• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Supreme Court rules for Muslima denied Abercrombie job over hijab

Jun 1, 2015 9:54 pm By Robert Spencer

Samantha ElaufThe real question is, Why would a Muslima want to work at Abercrombie & Fitch in the first place? Wouldn’t she find the clothing line, the advertising, and the whole atmosphere objectionable on moral grounds? Shouldn’t she prefer to shun such an environment rather than want to work there at all, especially if she is pious and observant enough to want to wear the hijab?

Unless, of course, the real point of her getting hired in the first place was to compel an American business to change its practices in order to accommodate Islamic norms, and thereby to assert once again that Islam must dominate and not be dominated.

Hamas-linked CAIR was also involved — a clear sign that this was not about religious freedom but about Islamic supremacist strongarming for special privileges for Muslims. The involvement of Hamas-linked CAIR alone indicates that this is not analogous to refusing a job to a Jew wearing a kippah — this is part of a larger program.

“Top US court rules for Muslim woman denied Abercrombie job over hijab,” by Jana Kasperkevic, Guardian, June 1, 2015:

The US supreme court on Monday ruled in favor of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who was denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a headscarf for religious reasons.

The justices decided the case, which united Christian, Muslim and Jewish and other religious organizations, with an 8-1 vote, ruling in favor of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which sued the company on behalf of Elauf.

“The EEOC applauds the Supreme Court’s decision affirming that employers may not make an applicant’s religious practice a factor in employment decisions,” said EEOC chair Jenny Yang, in a statement.

“This ruling protects the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices.”

In a statement to the Guardian, an Abercrombie & Fitch spokesperson said: “While the supreme court reversed the tenth circuit decision, it did not determine that A&F discriminated against Ms Elauf.

“We will determine our next steps in the litigation, which the supreme court remanded for further consideration.”

In 2008, when she was 17, Elauf was denied a sales job at an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa. The legal question before the court was whether Elauf was required to inform the potential employer of a need for a religious accommodation in order for the company to be sued under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans employment discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices.

When attending her job interview, Elauf was wearing a headscarf, or hijab, but did not specifically say that as a Muslim she wanted the company to give her a religious accommodation that would allow her to wear it. She was denied the job because her hijab violated the company’s ‘look policy’ in two ways: it was black, and it was considered to be headwear.

During the 25 February hearing of the case, Justice Elena Kagan compared the situation to an employer deciding it did not want to hire Jewish people and then looking out for names that appeared Jewish as a way to screen applicants.

“That’s gotta be against the law, right?” she said.

Sure. But it really isn’t the issue here. The issue is whether Abercrombie & Fitch is allowed to project the image it wishes to as a company, or whether that image must give way to a statement of Islamic supremacism. The question of why a pious hijab-wearing Muslim woman would want to work at such a place never seems to have come up. It should have.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, Islamic supremacism Tagged With: Abercrombie & Fitch, Samantha Elauf, Supreme Court


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. MICK says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 9:58 pm

    so ends free enterprise in the US under Obama.

  2. mick says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 10:00 pm

    what next under Obama? every business MUST have a women standing in the corner with a burka on? The US will never have the Australians support in anything under Obama or Clinton.

    • particolor says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 6:10 am

      They need SPYS in every Department !!

  3. somehistory says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 10:17 pm

    So, she wore the scarf. It was *religious.* She didn’t wish to take it off or wear something the store would give her to fit in with store policy.
    But, the company wasn’t allowed by law to find out if it was *religious* in order to determine if they had to make an accommodation for her, so they just told her that she wasn’t going to fit in with the scarf.
    Kind of a catch-22 for the business.
    There are businesses that require headgear, and there are some that don’t allow it as *company policy.* Most people will go along in order to have a job. muslims who wish to show they are supreme…not the members of the singing group of young women…wear the scarf because they can sue and make enough money without working. If she had gotten a job as a motel maid, in a lot of places, the management wouldn’t care if she wore one or what color as long as she cleaned the rooms, quick like a bunny. But, that’s work.

    • particolor says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 6:16 am

      Yep that’s exactly what they rely on !! Sue the Infidel !! Work is a Filthy Four Letter Word !!

  4. WhatsUpDoc says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 10:28 pm

    Being out by herself without a Mahram!!!

    Silly courts.

  5. William Lucas Harvey Jr. says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 10:37 pm

    “Supreme Court rules for Muslima denied Abercrombie job over hijab…The EEOC applauds the Supreme Court’s decision affirming that employers may not make an applicant’s religious practice a factor in employment decisions…”.

    The Supreme Court Sides with America’s apparent Pro Islam, Pro Muslim, “Imperial” Potus.

    Apparently, even with a so called “Religious” Practice that involves a NON Religion Ideology , as Islam IS the “Religion” of HATE, which IS actually NOT a Religion at all, much less a “Religion of Peace” – Islam IS a Foreign Law – Islam IS a Social, Political system that uses a Deity to advance its agenda of Global Conquest – and Islam IS an Ideology, Islam is NEITHER a “Religion” OR a “Race”.

    However, a Hijab DOES allow for the Concealement on one’s Face and Identy, PLUS any Weapons, AND Islam is more Regularly using Women to Infiltrate – just what a Muslim “Jihadist” wants.

    However, Muslims ARE, taking Advantage of America’s Laws, by constantly shouting “Discrimination”, while playing the “Victim Card”, and shouting “Racist”, and “Bigot”, when ever their “Cult” is criticized, and exposed, with the TRUTH about Islam.

    • TheBuffster says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 2:15 am

      Hey, William – just a correction: the hijab doesn’t conceal a woman’s face. It’s the niqab or the burqa that covers the face. The hijab is just the head scarf.

      • duh_swami says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 8:39 am

        The ruling would make any religious garb sacred, including the full burqa…

  6. vlparker says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 11:11 pm

    As soon as I saw it was an 8-1 decision I knew the 1 was Clarence Thomas. He is the only member of the court who consistently has any brains.

  7. RonaldB says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 11:14 pm

    “The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit on Elauf’s behalf, and a jury eventually awarded her $20,000.

    But the federal appeals court in Denver threw out the award and concluded that Abercrombie & Fitch could not be held liable because Elauf never asked the company to relax its policy against headscarves.”
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/01/justices-rule-for-muslim-denied-job-over-headscarf/?intcmp=latestnews

    “In a statement to the Guardian, an Abercrombie & Fitch spokesperson said: “While the supreme court reversed the tenth circuit decision, it did not determine that A&F discriminated against Ms Elauf.”

