When a woman came in for an interview at a Texas department store, she informed the manager that she would require special privilege to wear her hijab on the sales floor. However, instead of submitting to her demands, the manager replied with a brilliant counter-offer.
Regardless of the country, as the Muslim population grows, so does its demand for our conformity and integration to its endless religious laws and compulsions. As history shows, Islamization begins with the tiny Muslim minority calling for their rights to pray, eat halal, and wear the Islamic veil. Once they’ve reached the majority, they deny religious minorities basic civil rights in the name of Sharia law.
On November 30, liberal news outlets began their typical biased squirming at a Dillard’s department store manager’s brilliant response to a Muslim applicant. Solely according to the Muslim complainant, when she came in for an interview conducted by the store’s manager at a Garland, Texas, location, she was discriminated against when he refused to allow her special exemption to the store’s dress code but instead offered her a perfect “compromise.”
CBS Dallas-Fort Worth reports that the Muslim applicant, who remains unnamed, claims that after she refused to agree to remove her hijab on the sales floor like the rest of the employees, the manager immediately ended the interview and informed her that he was moving on to the next applicant. In a clever move to protect himself from accusations of discrimination, the manager never actually admitted that he wouldn’t hire her because of her refusal to remove the hijab but assuring her that he’d keep her application on file before ultimately choosing an employee who would abide by the rules.
Of course, like clockwork, the Muslima contacted designated terrorist group and Muslim Brotherhood front group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to sic them on the manager for allegedly discriminating against her by refusing to submit to Sharia law. The Dallas-Fort Worth chapter has officially filed a discrimination complaint on behalf of the woman, who seeks to bring the company to its knees and make them an example of what happens to businesses that do not cow to Islam.
“This is an unfortunate and obvious case of employment discrimination, and we are disappointed in the actions of Dillard’s managers. We look forward to the Texas Workforce Commission fully investigating this act of religious discrimination and to bringing justice for this young woman,” said CAIR-DFW Civil Rights Director and attorney Nikiya Natale.
“The United States Supreme Court held in 2015 that employers cannot deny sales positions to Muslim women who wear hijabs. Our country embraces religious freedom and this includes the right of persons of faith to wear religious garb such as crosses, yarmulkes, and hijabs, in the workplace,” explained Tremain Artaza PLLC attorney Christine Hopkins.
However, even if the interview went exactly as the Muslima had described, she and her terror-funding CAIR allies would have a difficult time proving that the manager actually denied her a job because of her religious headgear. Quite simply, the manager would claim that he merely employed another individual because they gave the best interview and were better suited for the position.
The complaint further admits that the Muslima’s sister may have even ruined the interview by confronting the store manager for discriminating against her based on religion. Because of her unproven accusation of bigotry, the manager could also use the inappropriate interruption as evidence of his decision to dismiss them both.
Oddly, the Muslim complainant believes that the position was hers until she refused to remove her hijab. However, she should be reminded that just because she has an interview for a job, it doesn’t mean that she has secured the position just yet. It simply means that the employer wants to know more about her before bringing her onto the team. Obviously, her decision to bring along her combative sister and her own hastiness in accusing people she doesn’t even know of discrimination were more than enough for the manager to determine that she’s not the best decision-maker or team player.
What CAIR and their Muslim client fail to mention is that the hijab is an aspect of Sharia law and that requiring unbelievers to adhere to it is an Islamic compulsion. In fact, while the Muslim woman is offered a choice of wearing the hijab by our laws, she is required by the Quran to cover herself by her husband’s (or father’s) order.
Quran (33:59) – “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.”
The aforementioned verse explicitly outlines that men have authority over women and must force them to wear the hijab so that they will be identified as Muslims and, therefore, not be sexually or physically abused for being uncovered. This simple scripture, as well as many others that directly allow Muslim men to take unbelieving girls as sex slaves, also shows that Islam allows the sexual assault of females who do not cover themselves, holding the victims accountable for their abuse instead of the male abusers.
This Muslim woman knows that in an Islamic country, she has no choice but to cover her head. However, she also knows that the Quran commands Muslims to fight unbelievers “until there is no more disbelief and the religion, all of it, is for Allah,” which is why she is battling for her right to enforce Sharia law.
Wearing the hijab is a tenet of Sharia law, which the U.S. does not legally recognize. As such, this woman shouldn’t be allowed to force it upon any business, no matter what she personally believes.