Photo Credit: Islamization Watch
When Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed there were few Shariah-compliant Muslims living in America. The Muslims we did have, such as the Nation of Islam, are so far removed from actual Islam that they do not matter for the purposes of this discussion.
Because we had so few actual Muslims from Muslim cultures, the law did not take into account the arrogance of those who follow the Islamic political ideology.
Title VII "prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer." Obviously safety issues would prevent someone with long sleeves from operating a meat-cutting machine.
But here's the problem: what undue hardship is imposed on Disney by allowing a hijab-covered woman to play the role of Princess Cinderella at her castle? Is there any safety issue? Not really. How about the fact that some customers may feel uneasy about a person wearing Islamic clothing? Well, that's just Islamophobia and vacationers should just suck up and accept the fact that we can't have things our way anymore.
Two months after 9/11 Alamo Car Rental fired a Somali customer sales representative for refusing to remove her head scarf during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Alamo was ordered to pay 250,000 dollars in punitive damages (1).
Alamo should have the right to determine what is the proper attire for their employees to wear. Two months after 9/11 was not a time to stick a middle finger into their customers' faces.
Last year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie and Fitch for refusing to hire a 17-year-old girl who wore a head scarf to her job interview for Abercrombie Kids in Oklahoma. The head scarf violated the company’s "Look Policy," which forbids head coverings. (2)
It is obvious that this was not religious discrimination. A&F would have refused to hire this woman even if she were an atheist who did not fit the profile they were looking for to present to their customers.
My advice to retailers who are concerned with protecting their brand image: when confronted with a Muslim woman who shows up seeking employment but not wearing a hijab or abaya at the interview, do not ask if she will ever suddenly decide to wear a hijab or a scarf or someday demand 5 breaks during the day to pray. Simply nod and say, "OK we'll get back to you." But you know what to do: pick someone else and respond that you appreciate her considering your company for employment and that someone else was hired for the job.
As I warned everyone, hiring a Muslim will only lead to a religious accommodation lawsuit.
Here's a warning to hair salons. If a Muslim woman not wearing a headscarf comes for a job, be warned that one day after she has been working for a while, she will come in with her head completely covered. Instead of being able to wear interesting hairstyles to entice your customers to take certain haircuts, she will not be able to do that job. However, since you do not have the money that large corporations do to take her to court, you will be stuck with her until you die. But do not tell her you are refusing to hire her for fear that she will not be able to do her job, a poor woman in the UK was already sued for beaucoup bucks for rightly telling a Muslim woman she is not suitable for the job.
So here's the deal. Since Muslims are coming into this country in greater numbers, and since the Muslim point of view is that infidels, being the inferior people, must accommodate Muslim needs, then one day a Muslim woman will show up at your salon wearing full head gear just itching for you to turn her down on religious grounds so she can sue you and not bother to work. In criminal parlance, this is known as their M.O.
Do not mention the head covering, do not even appear to notice it. If she asks if the abaya or headscarf or whatever is a problem, simply pretend you didn't even notice it. Tell her politely that you are interviewing quite a number of people and that you'll get back to her. But you know what to do. Do not talk to your employees about the matter, do not say hell will freeze over before you hire a tent-covered imbecile for your salon, do not leave any chance that any one will be subpoenaed to court and testify against you. Pretend that you are seriously considering everyone regardless of appearance.
Act offended that anyone would suggest that you might be prejudiced, even though this has nothing to do with religious intolerance, this is strictly a matter of survival of your salon business. The truth is, the law, originally written to protect genuine religious discrimination concerns, is wholly at the mercy of Muslims who misuse the law for their benefit.
If you own a restaurant, absolutely do not hire a Muslim. It will only be after he or she starts working that you will find out that they refuse to handle a bacon and egg sandwich, that some other infidel waitress will have to handle those orders. If you try to fire them they will take you to court, but after spending thousands, even if you win, which is unlikely, you will lose. You may then find yourself a target of Muslims who will attempt to injure you for your treatment of a fellow Muslim. Better not to get involved right from the beginning.
If you are not sure if the person before you is a Muslim and you are hiring a cook, take him to your kitchen where you have previously placed a fork under a bunch of bacon strips. Nonchalantly ask him to hand you that fork and if he says something about being unable to touch bacon, make sure to remark, "Oh that's not a problem, I am looking for someone to cook non-pork items, don't worry about it." Slough it off and concentrate on seeing how he scrambles eggs or something else. Do not act as if his being a Muslim is any problem. Mention that you are interviewing quite a number of applicants and that you will get back to him. You know what to do.
If you do not believe that a Muslim would seek a job as a cook for infidels and then refuse to cook food that infidels eat, you obviously are clueless about the arrogance of Muslims in their demands of accommodation. It happens, believe it: A Muslim chef is suing the Met police in London after being asked to cook pork sausages and bacon for breakfast. (3) The nerve of the police asking him to cook things they want to eat!
BTW, the cook's lawyer said, "The Met could easily have met his demands." Ah, yes, all they had to do was stop eating British breakfasts and go Halal. How easy.
Jews do not eat bacon but they also do not ask for jobs they cannot do. In the 200 years that Jews have been in this country, in the thousands of years that Jews have been in Europe, have you ever heard of one single case of a Jew suing a non-Jew because he did not want to touch bacon?
Religious Jewish women must also dress modestly but they also do not ask for jobs they cannot do. In the 200 years that Jews have been in this country, in the thousands of years that Jews have been in Europe, have you ever heard of one single case of a Jewess suing a non-Jew because she was not hired for wearing a headscarf?