    The news reports, ALL without exception of extremely poor quality, leave the issue of monetary damages and the actual issues involved, unclear. Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan

    “Justice Elena Kagan compared the situation to an employer deciding it did not want to hire Jewish people and then looking out for names that appeared Jewish as a way to screen applicants.”

    seems to have the reasoning ability of a mediocre 14-year old. The report clearly stated that the Muslima did NOT request a religious exemption as a Muslim. Of course, it was clear that she was a Muslim but also clear that her mode of dress violated the company policy.

    It seems to me that the first amendment,

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    clearly and explicitly forbids Congress from making laws respecting the practice of religion. Thus, they are forbidden from enacting laws mandating tolerance or accommodation for religious practices.

    So, what we get is legal sophistry which takes the exact opposite of clearly written text as the mandated law of the land. Is it constitutional for Congress to make a law saying “employers must make an exception for their rules to accommodate religious practices?” This seems to me to be explicitly against the text of the first amendment.

    Is the Supreme Court mandated to pull laws out of the air, rather than interpret legislation? This would set the United States up as a filtered oligarchy, where the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to craft laws, and then interpret them arbitrarily, as long as they use enough incantations (legal mumbo-jumbo).

    The whole matter is made worse by the fact that the Supreme Court justices, like most judges, do not have a clue about the dangers of the religion of Islam. The awarding of monetary damages in a case like this would be a strong incentive for any company to totally give in to any Muslim demands. This would affect company security policy, display of competing religious symbols, the celebration of non-Muslim holidays, giving time off for prayer, and the like. In public committees, it would extend to educational policy for schools, especially for private schools. In other words, there will be no place taking an objective, critical view of Islam, public or private.

    And yes, I do think Islam is a religion, although a religion with a lot of unpleasant and dangerous features. But, a religion being a doctrine of practices and beliefs relating man to the supernatural, Islam is undoubtedly a religion. But, as I argued earlier, there is absolutely no constitutional mandate preventing Congress or local legislatures from legislating practices which are counter to the practices of any particular religion. The religion simply adapts its practices, or all practitioners become outlaws and are either jailed or deported if not citizens.

    • lothos says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 11:46 pm

      well said…although i may disagree with some minor points, your comment provides a clearer point of view than i could have given…

    • Know Thy Enemy says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 4:33 am

      “But, as I argued earlier, there is absolutely no constitutional mandate preventing Congress or local legislatures from legislating practices which are counter to the practices of any particular religion.”

      Are you sure? The 1st Amendment includes “…..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof “, right after it prohibits Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion!

      • RonaldB says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 8:27 am

        You have a point, technically, but if you take that to its logical conclusion, the US would not be able to make a law against strangulation if any practitioners of thuggee happened to be here.

        I think it safe to say that that phrase meant that Congress (or any legal body) cannot make a law forbidding the reasonable meeting and practice of any religion, such as Quakers, shakers, or Amish. Jehovah’s Witnesses were able to opt out of the draft, or saying the pledge of allegiance. All of this is reasonable. But, practices actually endangering the public or infringing on other rights (I think circumcision is right on the line, female mutilation over the line) of other individuals, were not included in “free exercise”. If you take the other view point, you have to be prepared to accept thuggee.

      • Angemon says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 9:28 am

        Are Amish legally allowed to practice polygamy in the US?

        • Angemon says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 1:43 pm

          Ups, I meant Mormons, not Amish.

        • know says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 3:00 pm

          No they are not. But the question is why not? ..considering what is written in 1st Amendment. What is the reasoning? The only reasoning that I see as valid so far is that if a practice endangers the public or infringes on others rights, it should be prohibited. How does polygamy meets that criteria?

          Having said that, the judges are hired to ponder upon exactly these kinds of questions before ruling. Unfortunately we have morons like Elena Kagan as our judges.

  8. Ed says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 11:30 pm

    Easy solution.
    Set up a pork meat hotdog stand at the door of A&F, put her in charge of preparing and serving to their customers.

    • Marco says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 12:11 am

      She is not going to go to work there. This was lawfare jihad. She got 20k!

  9. mortimer says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 12:10 am

    Why would she want to promote IMMODEST, REVEALING clothing, thus contradicting and WORKING AGAINST the strictures of the Islamic dress code.

    Isn’t she a MUNAFIQ (a hypocrite)? Indeed, it seems she is contradicting Islam by even working there.

    Will she refuse to sell tanktops or short shorts or bikinis? What she will do harass the employer next?

    • TheBuffster says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 2:21 am

      I’m thinking maybe she could rationalize it by thinking that a person doesn’t *have* to wear the bikini or the short-shorts in public. One *could* wear those things only indoors at home or in one’s walled-in swimming pool. It’s not haram if only your family sees you.

    • Ephesian says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 5:00 am

      Maybe A&F will start stocking a nifty line in burkhas and niqabs….I believe they even have “designer” ones,you know,all with an islamic theme….

  10. Lee Kaplan says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 12:12 am

    A & F’s lawyers are incompetent. There is nothing in the Koran that demands a hijab be worn. It was a political statement begun by Khomeinists in Iran. This is easily proven using the Koran. It is NOT a religious obligation to wear one.

  11. StarWish246 says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 1:04 am

    Welfare requires people to actively search for work, and put in job applications all over. She may have been just trying to ‘play the game’, but decided to use the joker card that she hid in her sleeve. She applied at places that were inappropriate to her ‘standards’, and was encouraged to expect concessions. When refused (as she probably expected), she threatens, and calls the media. This is getting to be the same old story. WHEN will authorities wise up to this con?

    • particolor says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 6:24 am

      NEVER !! 🙁 🙁 🙁 The KAOS Imam will send Her out on another Mission !!

  12. pdxnag says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 1:33 am

    Every Muslim in America represents a battle front. The inherent incitement to sedition contained in the Koran should require exclusion of all Muslims from presence in any free state, fully nullifying opportunities to engage in lawfare as engaged in here and nullifying opportunities for nutty judges to yield to the assault.

  13. Ren says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 1:44 am

    Job requirement gals and guys, job requirement.

