Litigation Jihad & Cultural Relativism

Abercrombie Zombie

Why work when litigation jihad is so much more rewarding?

Abercrombie & Fitch to pay $20,000 in damages for discrimination against Samantha Elauf

 She testified that she was born in the United States and considers herself to be a “typical American.”

Asshole of the Month 

Melbourne’s Lord Mayor Robert Doyle links Santa to the burqa

But anti-burqa senator Cory Bernardi said that Santa had no place in the debate.  (“Anti burqa senator?” I didn’t know there was such a position in parliament, otherwise I would have applied myself….)

“New cultural tradition”

“It surprises me that the thought bubble from Robert Doyle would question one of our great cultural traditions in defence of something that is so alien to most Australians,” he said.

“Unfortunately, there are already too many instances when our cultural traditions and celebrations have been abandoned to appease the disease of political correctness.”

Read full story

7 thoughts on “Litigation Jihad & Cultural Relativism”

  1. What the world of humanity must demand from the quranimals is this – You are free to practice your religion but you are not free to impose it on me.

  2. Federal court gives $20,000 to Muslim woman who says Abercrombie & Fitch didn’t hire her because she was wearing hijab

    Again, the essential question in cases like this 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. And now Samantha Elauf has succeeded.

    An update on this story.

    A federal jury has awarded $20,000 in compensatory damages to a Muslim woman who alleged that Abercrombie & Fitch discriminated against her because she wore a head scarf.
    (Ahlul Bayt News Agency) – The six-member panel deliberated more than four hours Wednesday before deciding on damages against the clothing retailer.

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on behalf of Samantha Elauf, who alleged she was denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in Tulsa’s Woodland Hills Mall because she wore a hijab. The hijab is part of her religious beliefs.

    U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell ruled last week the store violated Elauf’s civil rights when it didn’t hire her.

    Store officials denied any discrimination but acknowledged having a policy that bars headwear….

    “US Muslim Woman Gets $20,000 in Lawsuit Against Discrimination,” from the Ahlul Bayt News Agency, July 21

    The irony is, of course, that this hijabbery is a relatively new phenomenon. 40 years ago, there was no headrags to be seen anywhere.Therefore, calling this mummenshantz “traditional muslim dress” is as absurd as the judgement by this clueless jury that is totally unawares of the insidious nature of these hideous shrouds, that are anything but liberating.

  3. Why, in the world, to they employ muslims, in the first place?
    Who are their target customers? I imagined they were targeting young, Western status people..?

  4. Oh dear,

    It’s probably because they are afraid of being sued if they refuse to employ “enough” Muslims, according to the “affirmative action” or “multicultural” guidelines.

    I won’t buy ANYTHING from a woman wearing hijab or a man wearing one of those little Muslim caps. I won’t do business with a Muslim if I have any possible way of avoiding it. I would rather do without whatever it was I thought I needed.

    The upshot of all of this government interference is that, in the US and many other places, NOBODY wants to hire ANY new employees any more, no matter how much they might need the help.

  5. 1389AD
    Your advice is sensible – simply ignore any products from muslims – deny them our custom and then compete directly against them.

  6. Obviously this photo was made after she got paid, otherwise they lawyer could have pointed out that she was showing her hair!

    Anyone willing and able to show their hair in public is not convinced that women’s hair causes rape.
    Thus, it was all a con to get cash (which you’all knew already)

Comments are closed.