Muslims have been coming into the West only in the past few decades and already they demand infidels to be subjugate to the Islamic way of life, that we change the way we run our businesses, that we change the way we eat, that we respect where they want to place their places of worship regardless of our feelings, our culture, our way of life. What chutzpah!
If you hire a Muslim you are an idiot and you deserve everything that happens to you.
Legal Disclaimer: I sometimes provide information about the law designed to help my readers safely cope with their own legal needs. But legal information is not the same as legal advice or how you may apply the law to your individual, specific circumstances. I do not like giving advice regarding the breaking of any law, but when that law is abused by followers of Political Islam for the sole purpose of destroying the American way of life, I believe it is our duty to disobey that law. My personal belief is that it is immoral to refuse to hire a qualified person for a job strictly on religious grounds. But if a person's religious beliefs may interfere with his future performance, then I do not believe we should accommodate that religion.
For example, if you are a hospital human resources person you should not hire a Jehovah's Witness to administer blood transfusions. The ACLU would argue that that would be religious discrimination. After all, a reasonable accommodation could be made so that the Witness would only have to do tasks that would not expose him to blood directly, perhaps he could make the beds prior to a transfusion or calibrate equipment. But this is all nonsense; JW do not have an agenda that involves the conversion of our way of life through intimidation and legal blackmail, so you will never see one asking for a job he cannot do.
If Islam were a religion rather than an ideology bent on our destruction then certainly I would not be suggesting that we act in a bigoted way. See my full Disclaimer.
This article available in Danish here.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 4 Jun 2007, PHOENIX JURY AWARDS $287,640 TO FIRED MUSLIM WOMAN IN EEOC RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT
A Phoenix jury has awarded more than $287,000 in a religious discrimination suit against Alamo Car Rental brought by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged Alamo committed post-9/11 backlash discrimination based on religion when it fired a Somali customer sales representative in December 2001 for refusing to remove her head scarf during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
Alamo will pay $21,640 in back pay, $16,000 in compensatory damages, and $250,000 in punitive damages to Bilan Nur. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit (CIV 02-1908-PHX-ROS in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona), Alamo refused to permit Nur to continue to cover her head, as she had done in previous years, even if she wore an approved Alamo-logo scarf. The jury also heard evidence that, although wearing a head scarf did not violate the company’s dress policy, Alamo fired Nur in December, 2001, only eight days before Ramadan was over, and declared her ineligible for rehire. The jury reached its verdict after also hearing testimony about the damages Nur, who was 22 years old at the time, suffered as a result of being fired.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 17 Sep 2009, ABERCROMBIE & FITCH SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIM TEEN APPLICANT
OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla.– National clothing retail giant Abercrombie & Fitch, doing business as Abercrombie Kids, allegedly discriminated against a 17-year-old Muslim by refusing to hire her because she wore a hijab, or head scarf, in observance of her sincerely held religious beliefs, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in discrimination lawsuit filed today in federal court.
According to the EEOC’s suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Civil Action No. 09-CV-602-GKF-FHM, Abercrombie Kids interviewed Samantha Elauf for a position at its store located in Woodland Hills Mall in Tulsa, Okla. The EEOC alleges that Abercrombie refused to hire Elauf because she was wearing a head covering when she was interviewed and this violated the company’s “Look Policy,” which prohibited the wearing of head coverings. Elauf had applied for a sales position with Abercrombie Kids.
Metro.co.uk, 2 Nov 2008, Muslim sues Met after being told to fry bacon
Hasanali Khoja is accusing the force of religious discrimination after it refused to guarantee that he would not have to handle pork. bacon Muslim sues Met after being told to fry bacon
Mr Khoja, 60, complains that he was expected to cook fry-ups nicknamed the '999 breakfast' by officers.
He adds he was 'very upset' after it was suggested he could wear gloves to cook the bacon and sausages at the Empress State Building, in Earls Court, west London.
He added: 'I felt very unhappy about it because it is not permissible in my religion. I was threatened that management would sack me if I did not follow instructions.
His lawyer, Khalid Sofi, said there was an 'important issue of principle at stake'.
He said: 'This is far from a trivial claim. It is fundamental to Mr Khoja's beliefs that he should not handle pork. The Met could easily have met his demands.'
Pictured KFC in Mecca ~ observing strict Islamic laws along with chicken slaughtered with the blessing of the imam ~ ordering for men and women is kept strictly segregated.
A diner claims he has been stripped of his freedom of choice after a fast food restaurant told him it could only serve him meat prepared in accordance with the Muslim faith.
Alan Phillips said he was surprised when a branch of KFC would not serve him bacon because it was trialling halal meat, which cannot be prepared with other meat.
He said while everyone had their own religion and beliefs, he wanted the 'freedom to be able to choose' his food without offending anyone.
The Burton-on-Trent branch of KFC is one of 86 of the chain's restaurants selected to sell nothing other than halal meat during the next few months.
Chosen because of the town's high Muslim population, the outlet is only using meat from animals killed in accordance with Islamic dietary laws.
'I have no problem with them selling halal meat but I would like the choice. It was like they were saying I couldn't buy bacon because it might offend people.
'They should have the option to have bacon, but because halal meat cannot be prepared in the same kitchen as normal meat, I lose out.
'It is getting silly. I have many friends who are black, white and Muslim but they wouldn't be forced to eat non-halal meat.
'I can't believe a chain like this has taken this stance. It is extremely unfair.'
Mr Phillips was told he could find bacon at the nearest non-halal restaurant five miles away, which he said was too far to go.