    When you’re 5 feet tall trying to apply to be a model, you are not gonna make it because you don’t have what it takes to be a model. Are you going to sue model agencies for discrimination? Will US Supreme Court rule for you?

    This muslim girl wants to work for Abercrombie, a fashion industry that probably has its rules on clothing for its staff. This muslim girl could easily take her hijab off during working hours for Abercrombie. Does not wearing her hijab for a while make her less muslim?

    This has nothing to do with freedom of religion. This is the tyranny of religion. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religion instead of common sense.

  14. No Fear says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 2:22 am

    All businesses must be Sharia compliant. Got that?

  15. Pauline Rouse says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 4:17 am

    Why did they have to tell her the reason she wasn’t suitable for the job? These people are vermin, she has probably applied for endless other jobs with the same outcome and can now live off the proceeds…..

  16. Edward Cline says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 4:21 am

    I agree with Robert– this Muslima was a stalking horse with no real interest in working in an environment that violated dozens of Islamic tenets. It was a put-up job, and CAIR got the Supreme Court’s collaboration in pulling it off.

  17. Johnd says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 4:28 am

    The way I see it she has stuffed it for any other muslimas who may have been happy to not wear a hijab. Now the company, understandably in my opinion, may never want to hire any muslim ever again because they are nothing but grief. Their only boss is the Koran which fully supports their insubordination against us kaffir.

    • Know Thy Enemy says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 4:50 am

      In the US, employers cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring! What is more likely to happen is that employers will quickly accommodate any Muslim demands, no matter how ridiculous.

  18. G. Gardiner. says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 4:29 am

    What a shame that one (or two or her colleagues) didn’t have the presence of mind to turn up for work wearing a colander.

    That would have sorted the matter out without Cair in the Community and the courts.

  19. epistemology says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 4:34 am

    Lots of companies have a dress code. In clothes shops the salesgirls normally have to wear the kind of clothes they want to sell. So the customer can see how good it looks. it’s understood that Elauf can’t wear kid’s clothes, but she has to represent the company and a hijab doesn’t make a good image for the company, definitely not what the people of A&F have in mind.

    Some years ago in the U.K. a hijab muzzie applied for a job as a hairdresser with a trendy hairdresser. Some of those where you pay a lot of money and get flamboyant hairdos. Impossible to employ her, a female customer wants to see the hairdresser’s hair. You can’t trust a hairdresser who doesn’t reveal her head. Anyway she didn’t get the job and sued the hairdresser and she won. Stupid West! Why do we have to cave in?

    Robert is absolutely right, this is pure harassment, it’s all about Islamic supremacism and imposing sharia. This is something we can’t condone. The Western way of life is much superior to the Islamic one

  20. Johnny mookergee says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 4:45 am

    You can be sure that she will never step in the store for a day’s work. Her Father is the imam in the largest mosque in Oklahoma City .The whole incident was a set up , This is exactly what happened in Belguim and Holland 10 years ago and look what happened to those countries .Islamic Vomit triumphs again .

    • Marty says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 5:34 am

      In the UK about 13 years ago Blair’s wretched wife, a “human rights” lawyer, brought a case on behalf of a muzlim who wanted to wear slave robes and face coverings to school.
      She won, but did not attend school that she was determined to undermine.
      Her brothers moved in and took over the case, turned out they were from terrorist supporting extremist group, and did not wish sister educated.
      Total silence from the Blair Bitch.

      • Isabella says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 6:10 am

        Of course there is silence. But he knows he was duped.

      • Judi says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 7:44 am

        Marty – yes indeed she was his wretched wife. What a bitch. When the courts made a case for some terrorist,illegal asylum or iman to be deported, she would defend them and get paid thousands of pounds for doing so. Invariably she won the case. Also, she, like her equally evil sister Lauren Booth, is extremely anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.

  21. Marty says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 5:29 am

    This store depends on patrons who are fashion conscious and will pay over the odds.
    A headscarf symbolises at best, a Third World dim, poor,oppressed woman.
    At worst it symbolises terrorism.
    She will cost them millions in lost trade.

  22. Isabella says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 6:08 am

    As a customer I play my part of their game: I indicate my preference by going to a staff members who does not display a hijab because it is not my religion.

    • somehistory says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 7:59 am

      Yeah. Ignore the slave of the beast in favor of a sales lady who doesn’t feel superior to each customer.

      • particolor says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 8:10 am

        Don’t be like that ! Buy something from the Muslima and then pay Her in Shekels or Deena’s !! 🙂

  23. Always On Watch says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 6:08 am

    What amazes me about this ruling is that only one justice dissented from the majority on the court.

  24. Always On Watch says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 6:11 am

    I just saw this comment elsewhere on the web:

    So does this mean if a Muslim woman works as a stripper and she decides she no longer wants to dance nude, but instead wants to wear her burqa, that the strip club has to employ her?

    Abercrombie and Fitch attained the success they attained by hiring good looking beach types.

    Now, they’re supposed to [hire women in] burqas because the Supreme Court told them to?

    This is..insane.

  25. Angemon says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 6:15 am

    “The EEOC applauds the Supreme Court’s decision affirming that employers may not make an applicant’s religious practice a factor in employment decisions,” said EEOC chair Jenny Yang, in a statement.

    What an idiotic decision. Since when is the government of the United States meddling into the business decisions of private companies to make sure that religious practices are enforced? But I guess this incident is just another symptom of a deeper, larger illness…

    “When attending her job interview, Elauf was wearing a headscarf, or hijab, but did not specifically say that as a Muslim she wanted the company to give her a religious accommodation that would allow her to wear it. She was denied the job because her hijab violated the company’s ‘look policy’ in two ways: it was black, and it was considered to be headwear.”

    So the company got sued on the grounds of religious discrimination without religion ever being mentioned during the incident. Nice.

    “During the 25 February hearing of the case, Justice Elena Kagan compared the situation to an employer deciding it did not want to hire Jewish people and then looking out for names that appeared Jewish as a way to screen applicants.”

    What a daft analogy. She was not denied employment because someone looked at her name and decided it was “muslim” sounding. She was denied employment because her visual clashed with the store’s image.

  26. Gamaliel says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 6:26 am

    During the 25 February hearing of the case, (very left wing) Justice Elena Kagan compared the situation to an employer deciding it did not want to hire Jewish people and then looking out for names that appeared Jewish as a way to screen applicants.

