The Supreme Court ruled Monday against the retailer Abercrombie & Fitch, 8-1, deciding that the company’s failure to accommodate a job applicant who wore a hijab violated civil rights law.Read the rest HERE.
The clothing chain declined to hire Samantha Elauf in 2008 as a sales associate because her hijab violated the company’s “look policy,” which at the time prohibited employees from wearing head coverings. Elauf was never informed of the “look policy.” Elauf filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission....
Inch by inch, Islamic supremacism is ruling the day here in America.
It's almost as if 9/11 never happened!
Additional reading: Bowing to Islamic Supremacy (2012).
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?
ReplyDeleteAbercrombie and Fitch attained the success they attained by hiring good looking beach types.
Now, they're supposed to have butt ugly bitches in burqas because the Supreme Court told them to?
This is fucking insane.
Doesn't an employer, corporation, retailer, etc. decide what the look of their company is? So if someone comes up all covered in tatoos and the company considers the individual does not represent the image of their company, it will be sued for violating the rights of that individual? Same is true with exceedingly overweight people, or weird looking people, etc. We no longer have the ability to select who we hire???
ReplyDeleteThis is so wrong is beyond belief. My daughter decided not to look for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch precisely because of the ultra thin, model looking appearance of their sales people.
Pasto and Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteApparently, employers are free not to hire anyone -- except a Muslim.
We are living in an insane alternate universe!
From Jihad Watch:
ReplyDeleteWhy 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.