How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[protectionist]

Hey, all you Muslim ass-kissers!! Have you forgotten my question from the OP ? Here it is again. You don't get away with not answering it. >>

"So what's next ? As a longtime student of Islamization, I can assure you that stealth jihad Muslims aren't going to rest on this level. Now that they've gotten this, are they going to push for forcing US businesses to allow niqabs too ? (which cover the entire face except the eyes) That would be a disastrous (and idiotic) blow against our national security.

Niqab

No. We're talking "reasonable accommodation"

You seem to keep missing that critical factor.

NO. You're talking about what rude, pushy, Islamizing Muslims define to be reasonable FOR THEM. Not one iota of consideration was given by the court, to what the company considers reasonable, and what is reasonable for everyone else.

There might be other people who like to wear something on their heads too. Maybe some are balding, and are sensitive about it. They still abide by the company rule. All do, except these obnoxious, demanding Islamists.

 

[Coyote]

Hey, all you Muslim ass-kissers!! Have you forgotten my question from the OP ? Here it is again. You don't get away with not answering it. >>

"So what's next ? As a longtime student of Islamization, I can assure you that stealth jihad Muslims aren't going to rest on this level. Now that they've gotten this, are they going to push for forcing US businesses to allow niqabs too ? (which cover the entire face except the eyes) That would be a disastrous (and idiotic) blow against our national security.

Niqab

No. We're talking "reasonable accommodation"

You seem to keep missing that critical factor.

NO. You're talking about what rude, pushy, Islamizing Muslims define to be reasonable FOR THEM. Not one iota of consideration was given by the court, to what the company considers reasonable, and what is reasonable for everyone else.

There might be other people who like to wear something on their heads too. Maybe some are balding, and are sensitive about it. They still abide by the company rule. All do, except these obnoxious, demanding Islamists.

It doesn't matter what other people want to wear on their heads. "Reasonable accommodation" applies to religion and disability. So, if you hired someone with epilepsy and they needed to wear a helmet to protect their head - that would be reasonable accommodation. Religion is no different whether it's a head scarf, a turban or a yarmaka.

 

[protectionist]

There's over 7.3 billion people. Where's this "most" hmmm?

HERE >>>

 

[Coyote]

There's over 7.3 billion people. Where's this "most" hmmm?

HERE >>>

Can you be more specific?

 

[protectionist]

It doesn't matter what other people want to wear on their heads. "Reasonable accommodation" applies to religion and disability. So, if you hired someone with epilepsy and they needed to wear a helmet to protect their head - that would be reasonable accommodation. Religion is no different whether it's a head scarf, a turban or a yarmaka.

Islam is not a religion, as most people know.

 

[protectionist]

Can you be more specific?

No.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Today the US Supreme Court overruled lawyers for the clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch, and ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who was turned down from a job for wearing a headscarf (hijab). The company had maintained that they had a "look policy" for their sales staff, and that the hijab did not conform to it.

The Muslim woman, Samantha Elauf, claimed that she was being discriminated against on religious grounds. The court ruled against the company, and in favor of Elauf, 8-1, with only Clarence Thomas dissenting.

I must say, I am totally with the company on this one. This dopey court doesn't seem to get it that their is a war going on between Islam (call it radical or not) and Western civilization. This international jihad war is more than bullet and bombs. it also is in the courtrooms, where jihadists of the Muslim Brotherhood have frequently taken it, relying on dum dum judges to use our own laws against us. The Brotherhood has openly expressed this in their declaration of war against America, and all of Western civilization, since 1991 in their document known as the Explanatory Memorandum >>

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

(Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America"May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).)

The store should have the right to conduct its business as it sees fit. And the hijab, while it may be a religious attire, is against the store's rules for something that has nothing to do with religion, but rather was part of a policy intended to promote the brand's East Coast collegiate image. It is sad to see "our" courts ruling against us in America, and the way we conduct our business, to accomodate a foreign culture, masquerading as a religion.

American should beseige the court with protest over this, and not let this latest instance of Islamization go unprotested. The Muslim Brotherhood is working diligently to Islamize America. Our own Supreme court shouldn't be helping them to do that. Three cheers for the appeals court which earlier, had ruled in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch, before the SCOTUS got involved and screwed it up.

So what's next. As a longtime student of Islamization, I can assure you that stealth jihad muslims aren't going to rest on this level. Now that they've gotten this, are they going to push for forcing US businesses to allow niqabs too ? (which cover the entire face except the eyes) That would be a disastrous (and idiotic) blow against our national security.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Sup.../01/id/647930/

Hijab

Niqab

You were probably all for Hobby Lobby discriminating against women based on THEIR religious beliefs. Idiot.

 

[danielpalos]

Today the US Supreme Court overruled lawyers for the clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch, and ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who was turned down from a job for wearing a headscarf (hijab). The company had maintained that they had a "look policy" for their sales staff, and that the hijab did not conform to it.