    That is a bad comparison. Is Elena suggesting the company should have hired her and waited for her to wear the Hijab before telling her she couldn’t wear it. Does anyone doubt the lawsuit that would have ensued then? Or is Elena suggesting that the company should have told Ms. Elauf that the reason they weren’t hiring her was her hijab when that could have made them a target of the Muslim masses?

    The disgrace is that Jews and Christians joined the Muslims in this.

  27. Tom says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 6:59 am

    She is pretty. I wish to buy her…..bwahaahahahaha

  28. William says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 7:53 am

    The Supreme Court is as corrupt and stupid as the rest of the government. After what they did, approving Obamacare as constitutional and saying the penalty is a tax, I have no regard for them any longer.

    • oldwhiteguy says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 9:32 am

      the supreme court became corrupt years ago when presidents started stuffing it with people who would vote the way the administration wanted, any administration. America has long since turned the corner where the country can see where they were and can no longer see where they are going.

    • Shane says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 10:25 am

      I disagree with the decision as she was not discriminated against because she was Muslim, but because the company did not want employees wearing head scarves as it conflicts with the company’s image. What’s next, are businesses going to have to hire guys wearing turbans or women wearing burkhas?

      • Don says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 10:39 am

        How about nudists? Hiring the right people would really increase sales.

    • Last Legs says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 5:20 pm

      The Muslims are playing American like a screeching fiddle. They are winning too. However, we are responsible for our own corruption deballing and downfall. All the way to the seventh century.

  29. Peggy says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 7:57 am

    First of all if we are stupid enough to allow our laws to be abused then who is to blame?
    The judge who rules in her favour should have to justify his decision. On the other hand our politicians have to make sure that the law is clear and cannot be misused like this. We allow this scum to use our laws against us. We have to demand that the law has to change.
    How many times must our companies be sued for us to learn? We all pay for these scummy Muslims to take money out of our pockets. A company will claim their losses from insurance or raise prices so we all pay. Time to demand these laws are scrapped.

    • particolor says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 8:04 am

      Peggy that will go on as long as You have Stinky Muslims in Your Country !! 🙁 That is their New Way of getting JIZRA !!

    • Know Thy Enemy says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 2:19 pm

      I think [most of] the laws are fine. What we need is judges who are not PC and who have working brains!

    • Brian Hoff says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 5:27 pm

      Have this compancy ever think of incresaeing they have share by adding modest clothing like the muslim women wear.Whenj I working in than electron parts wharehouse with than running belt carring box fill with parts nobody wore than tie as it would be unsafe to wear one. Than look polcy isnot the same as than safely polcy.

    • Roy C says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 6:03 pm

      Correct Peggy as usual – but given the seemingly unstoppable trend to the far left sweeping America changing the law won’t help even if it were possible. Activist judges will simply rule it unconstitutional. When California voters came out against gay marriage several years ago – millions voting by the way – one judge said “nope, I think it is unconstitutional” he didn’t have to justify the ruling or explain when this right appeared in the document – it wasn’t there when Clinton signed the defense of marriage act or did we all including the supreme court miss it somehow. Talk about a living document!

  30. KK says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 8:05 am

    That was her idea right from the beginning: get a compensation.

    • particolor says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 8:21 am

      Have You just woken up to that ? And the Local Imam is VERY PLEASED with the Results !!

  31. Al says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 8:27 am

    I like the comment that she would have never applied for a job there (been allowed to) because of her religious beliefs in the first place. And if she had taken the job, would that not have been dishonor and a possible death sentence? COME ON AMERICA! Get educated.

    And the comment above that her father is an Imam. In Oklahoma of all places. And CAIR (Muslim Brotherhood) is involved. It’s all so obvious what’s happening, once you understand Islam and lslamization.

    I am beginning to believe that it will take a Constitutional Amendment to correct what is starting to happen. If a Muslim killing 12 people in the service is a workplace incident, how is our current legal system ever going to make the whole of Islam a terrorist threat. I’ve heard they are now getting sensitive jobs in government because of Title 7, is that correct?

    • particolor says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 9:04 am

      I’ve heard you can go as High as El Presidento ? 🙂

    • Know Thy Enemy says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 2:49 pm

      The problem is not the Constitution. The problem is with people holding positions of authority. They are compromised with PC, ignorance, false knowledge, and cowardice.

      Where there is a will there is a way. When the authorities wanted to get Al Capone and couldn’t get him using criminal law, they figured out a way and got him through IRS. Our current authorities have opposite will. Instead of exposing the mafia outfit that is Islam, they are working hard to remove all obstacles that Islam encounters in achieving its goals of dominance.

  32. spot on says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 8:29 am

    Would a Catholic buy Knights of Columbus Life Insurance from a salesperson wearing a Hijab? Such a salesperson would not sell much. I thought sales positions were exempt from discrimination laws unless there was discrimination within a particular business’s application of their own sales policy. For example a sales policy of “no necklaces” would restrict a necklace with cross. Would this same case be applicable to Hooter’s and other similar situations. If this is what I think it is, business cannot operate this way.

    I have long thought that our society is deteriorating into a sophomoric mentality that is unable to think clearly. Now it has reached the Supreme Court. Too much marijuana, maybe? Couldn’t be too much booze except maybe for that little 90 year old lady on the Court. More likely it is too much Washington control of our government schools.

    • Rebecca says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 8:53 am

      Why wouldn’t a Catholic buy insurance from someone wearing a hijab?
      The same intolerance that we decry about how Muslims treat non-muslims, is wrong for us to do as well. Discrimination, hatred, bigotry, anti-semitism and racism is WRONG on all fronts. That is why christian and Jewish groups were supportive on behalf of this muslim women- because if your saying that it’s okay to not hire someone based on them wearing a Hijab- then your’e saying that it’s okay to not hire someone who wears a Kippah……
      I’m a religious Jew, and just like I don’t want to be treated with hatred from muslims, I make sure to treat muslims with respect as well.

      • spot on says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 11:11 am

        Rebecca, With all due respects, either you didn’t read what I wrote or you have no experience with sales and just went off without thinking.

        I did not say that Catholics should not buy KC insurance from someone in a Hijab. I said that such a sales person would likely not be successful. There is a huge difference here. Sales ( in other words, who buys from whom) deals strictly with “what is” and not “what we wish something to be”. For most businesses, sales = their entire business model.

