US: Justices appear to favor Muslim denied job over headscarf

[oneday]

There you go. Political correctness gone mad!

Wow! You are 100% correct on that point. This is getting to be shear madness. Any company, especially one that sells clothes, should have to right to dictate a clothing style they want their employees to wear which matches what the company is trying to sell. Anything else is infringing on the rights of the company to be a competitive company. It's just total madness in the US and every year the laws are getting more and more ridiculous.

The Supreme Court Justices must be high on marijuana.

[Jonmarleesco]

The previous British ambassador imposed his religious views on guests and visitors by, for example, banning the serving of bacon - the staple of cooked English breakfasts - at breakfast meetings.

[arjunadawn]

What a screwed world we live in...with all efforts, experience, creativity and own money you set up a business, try to make it profitable and you can't choose the people you want to work with to make this happen?

because you end up with a society that will not employ black people or women or gays, for example. Discrimination will occur if it is not regulated.

Do you propose that society may discriminate because of religion? What about gender? Race? Sexual orientation?

Obviously, and the law accommodates for this, some jobs require a person who is specifically NOT something or other, eg a woman's toilet attendant can not be a man, but in general, discrimination has to be discouraged with regulation.

I have mixed thoughts about this. Some of your observations are spot on correct: do we really want a society that is permitted to discriminate? No. But... yes!

I dont want to live in a world where a christian couple is forced to make a cake for gay men. I dont want to live in a world where a catholic services organization is forced to provide contraception, or hire a hijab wearing woman as a secretary while christians are being slaughtered throughout the world.

Perhaps municipal zoning permits a hog farm to be built beside a mosque- seems kinda wrong but...

The world would be better if we were all blind to such petty differences, because so much more binds us them separates us. But the first amendment actually protects more than speech, it protects freedom of association. I dont think male golf clubs should have to allow woman. On the flip side, if a young man is gay should he really be outcast from the Boy Scouts? I kinda think no.

In a free market world where freedom of association and expression prevails and is not artificially maintained by the coercive powers of government bad ideas will fail and good ideas survive. Seastallion, I dont know where the line is but I personally feel muslim immigrants in America are intentionally launching a full scale warfare project to undermine the system that America knows under the premise of equality; yes, most of them. Example: the muslim population in America is roughly 1.7% but the EEOC complaints lately number 20% of complainants muslims seeking special accommodation. This is a remarkable number and while it can be rationalized, it cannot be ignored. This is actually staggering circumstantial evidence of my point.

I tend to feel women should be able to wear hijab if not fully covering the face. But once the precedent is set why then could a burka wearing woman not argue the same issue? Where does it end? It ends in the Balkanization of America. People such as myself have submitted that the public jihad is but a glimmer of the real "Civilization Jihad" (Muslim Brotherhood) being waged across the world. A significant portion takes place in case law just like this. I dont have the answer, I just feel its a slippery slope. This case here passes the burden to the employer to suspect religious needs and this seems quite absurd to me. I think she should have ID'd her need, then perhaps received the job. With such a growing population of modern western muslims, A&F would not suffer by having a hijab wearing woman in the store, it demonstrates universality. But a burka woman is only down the road. Masked people in civil society have been frowned upon forever. This should not ever be permitted in the west. Zoroasters prefer to have their corpses consumed by birds in an enclosed tower- should we permit this too? The white house hires a Thai from Issan who requires a ghost house be erected by the front gate- is this a go? Shia beat the hell out of themselves to honor their martyr, should we permit youth bleeding their backs in bloody parades with ropes and nails? Why should it stop at the hijab?

Why can't Indian women be thrown into public pyres to join their husband in the afterlife? Can Theravada Buddhist prisoners insist on a forest inclosure?

Of course this slide into cultural oblivion will only increase and division and consumption of traditional america will continue unabated as Obama has enacted a backdoor massive transfer of one religion over the host. Not only is there little historical evidence to support widespread muslim integration but there is virtually no modern evidence to suggest integration is improving, anywhere. So, why continue to package and redistribute into the US proper the very same potential threats that are positively wrecking havoc everywhere else?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/muslim-immigration-u-s-staggering-evidence-obama-attempting-change-america/

[Publicus]

'... the policy ... prohibited wearing headscarves or anything in black.' And the court viewed that as religious discrimination? How the hell could it have been, when it applied to all employees, religious or not?

