'cookieChoices = {};'


The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated

click.jpg

Monday, June 15, 2009

UK: Muslim cocktail waitress awarded $4,700 for being made to wear "indecent" dress

From Jihad Watch:

reddress.jpg


What was a pious Muslim doing working as a cocktail waitress, anyway? And what did she expect to wear inside a bar -- a burqa? Not coincidentally, she dresses more "indecently" than she was asked to in the bar on her Facebook page -- indicating that this was all about intimidating the dhimmis, and of course, it worked. Absurd Brittania Alert: "Muslim cocktail waitress gets £3,000 for sexual harassment after bar ordered her to wear 'indecent' dress ..."


Go read the whole thing at Jihad Watch.

HRW adds:



Rocket Bar Restaurant reviews

Rocket website

Rocket menu link - pdf

I cannot open the pdf, but the image at the Rockets website implies they serve ribs - pork ribs. Perhaps someone else will confirm this is not a hallal menu.

This woman sued based on her religiously motivated 'modesty' - secondary to her 'silver service' uniform preference. As an employee, she is subject to the employers dress code. If she is unhappy with the dress code, she is free to seek employment elsewhere. To hell with her feelings. No employer should be subjected to punative subjective standards of 'hurt feelings' especially when the double standard of this plaintiffs facebook page reveals her hypocracy. 

Why the hell does the court make this into a sexual harassment issue when she was the ONLY female employee with 'hurt feelings'? FFS

Male employees should now turn around and sue for damages for not " being asked to wear the sleeveless dress that was open at the back." 

or:

Miss Lemes' lawyer Joe Sykes asked the restaurant's general manager Danila Bodei: 'The reason for choosing the colour red was to indicate that the waitresses were sexually available, wasn't it?' 

She replied: 'No, it was just the colour to match the bar.'


the men should sue for not being provided the same color coordinated garb.


Surely, that is sexual harassment too.

Until the courts change, this case should be funnelled through the courts through every demented contortion of 'sexual harassment' and 'hurt feelings' until such foolishness is recognized as the bankrupting garbage it is.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link#

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rocket Bar Restaurant reviews

Rocket website

Rocket menu link - pdf

I cannot open the pdf, but the image at the Rockets website implies they serve ribs - pork ribs. Perhaps someone else will confirm this is not a hallal menu.

This woman sued based on her religiously motivated 'modesty' - secondary to her 'silver service' uniform preference. As an employee, she is subject to the employers dress code. If she is unhappy with the dress code, she is free to seek employment elsewhere. To hell with her feelings. No employer should be subjected to punative subjective standards of 'hurt feelings' especially when the double standard of this plaintiffs facebook page reveals her hypocracy.

Why the hell does the court make this into a sexual harassment issue when she was the ONLY female employee with 'hurt feelings'? FFS

Male employees should now turn around and sue for damages for not " being asked to wear the sleeveless dress that was open at the back."

or:

Miss Lemes' lawyer Joe Sykes asked the restaurant's general manager Danila Bodei: 'The reason for choosing the colour red was to indicate that the waitresses were sexually available, wasn't it?'

She replied: 'No, it was just the colour to match the bar.'


the men should sue for not being provided the same color coordinated garb.


Surely, that is sexual harassment too.

Until the courts change, this case should be funnelled through the courts through every demented contortion of 'sexual harassment' and 'hurt feelings' until such foolishness is recognized as the bankrupting garbage it is.

HRW

Monday, June 15, 2009 5:44:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Note also, that this muslima freely 'chose' not to wear a veil or sack - at no expense to the British taxpayer.

She can equally choose another suitable establishment to provide her black/white 'silver service' without penalty to the British taxpayer.



HRW

Monday, June 15, 2009 6:13:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NEVER employ Muslims

Monday, June 15, 2009 6:34:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


Older Posts Newer Posts