islam is so far inseparable from religious Islam, that giving Islam constitutional protection threatens our survival.

The other part of the solution concerns muslim lawyers. There should be no such allowable status as a fervently religious, or pious muslim lawyer. A devout muslim lawyer (almost by definition) believes in the supremacy of Sharia law over the Constituion. All U.S. lawyers are obligated to, under every state bar association, or State Supreme Court, rule, as a requirement to obtain keep one's license, uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Each state also has a form of an Attorney Ethics Committee that investigates citizens complaints against attorneys who violate their ethical duties. I would expect, and do hope, that some day soon, some citizen will acquire some concrete evidence, of sufficient reliability to submit to one such Ethics Committee, showing a muslim lawyer declaring his/her fidelity to the ummah, the Koran and/or Allah, and therefore announcing the supremacy of sharia law. Upon such evidence, that pious muslim lawyer ought to be disbarred.

For anyone wishing to contact the corporate HQ of McDonald's about this issue:

http://apps.mcdonalds.com/contactus/navigate.do?link=socialresp

ImNoDhimmi, haven't you been following the news?

McDonald's is being boycotted by the American Family Association for promoting homosexual causes. For example, they made a commercial of a 'gay pride' parade to show that they 'join' in supporting gays and lesbians.

McDonald's is refusing to take back their support (or their commercial), and state that they are merely supporting Equal Employment Opportunity for homosexuals. However, several other companies (including their rival, Burger King) have signed onto a website that shows support of EEO for homosexuals, but have never gone so far as to make commercials of gay pride parades.

This is what Crusader meant. On the one hand, McDonald's claims that they are all about diversity and equal opportunity in the workplace, but yet they refused to hire Muslim women who want to wear their religious garb.

I have no sympathy for McDonnalds, but less for muslims, especially those who 'set up' businesses and airlines for lawsuits.
Two with the same story at the same time is just a little too coincidental...

"Was their hijab the only issue? These small differences matter, when in court."

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter

Yes, that's true. If it were only the hijab, there's a possibility that it could be tucked into the uniform collar, and thus be out of the way.

In which case, McDonald's is gonna take a beating, I'm afraid. I hope it was the full Hefty bag they wanted to wear.

when you hire them , turn off the A/C

Fast food restaurants have employee dress codes not only for appearances, but for hygiene and safety.

Also, it's getting more difficult to identify Mohammedans these days, if they are going to go around with names like Toi Whitfield and Quiana Pugh. As Hugh pointed out above, ultimate losers!

Here are two links to the Islamic version(s) of this creative victimology.

CAIRo Version 1
CAIRo Version2

It was interesting to read in the Islamic version that the first incident occurred in 2006. Why was it not a 'legal issue' 2 years ago.

kaffirchick. Thanks for the link to McDonald's headquarters. I sent them a short letter. I think Hugh is right to focus not on sanitation issues but rather on the male domination issue. I wrote in my letter, and I meant it, that I will not eat at a locale that tacitly or implicitly supports female subjugation. The hijab is a slap in the face to all women.

Infidel Pride--

No intentional omissions, but I don't eat at burger joints, I don't drink soda, and I buy the brand that's on sale. So that sort of thing isn't as much on my radar screen. But you have a point there.

When I was a teenager in South Cal I worked at McDonald's in the summer between the school years. There was a definite requirement to wear the uniform for safety reasons. Could you imagine if a hijab slipped off while some Muslim girl was working the french fry oil vat? If it got stuck or pulled off she would be burned and scarred for life. And the other point of wearing a uniform is that everyone is equal. Since we know women in Islam aren't equal, maybe they shouldn't be working at McDonald's.

Please check the photo op. These two look just as subjugated as the male members of CAIR demand they be.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080724/NEWS02/80724081/1003/NEWS

"When I walked away, I was definitely hurt by it and disturbed. I was confused that it could happen here in Dearborn, with so many Muslims," she said.

She had always dreamed of a career flipping hamburgers in McDonalds, and now she will have to change career plans.

She saw the success that Bushra Noah had in "sticking it to the infidel", and so she thought she'd try it herself.

Hi, we have a few Muslim lasses working in various McDonalds around Sydney that I've seen. They wear the hijab but also the McDonalds uniform and close-fitting long-sleeved shirts. So there's definitely more to this story! And it appears to be the Muslim girls word against the McDonalds manager that he said they couldn't work there if they wore hijab.