        Visit a Hooter’s restaurant and you will see their business model.

      • spot on says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 11:18 am

        Rebecca, BTW, Muslims will NEVER treat Jews with respect. How dense must you be. Read their Koran sometime. read history. Listen to Netanyahu, a truly great man. Muslims will always hate Jews, Christians, and all other kuffirs. Once they are in sufficient numbers around you and have confidence, they will make you an offer…convert or die.

        I don’t wear rose colored glasses and I suggest that you throw yours away.

      • Peggy says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 10:14 pm

        What you want and what you get from Muslims is very different. Don’t be naive and cling to some idea that will never materialise. Start looking at things as they are and not as you would like them to be. We are at war with Islam, that much is obvious so never trust a Muslim. You being nice to them is not going to be seen as a sign of an intelligent, decent person but a sign of a weak person to be exploited.

        • Rebecca says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 11:08 pm

          I don’t treat Muslims with respect because I want them or expect them to treat me back that way- I see full well how they are educated in anti-semitism.
          What I’m saying, is that the same way that we would not want to be discriminated against because of our religious practices, we cannot discriminate against them either, as long as their complaints are REASONABLE. (unlike that employee who sued bec he didn’t want to touch pork while packaging groceries- completely ludicrous.)
          Even if you hate muslims, if there are common issues, that affect you as well, then you CAN support them. Which is why christian and Jewish groups supported this woman, and in many other cases. In my community there are very good, strong, interfaith relationships between the Catholic, Jewish and Muslim communities, because we set our differences aside, and unite on issues that affect all of us.
          That’s all I was trying to say.
          (btw- I wear a wig for religious purposes- wudn’t want someone to discriminate against me….I probably wudnt make an issue out of it though! u suck it up and find a new job, not expect everyone to cater to u. just saying.)

        • voegelinian says

          Jun 3, 2015 at 2:32 am

          “What I’m saying, is that the same way that we would not want to be discriminated against because of our religious practices, we cannot discriminate against them either, as long as their complaints are REASONABLE.”

          That would make sense, if Muslims were not waging war against us in order to destroy our societies — both through various forms of violent jihad, and through various forms of stealth jihad. Why Rebecca had a sudden case of amnesia about this little detail, is interesting…

        • Angemon says

          Jun 3, 2015 at 1:15 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          ““What I’m saying, is that the same way that we would not want to be discriminated against because of our religious practices, we cannot discriminate against them either, as long as their complaints are REASONABLE.”

          That would make sense, if Muslims were not waging war against us in order to destroy our societies — both through various forms of violent jihad, and through various forms of stealth jihad. Why Rebecca had a sudden case of amnesia about this little detail, is interesting…”

          Are you saying that we should selectively practice religious discrimination? Are you saying we should be discriminating against muslims on the basis of their religion, thus playing into the eager, waiting hands of organizations who thrive in peddling the lie of islamophobia, like CAIR?

          Take the following situation: a muslim and a Jew walk into a dinner (doesn’t really matter if together or separated). Both ask for a vegan steak, and both say “my religion does not allow me to consume pork, could you make sure the steak isn’t cooked with lard?”

          What would you do in that scenario?

    • particolor says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 9:30 am

      Well I think Granny Clampett gave them some of Her Medicine from the Seament Pond !! 🙂

    • vlparker says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 6:36 pm

      That little 90 year old lady is the biggest idiot on the court. Well, she’s tied for the biggest idiot on the court with Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer.

  33. brenrod says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 8:29 am

    Supremes are idiots: can an actor wear what he wants on the job or does he have to wear as instructed? Part of the abercrombie job is to wear their preppy clothes as an advert just like wearing a uniform with logos. This indicates the muslim desire to sabotage western culture.

    • Peggy says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 10:18 pm

      Retail staff are supposed to represent the store and that means the look of the store. Hijabs are not sold there so why wear it? It would put me off buying from that store if a sales person walked up to me and her look was like she should be selling ME clothes. What would she know about what goes with what? How could I trust her to help me find a perfect outfit?

  34. wildjew says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 8:53 am

    Perhaps someone could send the Justices who voted in favor of this ruling (all of them?) a copy of “Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs,” with chapter six (“YOUR HOUSE IS OUR HOUSE: ACCOMMODATING ISLAM”) dogeared.

    “THE UGLY MUSLIM?”

  35. duh_swami says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 9:07 am

    Bank tellers in Burqas…Fire fighters in niqabs…The smoke jumper wore an abaya…Freedom of religion, does have limits, doesn’t it?

    • particolor says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 9:23 am

      Id love to see one of them front up to Milk one of My cows in a full Burqa !! She would get kicked to Death !! 🙁

  36. Guss, an Ex Muslim says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 9:08 am

    This is all part of the islamization of America. You cannot be an American and a Muslim.

    We have seen how Europe was ruined by Islam.

    They immigrate, multiply like rabbits, NEVER integrate in our society like ALL other immigrants do, play the victims, use our laws against us to change “our” culture and dominate the moment they become the majority (usually 20-30 years at their skyrocketing birth rate).

    Make no mistake. There is NO difference in Islamic ideology and religion between regular Muslims who obey and promote the Quran and radical Islamic terrorists. None!… They both want to impose their “Islamic and Halal” ideology, and they both want Islam to expand all over the world.

    Unlike our civilized ideology and culture, the Quran and the Hadith, verse by verse, promote violence, savagery, killing of non-Muslims, beheading, crucifixion, cutting the hands and legs of human beings, stoning, flogging, child marriages, wife beating, discrimination against women, and much more.

    The Quran commands every Muslim, not just radical Muslim terrorists, to kill, non-Muslims “wherever they can find them”.

    OUR CIVILIZATION IS AT STAKE with Muslims and their ideology of expansion and jihad!…

    Islam should be banned. Islam is not a religion, it is a cult that resembles a mafia. You can never leave it without Muslims wanting to kill you for leaving Islam.

    The only moderate Muslim is a Muslim that has left Islam completely.