The Muslim woman, Samantha Elauf, claimed that she was being discriminated against on religious grounds. The court ruled against the company, and in favor of Elauf, 8-1, with only Clarence Thomas dissenting.

I must say, I am totally with the company on this one. This dopey court doesn't seem to get it that their is a war going on between Islam (call it radical or not) and Western civilization. This international jihad war is more than bullet and bombs. it also is in the courtrooms, where jihadists of the Muslim Brotherhood have frequently taken it, relying on dum dum judges to use our own laws against us. The Brotherhood has openly expressed this in their declaration of war against America, and all of Western civilization, since 1991 in their document known as the Explanatory Memorandum >>

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

(Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America"May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).)

The store should have the right to conduct its business as it sees fit. And the hijab, while it may be a religious attire, is against the store's rules for something that has nothing to do with religion, but rather was part of a policy intended to promote the brand's East Coast collegiate image. It is sad to see "our" courts ruling against us in America, and the way we conduct our business, to accomodate a foreign culture, masquerading as a religion.

American should beseige the court with protest over this, and not let this latest instance of Islamization go unprotested. The Muslim Brotherhood is working diligently to Islamize America. Our own Supreme court shouldn't be helping them to do that. Three cheers for the appeals court which earlier, had ruled in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch, before the SCOTUS got involved and screwed it up.

So what's next. As a longtime student of Islamization, I can assure you that stealth jihad muslims aren't going to rest on this level. Now that they've gotten this, are they going to push for forcing US businesses to allow niqabs too ? (which cover the entire face except the eyes) That would be a disastrous (and idiotic) blow against our national security.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Sup.../01/id/647930/

Hijab

Niqab

I agree that simply being merchants in Commerce on a for-profit basis should exempt Persons from not-for-profit (religious) Causes.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Can you be more specific?

No.

Hahahahaaaaaa......Facts, hard data just escapes you.

The SCOTUS is the most conservative panel of judges this country has had in decades. Thank them for giving a handful of multi-billionaires the PRIVILEGE of electing the next president, idiot. That means you can stay home and trim your toenails on election day.

 

[protectionist]

You were probably all for Hobby Lobby discriminating against women based on THEIR religious beliefs. Idiot.

I haven't paid any attention to that issue and am not familiar with it. In any case, even if A & F had discriminated against Elauf because of her being a Muslim, the case still wouldn't be about religion. Islam is not a religion.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

It doesn't matter what other people want to wear on their heads. "Reasonable accommodation" applies to religion and disability. So, if you hired someone with epilepsy and they needed to wear a helmet to protect their head - that would be reasonable accommodation. Religion is no different whether it's a head scarf, a turban or a yarmaka.

Islam is not a religion, as most people know.

Really? Then what is it? When other religions have had their extremists what did you call them?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Today the US Supreme Court overruled lawyers for the clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch, and ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who was turned down from a job for wearing a headscarf (hijab). The company had maintained that they had a "look policy" for their sales staff, and that the hijab did not conform to it.

The Muslim woman, Samantha Elauf, claimed that she was being discriminated against on religious grounds. The court ruled against the company, and in favor of Elauf, 8-1, with only Clarence Thomas dissenting.

I must say, I am totally with the company on this one. This dopey court doesn't seem to get it that their is a war going on between Islam (call it radical or not) and Western civilization. This international jihad war is more than bullet and bombs. it also is in the courtrooms, where jihadists of the Muslim Brotherhood have frequently taken it, relying on dum dum judges to use our own laws against us. The Brotherhood has openly expressed this in their declaration of war against America, and all of Western civilization, since 1991 in their document known as the Explanatory Memorandum >>

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

(Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America"May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).)

The store should have the right to conduct its business as it sees fit. And the hijab, while it may be a religious attire, is against the store's rules for something that has nothing to do with religion, but rather was part of a policy intended to promote the brand's East Coast collegiate image. It is sad to see "our" courts ruling against us in America, and the way we conduct our business, to accomodate a foreign culture, masquerading as a religion.

American should beseige the court with protest over this, and not let this latest instance of Islamization go unprotested. The Muslim Brotherhood is working diligently to Islamize America. Our own Supreme court shouldn't be helping them to do that. Three cheers for the appeals court which earlier, had ruled in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch, before the SCOTUS got involved and screwed it up.

So what's next. As a longtime student of Islamization, I can assure you that stealth jihad muslims aren't going to rest on this level. Now that they've gotten this, are they going to push for forcing US businesses to allow niqabs too ? (which cover the entire face except the eyes) That would be a disastrous (and idiotic) blow against our national security.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Sup.../01/id/647930/

Hijab

Niqab

You were probably all for Hobby Lobby discriminating against women based on THEIR religious beliefs. Idiot.

I haven't paid any attention to that issue and am not familiar with it. In any case, even if A & F had discriminated against Elauf because of her being a Muslim, the case still wouldn't be about religion. Islam is not a religion.

Cherry-picking your civil suits that make it before the SCOTUS is perilous and leaves you with no cred. Not that you ever had any.