In Lahore, Pakistan of all places, its the same dorky McDo uniform you see everywhere - no hijabs. I smell a CAIR legal jihad set-up. Our laws, customs and ideals. If they don't like, maybe Saudi Arabia is more to their liking.

If Micky-D changed the dress code after employment began, they'd have an argument; They chose however, NOT to accept the conditions of employment. That Freedom thing really sucks when it requires personal accountability.

They soon will be serving goat McMuffins with Halal egg and cheese; mark my word.

Marisol

Obviously a better person than I - I get pilloried very often by relatives particularly for drinking soda the way an SUV drinks gas. And I'm much more into junk foods than health foods such as salads.

I too generally buy no name brands on sale, except for food items, where the taste varies. But the point of my question was more of a 'would you buy a fake Coke ostensibly from Coca Cola rather than a genuine one.' It wasn't a 'wouldn't you prefer coke to pepsi or a store brand coke openly marketed as such.'

Anyway, you got my point.

"When I walked away, I was definitely hurt by it and disturbed. I was confused that it could happen here in Dearborn, with so many Muslims," she said.

There may very well BE a lot of Muslims in Dearbornistan, but this IS still the United States of America, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, NOT an Islamic caliphate.
If you want to work for McDonald's or any other business, YOU have to accomodate THEM.
You work for THEM, they DON'T work for you.

No Burkas in America,,,,

I just heard Laura Ingram on Fox about this story, talking about the hijab being the 'traditional Muslim head-covering'.

That is BS.

This hijab-burka-niqab thing was nowhere to be seen in North-Africa, the ME, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand 30 years ago.

That came with the Sowdi influence and with Khomeini's Islamic revolution in Iran. Of course there were always places like Afghanistan, Sowdi and the Gulf-states along with Yemen where they covered up, but these people were not migrating to make us Islamic then.

So how do they handle the bacon and sausage products? Does someone else have to do that for them? How do they take the orders for the men that come through the order line? Do they ignore those particular islamic rules?

I sent this letter to McDonald's:

Dear Sirs,

I was furious when I read this morning that CAIR, the Council on American Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, TX, was suing a McDonald's owner in Dearborn, MI because he wouldn't hire two Muslim women because they insisted on wearing the oppressive symbol of female subjugation, the hijab.

I have been a customer of McDonald's since I was a small child for the past almost fifty years. I even had lunch yesterday with some clients who had two little boys who wanted to eat there. I also worked at McDonalds in Southern California four different times in the summer between school years back in the 1970's. I need to tell you though, that if McDonald's were to cave in to CAIR's demands and allow the wearing of hijabs by Muslim women who work there, I would not be able to eat there anymore. CAIR prides itself on setting up agendas to push Islam down the throats of non-Muslims and then if they don't get their way, they perform Judicial Jihad and sue the person or company who doesn't immediately bow down to their wishes.

Please support the McDonald's owner who has been deceitfully attacked by CAIR. BTW, CAIR will back down from the case during the discovery phase of any hearing because they cannot stand up to any scrutiny of their financials. You can read more about this from another case here: http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

I appreciate your consideration in this matter.

They sent me this back:

Hello Isabella:

Thank you for taking the time to contact McDonald's.

McDonald's and our franchisees take the allegations that were made public yesterday very seriously. It is important to note however, these are just allegations. Additionally, Finley Management, Inc. has not received any official notice of a legal claim filed against this organization with regard to these allegations. Finley Management, Inc. has a strict policy prohibiting any form of discrimination, in hiring or any other aspect of employment. We appreciate you taking the time to contact us for concerning this issue.

Again, thank you for contacting McDonald's. We hope to have the opportunity of serving you again soon under the Golden Arches.

Jennifer
McDonald's Customer Response Center

Sounds like a corporate shakedown, especially considering the lawyer Nabih Ayad. Think McD sould counter sue, and Ayad disbarred.

Sooner or later, some muslims were goig to submit to pork. They were willing to defy islam and server pork sausages and bacon - wow!

If I ever walk into a resturant and face a muslim servant at McDonald or anywher else, I would simply turn around and walk out and never return to that restaurant again.

I hope McDonald's executives see my posting and use it for their diffense. The likelyhood of a dummy judge siding with the terrorist muslims is very high.

When I walk into an establishment and see any indication of muslim involvement in the business, I do a right about face and march out the door. I would rather do without than support my enemies.