    This is one verifiable verse of thousands verifiable verses of violence in the Quran.

    http://quran.com/9/5

    • Don says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 10:41 am

      “If we are practicing muslims, we are above the law of the land.” -Musfafa Carroll, Cair TX

      “Ultimately, we (Muslims) can never be full citizens of this country…because thee is no way we can be fully committed tot he institutions and ideologies of this country.” -Ihsan Bagby, -CAIR

    • Brian Hoff says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 5:50 pm

      Cathor christian and jew have to sue in federal court to get they right as america it no different when muslim do so also. Where I live most of the best doctor are muslim people from different religion use then as they are the best. I was in ER wiith 3 broken knucle bone and than cap they knew I was than muslim they ask it I mind that than woman doctor treat me, I said I donot mind if the doctor was than green skin Martian as long as it is the best doctor.

    • TheBuffster says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 10:55 pm

      I’ve become extremely interested in reading the stories of apostates. I’ve gotten a lot of insight into what it’s like living in a Muslim community, the range of belief and knowledge among Muslims, and most importantly what kinds of things lead a Muslim to leave.

      One thing I’ve been finding is that a lot of Muslims haven’t read the Koran, Hadith, or the Sira themselves. Many apostates whose stories I’ve read say that it was when they finally read the Koran that they realized that the religion wasn’t what they’d been led to believe by family, friends, and even their imams (if they were a mosque-going family). The word-of-mouth version of Islam that had been presented to them had been cleansed of the bad stuff.

      Was that part of your experience? Or did you come from a more hard-core, Koran-reading background?

  37. Catherine says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 9:10 am

    Not sure about the commentary on this one – our clothing stores here are full of young Muslim women wearing hijabs, but otherwise dressed in form-fitting, sexy and stylish clothing. Many of them appear to be wearing the hijab as an identity/fashion statement. I’m not sure if we have an Abercrombie and Fitch in Ottawa, but if we did, it would not surprise me at all to see one of these young girls working there – they are ubiquitous!

    • PRCS says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 3:28 pm

      ” wearing the hijab as an identity/fashion statement”

      Correctomundo!

      http://tinyurl.com/oude625
      http://tinyurl.com/qeqjaq5
      http://tinyurl.com/nb6jgvk

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 6:18 pm

      Objectively speaking, they are “human shielding” the ummah.

      They are also *advertising* Islam. (And if they are young and sexy and delectable, but wearing the Mohammedan Slave Rag/ Sharia Badge, they are no different from, back in the day, a busty Hitler Youth graduate, all glossy and rosy-cheeked and sweetly smiling and dressed up to the nines, conning people into thinking that the Third Reich was all about Youth and Energy and The Future Belongs to Us).

      You might also think of them as “bait” – as a “honey trap” – for foolish infidel men who can be hormonally ‘conned’ into converting to Islam.

      Because if some idiiot kuffar bloke falls for one of them, the *only* way he can get her as a wife is by converting to Islam first….honey trap. (Sharia sez that no Muslimah can marry a kuffar bloke who stays a kuffar; Muslimahs are *only* allowed to marry Muslims. Muslim males, of course, can have as many non-Muslim wives …or sex slaves…as they like, since any kids are automatically counted as Muslims. Non-reciprocity; their men take our women, but their *women* are not allowed to leave the Ummah and marry our men).

      Also: get Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference”.
      Read, very slowly and carefully, chapters four and five – “the power of context”.

      When Muslimahs are doing whenever they wear the sharia badge (and perhaps especially when they are doing it as you describe) is this: they are helping to Islamoform the urban landscape. And it works, because of the power of context. (Which is why the Muslims got so *furious* about the French hijab ban in schools, and then the French burqa ban. It wasn’t a trivial thing. It *mattered*, hugely).

      Lots of them, everywhere, flashing the colours of the Allah Gang, is *not* trivial. It’s not cute, and it’s nothing to be complacent about. Every time you see one: imagine what it would be like if you were in Occupied France or Poland in the 1940s and there were people marching about flashing the SS badge or Swastika armbands. Because that’s the analogous scenario if I, a free woman, see a Muslim woman flaunting the Gang Colours.

      Enemy agents. Fifth columnists. Camp followers – at the very least, but often much more than that – of the Army of Islam.

      • voegelinian says

        Jun 3, 2015 at 2:46 pm

        All that dumbledores argues is apt. I would add that we are bound by our educated attention to the data to reasonably assume that all Muslims and Muslimas who wear no Islamic garb at all (and there are many in the West who in dress and habits appear perfectly modern and Western) are also doing their jihad — the jihad of that species of taqiyya known as muruna:

        Muruna: the temporary suspension of Sharia in order that Muslim immigrants appear “moderate.”

        The Muslim Army is diverse, and has different roles, including the False Moderate who seems perfectly Westernized, who not only refrains from adequately critiquing the lawfaring hijabis like Samantha Elauf (Abercrombie & Fitch) and Tahera Ahmad (Diet Coke on United Airliens) and but if pressed will take their side.

        Perhaps the main role of the more or less impeccably Westernized Muslims is to lull the Western Kuffar into a broad and deep psychological and cultural complacency with regard to “We’re here — get used to it” attitude, along with “Muslims are diverse, not all of us are fanatical extremists like ISIS” — all of which (and more) are calculated to reinforce our own anxious willingness to accomodate them and not treat their increasingly roiling numbers among us with the kind of suspicion that would make their lives at the very least uncomfortable 24/7.

        • voegelinian says

          Jun 3, 2015 at 2:52 pm

          P.S.: I.e. —

          1) the increasing numbers of Muslims into our societies, and their increasingly diversified penetration into all levels and niches of our societies; coupled with

          2) the ongoing various attempts by Muslims to reinforce our anxious need not to be suspicious, prejudiced and discriminatory against them and their increasing presence in our socieities — as we rationally should be — including many different tactics such as assertively islamic-seeming lawfare along with more passive-aggressive False Moderation, as well as assertively Islamic-seeming propaganda along with more clever and sly Islamopologetics that seems West-friendly

          — make it increasingly feasible for Muslims to pull off horrific terror attacks in the West in the future — attacks so elaborate and massively devastating (making 911 look like a picnic), they require years of patient planning, years of networking, years of eluding suspicion, years of deep infiltration into various interstices of our societies..

  38. Midway says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 9:32 am

    Ragheads having their way with our court system.

  39. Al Fabeech says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 10:01 am

    I am going to start referring to Islam as “the Religion?”