 

[protectionist]

Today the US Supreme Court overruled lawyers for the clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch, and ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who was turned down from a job for wearing a headscarf (hijab). The company had maintained that they had a "look policy" for their sales staff, and that the hijab did not conform to it.

The Muslim woman, Samantha Elauf, claimed that she was being discriminated against on religious grounds. The court ruled against the company, and in favor of Elauf, 8-1, with only Clarence Thomas dissenting.

I must say, I am totally with the company on this one. This dopey court doesn't seem to get it that their is a war going on between Islam (call it radical or not) and Western civilization. This international jihad war is more than bullet and bombs. it also is in the courtrooms, where jihadists of the Muslim Brotherhood have frequently taken it, relying on dum dum judges to use our own laws against us. The Brotherhood has openly expressed this in their declaration of war against America, and all of Western civilization, since 1991 in their document known as the Explanatory Memorandum >>

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

(Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America"May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).)

The store should have the right to conduct its business as it sees fit. And the hijab, while it may be a religious attire, is against the store's rules for something that has nothing to do with religion, but rather was part of a policy intended to promote the brand's East Coast collegiate image. It is sad to see "our" courts ruling against us in America, and the way we conduct our business, to accomodate a foreign culture, masquerading as a religion.

American should beseige the court with protest over this, and not let this latest instance of Islamization go unprotested. The Muslim Brotherhood is working diligently to Islamize America. Our own Supreme court shouldn't be helping them to do that. Three cheers for the appeals court which earlier, had ruled in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch, before the SCOTUS got involved and screwed it up.

So what's next. As a longtime student of Islamization, I can assure you that stealth jihad muslims aren't going to rest on this level. Now that they've gotten this, are they going to push for forcing US businesses to allow niqabs too ? (which cover the entire face except the eyes) That would be a disastrous (and idiotic) blow against our national security.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Sup.../01/id/647930/

Hijab

Niqab

I agree that simply being merchants in Commerce on a for-profit basis should exempt Persons from not-for-profit (religious) Causes.

As usual, I have difficulty understnading you. So whose side are you on ? > The company or he Muslim woman ? (multiple choice question)

 

[protectionist]

Hahahahaaaaaa......Facts, hard data just escapes you.

The SCOTUS is the most conservative panel of judges this country has had in decades. Thank them for giving a handful of multi-billionaires the PRIVILEGE of electing the next president, idiot. That means you can stay home and trim your toenails on election day.

I don't need hard data. I simply said most people in the world don't define Islam to be a religion. If anyone wants to disagree they can, but I doubt they will have any more hard data than I have.

 

[protectionist]

Really? Then what is it? When other religions have had their extremists what did you call them?

I don't accomodate late arrivals who ask questions that have already been answered dozens of times throughout the thread. Read the thread, and enter when you're prepared to.

 

[protectionist]

Cherry-picking your civil suits that make it before the SCOTUS is perilous and leaves you with no cred. Not that you ever had any.

Just because you choose to call it cherry picking, doesn't mean a thing. For one thing, your Hobby Lobby case is OFF TOPIC. This thread is about Islamization, and I'll wager I know more about Islamization in my little finger than you know in your whole body. If you want to show that YOU have some credibility on this subject, you can take my Islamization Quiz. Just be warned. Many Islamapologists have taken it. Highest grade any of them got was 5%. Most got zero.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist and RV can make all the allegations they want, but without solid evidence, they have only assertions, which mean nothing.

"Solid evidence" of WHAT ? WHAT "allegations" ?

Your allegations, bub. Yes, this was a religious freedom issue; yes, Islam is a religion;yes, Islam gets the same level of civil rights protection as Christianity or any other religion.

Hint: look up definition of 'hat'.

Headwear, if that makes you feel better,

As for the statements I made, they all have solid evidence, And I have supplied that evidence many times throughout this thread, and YOU KNOW it.

You have supplied your unsupported opinion about the Constitution and the US code. It's lunacy.

 

[RandomVariable]

Hey, all you Muslim ass-kissers!! Have you forgotten my question from the OP ? Here it is again. You don't get away with not answering it. >>

"So what's next ? As a longtime student of Islamization, I can assure you that stealth jihad Muslims aren't going to rest on this level. Now that they've gotten this, are they going to push for forcing US businesses to allow niqabs too ? (which cover the entire face except the eyes) That would be a disastrous (and idiotic) blow against our national security.

Niqab

No. We're talking "reasonable accommodation"

You seem to keep missing that critical factor.

If one joins a religion which requires one to wear their hair covered at all times then they have joined a religion which means they are not going to get a job at a place that does not allow employees to wear headgear. And that is the critical factor.

 

[protectionist]

You have supplied your unsupported opinion about the Constitution and the US code. It's lunacy.

The Constitution and US Codes speak for themselves. They are clear. They need no opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist is so easy to get running around in circles. SCOTUS is not favoring Muslims. SCOTUS and the federal code are clear that he is wrong. Protectionist in action reminds me of