February 24, 2015, - 4:33 pm
Samantha Elauf: Muslima Behind HAMAS CAIR Lawsuit Against Abercrombie Ain’t So Modest; What It’s Really About
Does a not-so-modest Muslim girl get to pretend she’s modest in order to score a payday and more dhimmi-deference from a major clothing retail chain?
What if a job applicant comes to your business in a keffiyeh or a hat with a HAMAS emblem? A Hezbollah emblem? An ISIS emblem? Are you required to hire them–you know, to avoid a costly “religious discrimination” lawsuit filed against you by unindicted HAMAS co-conspirator CAIR with the full cooperation and support of the Obama EEOC? You might be. And, sadly, the Christian Becket Fund and seven Orthodox Jewish groups have filed briefs with the courts in support of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim chick who isn’t really as concerned with the modesty she claims she must have in observance of Islam. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case.
Obama’s EEOC is suing Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of Elauf, even though the store chain allows Muslim chicks in hijabs to work there and has hired many of them. I have no love for A&F. The store chain, which is now out of fashion favor and behind the fast-fashion times and trends, for years pimped sex, porn, and sleaze in order to sell its wares. I wrote about and protested this for years. But, while it long ago, slinked away from its lowlife marketing, the store continues to have a “Look Policy” on the kinds of people the store will hire. This is a legitimate business purpose, as many stores, just like health clubs, hire people who look like what they want their customers to aspire to. Nobody wants to buy a gym membership from a morbidly obese woman, for example. The “Look Policy” was also used as a reason not to hire Ms. Elauf because the store does not allow employees to wear hats (though it has hired many women in hijabs as noted below, just not her).
So HAMAS CAIR and Elauf sued. The thing is that Abercrombie hired women in hijabs before it turned down Elauf, and it’s hired women in hijabs since. This isn’t what the case is about. It’s about the fact that the law requires that any employee who is turned down for religious reasons, must first ask the employer (or, in this case, potential employer) for a reasonable accommodation of his/her religion. Elauf didn’t do that. She never gave Abercrombie that chance. She just rushed to her fave HAMAS front group and went to legal war. Also, A&F never asked her if she was Muslim, and she never told them. She also never said her head-covering was a religious requirement (which, actually, in Islam, it’s not).
That’s what this Supreme Court case is about: whether a religious person has to ask for the reasonable accommodation of his/her religion, or whether the employer has to divine this from the air and automatically assume someone is from a specific religion and automatically accommodate without being asked. If the latter is the case, that’s a problem.
What if tomorrow, a Muslim supporter of ISIS or HAMAS comes to your workplace and you decide–without saying a thing–no, I can’t have a HAMASnik, a supporter of Islamic terrorism and jihad, in my workplace? Well, the day after tomorrow, you might face a huge Obama EEOC/HAMAS CAIR lawsuit. And you could lose. Because, despite Obama’s claims, many Muslims believe it’s a religious duty to support these various Islamic terrorist groups, and you could be required to accommodate that without question. And it could be assumed that if you see the ISIS keffiyeh, you automatically know that this is a Muslim applicant and you must accommodate and hire them. And you can’t send ’em to the stock room, either.
That’s literally what could happen with this case. The Supreme Court already unanimously decided in favor of Muslims in federal prison, allowing them to wear beards, in which they could hide razor blades. Let the prison guards comb their beards if they’re afraid, was the unanimous sentiment, as I told you. And, as I warned you, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, expanded under the Hobby Lobby ruling on ObamaCare, was used to expand rights to Muslims. I predict the same will happen here. And “conservatives” like Justices Roberts and Alito will again side with Muslim extremists seeking to impose their religion upon us.
Then, there is Ms. Elauf and the way she dresses. The whole idea of Muslim chicks wearing hijabs is supposed to be about modesty–the idea that they must cover their hair because even a strand of it showing might turn some guy on. And, in Islam, men are not required to act like civilized humans and do not have to control their rape impulses. Women must cover up to stop those impulses.
So, if Ms. Elauf is so concerned with this Islamic modesty, then why doesn’t she cover up all of her hair? She lets a good deal of it hang out in front on her forehead. Um, that might turn some guy on and force him to rape her. Oh, and she wears ripped jeans that expose skin on her thighs. (For the record, I wear ripped jeans like that, but I’m not suing about wearing a headscarf on the job in the name of modesty.) And she wears sheer lace miniskirts? Modest? If she were in the mosque, she’d get a ton of dirty looks and the imam wouldn’t be too happy. After all, she might cause some guy to rape her. It’s funny that a woman who would sue Abercrombie all the way to the Supreme Court in the name of some (faux) modesty, isn’t really too modest at all. She’s a fraud. A phony.
Islamic Modesty: HAMAS CAIR Posterchick Samantha Elauf Ain’t So Modest in Ripped Jeans and Lace Miniskirts
Not that she’s the first . . . or the last. Below is a photo of more “Islamic modesty,” which I’ve posted before. And I’ve seen women whom I met when I went undercover to Muslim events change from their extreme garb of Islamic oppression to the sluttiest of slutwear possible. I saw a woman and her mother wearing niqabs–the full ninja face-veils–at an Islamic fundraiser, and the next week, I saw the same woman in a cropped shirt and low-rise jeans, showing much skin. Some of the most covered women in Dearbornistan sleep around on their husbands and should be tested for STDs.
They are hypocrites. That’s the point here. They want to impose their standards of “modesty” upon the West, when many of them aren’t so modest at all. And that’s a big part of the suit against Abercrombie now at the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, those of us who care about freedom will probably be on the losing side. Again, sadly, not the first time and not the last either.
And don’t be surprised if the next time you got to Abercrombie & Fitch or Macy’s or Nordstrom if the man or woman waiting on you is wearing a keffiyeh or an ISIS t-shirt.
We’ve lost America for good, it’s just a matter of how long it takes. And it’s speeding up.
All hail the jihad from within. We haven’t done a damned thing to stop it.
Got Islamic Modesty? . . .
Tags: Abercrombie, Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie & Fitch CAIR, Abercrombie & Fitch hijab, Abercrombie and Fitch, Abercrombie and Fitch hijab, Abercrombie and Fitch Islam, CAIR, HAMAS' CAIR, hijab, hijabs, Islam, Jihad, Samantha Elauf
Lionel Trilling said the mark of intelligence is the ability to make distinctions. Something that the makers of these supporting legal briefs do not seem to be able to do.
Little Al on February 24, 2015 at 6:16 pm