  40. Lioness says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 10:36 am

    This ruling forces US companies to be sharia compliant. Congratulations, United States of Islam.

  41. Andrew H. says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 10:44 am

    I doubt very much that the plaintiff launched the suit on her own. She was doubtlessly a plant by CAIR or some other Islamic organization. Employers need to have employment contracts that clearly state that any employees dealing with the public must conform to a corporate look in public or face dismissal. If they want to work for the company inside, as cleaners or repair people, then they can wear whatever they wish so long as it doesn’t impair safety. ALL RETAILERS need to use such an employment contract that no lunatic court could break. Eventually there will be a violent backlash against Muslims in which many innocents will be hurt. This is inevitable since the Islamist compulsion to push, push, push will enrage even the most liberal leftists. Everyone reaches a point where they say enough is enough. The backlash will involve riots, burning of mosques and even lynchings.

  42. wildjew says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 am

    Robert Spencer wrote: “The involvement of Hamas-linked CAIR alone indicates that this is not analogous to refusing a job to a Jew wearing a kippah — this is part of a larger program….”

    I read this earlier and passed over it but I want to address this as a Jew, an American Jew ‘for now’.

    I know many American Jews disagree with me. Some will take strong issue with my point of view. I am not a religious Jew. I don’t keep all the commandments. I believe in God. I don’t wear a kippah throughout the day at work, etc., though I respect those Jews who do largely in Israel and in some of our metropolitan cities like New York.

    If I did wear a kippah, I would not think to demand a business accommodate my ritual or ceremonial religious rite in the event they refused to hire me. I cannot imagine pursuing it in the courts and I would strongly discourage a fellow Jew from pursuing such a lawsuit.

    This is where I run into trouble with fellow Jews. I believe we (Jews) are “guests” here in this country. The United States is not the Jewish National Home. Israel is. Muslims who will not or cannot fully assimilate into this country’s dominant culture (many in my opinion), I believe they are guests here too. They must accommodate themselves to American mores, not the other way around.

    • Angemon says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 3:54 pm

      wildjew posted:

      “If I did wear a kippah, I would not think to demand a business accommodate my ritual or ceremonial religious rite in the event they refused to hire me. I cannot imagine pursuing it in the courts and I would strongly discourage a fellow Jew from pursuing such a lawsuit.”

      That’s because you possess common sense. Your attitude also illustrates the difference between Judaic-Christian values and islam. In the Judaic-Christian tradition, people are expected to do personal sacrifices to stay true to their faith, if needed. In islam, people are expected to force others to bend to their faith.

    • voegelinian says

      Jun 3, 2015 at 2:57 pm

      Your logic is still assuming the Muslim should be assimilated into our society as an equal.

      But I support Jews (and any other reasonably decent religion under the Sun) having special privileges based on their religion, while I selectively oppose that same privilege granted to Muslims. In addition, I support treating Jews (and any other reasonably decent religion under the Sun) being treated equally under the law — but I oppose granting the same to Muslims. Why? Oh, I don’t know; could it be the violent and mendacious War they have been waging against us, are waging against us now, and plan to continue waging more horrifically against us until they destroy us…? Could that have something to do with rejecting the asinine assumption that Muslims should be treated as part of the West?

      • voegelinian says

        Jun 3, 2015 at 6:00 pm

        Correction: “I support treating Jews (and any other reasonably decent religion under the Sun) being treated equally under the law”

        My parenthetical phrase “(and any other reasonably decent religion under the Sun)” for that second usage was hastily included: obviously, I support equal treatment even for religions that are not reasonably decent (heck, even for flamingly indecent religions). It’s only religions which mandate criminal and seditious religious laws like beheading, amputation, flogging, sex slavery, punishment of blasphemy and apostasy, and waging war by violence and by deception against all Mankind based on fanatically supremacist and genocidal hatred of all others — only religions like that do I advocate withholding any special favors AND any ordinary treatment.

  43. rickMT says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    The Supreme Court Stooges just enabled young muslim women to financially support Islamic terrorism here and abroad. An extra bonus: we Infidels move closer to sharia law.

  44. Gene says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 1:08 pm

    Apparently, no one read the Supreme Court opinion. It’s not that long. (You can find it here http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx) And the court was right. The decision deals with 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2 (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). The law prohibits someone from denying a person employment because of a person’s religion, which by law includes “all aspects of religious observance and practice.” Unfortunately for Abercrombie not only did they do that, they admitted that they did it for that reason. (The statute did not make an exception for dress codes, even if they were non-discriminatory.) Abercrombie argued that the plaintiff had to show that Abercrombie knew she needed an accommodation, but this is not required by the statute. The Court noted that: “an employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.” All the Court did was apply the law as written. Courts are not allowed to add words to the statute, which is why Scalia had to agree. This case stands for courts applying the law and nothing more. In this case, the problem, if any, is with the statute not the Court’s ruling.

    Tip: If you can’t hire someone because of one of their religious practices that can’t be accommodated, don’t tell them that you won’t hire them because of their religion. Just hire someone else.

    • wildjew says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 1:20 pm

      Thanks. I wondered why so many conservatives on the court concurred with the opinion. What you are suggesting is this ruling is a manifestation of “judicial self-restraint,” generally considered a conservative principle in jurisprudence.

      I agree with your statement: In this case, the problem, if any, is with the statute not the Court’s ruling.

      In principle, I disagree with the statute. We are talking about what some call religious ceremony or ritual that has no basis in morality or ethics “in my opinion.” As I wrote above, if a company did not want to hire me because I wore a kippah to work — if they thought it would be distracting, etc. — I would not wear it while at work or I would look elsewhere for employment. I would not take it to the courts.

    • wildjew says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 1:29 pm

      I am guessing this law which prohibits someone from denying a person employment because of a person’s religion, which by law includes “all aspects of religious observance and practice,” is based on the Free Exercise Clause which I also have problems in this age of resurgent Islam.

      Wikipedia says: The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

      “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… ”

      Notice what comes next: In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds’ conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation.” Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices…..”

      What about the practice of wearing a hijab at work? What happens when Muslim activist go to the courts to provide constitutional protection for polygamy, wife-beating, etc.? What then?

  45. FredvanH says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 2:18 pm

    People have to start to come to grasp with the fact that a lot of muslim histrionics and idiosyncrasies have got nothing to do with religion, belief, conviction, or what have you. They have to do with PARASITISM. Follow the money.

  46. Rooare says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 2:27 pm

    This really is about Islamic supremacy, submit or we will hurt you legally, financially or otherwise. And we see this double standard in many of the stores Muslims own, alcohol consumption is prohibited but they sure don’t mind selling it.

  47. Thasleem says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    What’s the meaning of the Islam? It means “Submission without question”. So in Muslims opinion anyone must follow the same

  48. Champ says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 4:49 pm

    The real question is, Why would a Muslima want to work at Abercrombie & Fitch in the first place?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Great question; and we know the answer based upon results …

  49. Anne says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 5:43 pm

    Abercrombie & Fitch should test the 1st Amendment by bringing out an ‘INFIDEL’ Line of Clothing.

    They’d make a fortune!

    I’d go tomorrow and buy up big.

  50. isntlam says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 6:23 pm

    Is wearing a hijab a religious thing? Is it mandated by God?

  51. abad says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 6:45 pm

    Never shopped at A & F – this little girl clearly wanted special rights, attention whoring her being a Muslim – she is not important.

  52. Dill weed says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 8:09 pm

    If I have a Pentagram on my forehead and worship the devil (not my thing), can I hope for non-discrimination on the job? Sounds like the answer is yes. So now someone can go to a Muslin owned store get a job and the owners won’t be able to do anything about it. The same should be done with all the MB related entities. Let’s push the envelope on this by exploiting this to the full. I’m a woman atheist feminist looking to do work in a Mosque – I need an accommodation for my secular views, including my disgust for Mohammed. Ha Ha! Use paradox to carry the idea to the absurd extreme right in the face of the Islamists. Just keep jamming away – think of all the possibilities!

    • Proud Kuffar says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 11:11 pm

      A nice thought but not likely to prevail, as being a true Muslim probably is what a court would allow as a “bona fide occupational qualification”, or BFOQ for short.

      It’s why a Christian school may require that it teachers be Christians, or a Msslim madrassa could be able to deny employment to a non-Muslim.

      I am sure that a smart Muslim shop owner could turn away unwanted kuffar applicants on any number of apparently non-discriminatory grounds. A Christian wearing a cross can always be dinged for something that’s not going to make him a member of a protected class.

      But it would be great to try if someone would undertake the effort.

      And while they’re at it, they could try to make a Muslim halal shop serve pork. Or something else equally obnoxious.

      And if A&F doesn’t treat her nice she can always sue for its providing a workplace that is hostile and/or threatening I am sure that even if part of the job were to look at pictures of women wearing bathing suits, she’d be able to say this is a hostile environment and sue their pants off..

  53. David Thompson says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    Good luck on her working environment now. I hope AF and the staff give her hell

  54. boocat says

    Jun 3, 2015 at 1:07 am

    It’s all about bringing the West to its knees.

    • Randy Smith says

      Jun 3, 2015 at 9:05 am

      Yes, you are right, they are the ones on the offensive, and they do a good job at being offensive. The company made a bad decision, they first should have asked her if she was willing to dress in conformance to company dress codes, which are not strict but do require employees to project a certain image the company wants to project, so as to stimulate sales. If that holds any water or not I don’t know.
      I can understand the different groups supporting her, but they seem to be on a path to paint themselves into a corner. This country was setup for religious freedom, but was it set up for any other religions other than the many different variations of Christianity?
      Is islam really a religion, or is it an anti-religion, after all it’s goal is to destroy all other religions by violence if all other religions do not convert peaceably. This is as anti-religion as it gets in my opinion, and I don’t believe anti-religion is protected by our constitution.
      Islam differs from those who do not believe in religion, or atheism, as atheists are not out to kill all of those who believe(yet), but just want to believe as they believe without any religious input of any kind into their environment, they want to not see, hear, smell, or taste any religion period, making it a non-religion verses an anti-religion. Islam on the other hand commands those who have been subjugated by it, to seek out all others and convert them or destroy them, making it an anti-religion. Or would it be more accurate to say it is a violently murderous anti-other religion religion.
      This leads to the question, Was our constitution set up to protect something that is a violently murderous anti-other religion religion, or not? Considering the rest of the constitution, and it’s protections, the answer is obvious to me, NO it is not! At least not to the fullest, as to allow protection of it to the fullest would not only discriminate against all others, it would be the death of all other religions, and all other peoples. The best it can be accommodated, is to allow all those who believe islam, to believe all the beliefs they want, but to not allow them to “practice” any of their beliefs that conflict which our constitution. Or to allow islam into government at any level where it can possibly change any constitutional protections that would allow it to gain advantages that could allow it to do what it “will” do to others.

      • Randy Smith says

        Jun 3, 2015 at 3:14 pm

        I’m sorry, it should read “conflict with our constitution” and not “conflict which our constitution”.

  55. Mick says

    Jun 3, 2015 at 2:06 am

    The hijab is cultural not religious. Has the court erred? Western countries (Australia listen up) need to toughen up when it comes to muslims. They are whittling away at our standards, laws and beliefs. In Australia we say “if you don’t love it, then leave”. Muslims need to remember they joined us, we did not join them. They need to adhere to our standards and rules. In Australia we pray for a government with the bottle to stand up for our rights, our principles, our standards and our culture, but we have politicians without ticker. I guess we are doomed, eventually.

    • Karen S says

      Jun 4, 2015 at 4:17 am

      And I keep pointing out to people – it is not RACIST to dislike/hate a religion. If I am racist because I don’t like Muslims, does this make somebody racist because they don’t like Catholics – or Mormons – or Jews – or Buddhists – and on and on…..

      This needs to b CONSTANTLY and LOUDLY pointed out to the media.

  56. Randy Smith says

    Jun 3, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    They should have asked her if she was willing to conform to dress codes, and that the job requires this so as to project the right image that garners more sales. The supreme court erred on this one in my opinion as now they’ll go after pig farms, breweries, strip clubs, you name it, what ever they can finagle they’ll go for it. What a bunch of scammers, following such an obviously evil concoction as islam, and not because of any divine revelation to themselves other than their parents knife at their throats. Did the originator of this belief ever prophesies anything other than the death this will inflict on humanity, and at the hands of it’s followers no less?

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • janicevanguilder on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Yogi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Hoi Polloi on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated
  • Hoi Polloi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.