The Supreme Court has ruled from the outset the First Amendment grants special protections. One of those is religion...freedom to believe and worship, the freedom not to believe or worship although the latter point is another discussion.

It's freedom to believe almost any weird stuff one might like and do it under constitutional protection, privilege, shelter.

This protection in the Constitution was the basis of exemption from the draft when there was one -- conscientious objector -- and for a lot of things. Yes, people have tried marijuana but that has yet to take off as a religious belief equivalent to deism or say Buddhism. The marijuana people have had to come down from that one.

She wants to or more importantly believes she must wear religious clothing to work and everywhere else then she's protected under the Constitution. She shows up in her undies however and it's not going to go well.

[car720]

I don't agree here.. people should be able not hire people who they don't want. Some people don't like Muslims in that dress and it could cost you clients. So why hire one they choose to be Muslim not you. Same goes if someone is really fat and you promote health products or someone who just looks bad. Its a business they need to serve clients and if the way people look puts off clients it cost money.

Can you imagine the outcry if a business declined to hire a person for some reason associated with him being Jewish? "You skullcap doesn't fit our image, sorry."

This is why there are anti-discrimination laws, and also why, " Orthodox Jews who wear a skullcap, or who may not work on Saturdays, are routinely advised to withhold that information until after they are hired,"

Sorry man but I have to go against you on this one.

The very basis of business is to make money. The management, right of wrong, will decide what is the best way for a company to make money.

If a certain look or whatever interferes with making that money then they should have the right to say, "sorry we are looking for a different type of person."

Now what about the guy that tells a blatant lie about not being of a certain persuasion in order to get in and then claim discrimination. This is not beneficial to the company either and I personally believe that the company should have the ability to fire them for lying immediately as this is dishonesty. The employee owes a fiduciary duty.

[Seastallion]

I don't agree here.. people should be able not hire people who they don't want. Some people don't like Muslims in that dress and it could cost you clients. So why hire one they choose to be Muslim not you. Same goes if someone is really fat and you promote health products or someone who just looks bad. Its a business they need to serve clients and if the way people look puts off clients it cost money.

Can you imagine the outcry if a business declined to hire a person for some reason associated with him being Jewish? "You skullcap doesn't fit our image, sorry."

This is why there are anti-discrimination laws, and also why, " Orthodox Jews who wear a skullcap, or who may not work on Saturdays, are routinely advised to withhold that information until after they are hired,"

Sorry man but I have to go against you on this one.

The very basis of business is to make money. The management, right of wrong, will decide what is the best way for a company to make money.

If a certain look or whatever interferes with making that money then they should have the right to say, "sorry we are looking for a different type of person."

Now what about the guy that tells a blatant lie about not being of a certain persuasion in order to get in and then claim discrimination. This is not beneficial to the company either and I personally believe that the company should have the ability to fire them for lying immediately as this is dishonesty. The employee owes a fiduciary duty.

Don't apologise mate...all good discussion.

I take your point, and I agree with it.

But like other things that have laws against them, the law has to take into account the lowest common denominator, often the minority, and often at the expense of the majority. You and I and most people may be excellent drivers, but because a number of idiots can't handle their alcohol, you and I are not allowed to have more than 3 beers before we drive. Maybe a bad example, but you get my drift.

The fact is, there are some bigots out there that will refuse to hire a woman, a gay, a Muslim, a Jew, a black etc. Those women, gays, Muslims, Jews, blacks etc should not be discriminated against.

The guy that tells the lie should be able to be sacked....on those grounds, but the woman who is plainly a Muslim should not be declined because she is a Muslim. In this particular case, I actually side with A&F insofar as they have a dress code, but where they failed was not asking if the girl could comply with that code. They didn't give her a chance to wear the headscarf or not, or change the colour of it.

She could have done what the OP says Jews are routinely advised to do....hide her religion until after she was hired and expect the law to protect her rights. But she was upfront about it.

It's a strange case with complicating factors such as the law to accommodate a person's religion once they are hired.

[Publicus]

I don't agree here.. people should be able not hire people who they don't want. Some people don't like Muslims in that dress and it could cost you clients. So why hire one they choose to be Muslim not you. Same goes if someone is really fat and you promote health products or someone who just looks bad. Its a business they need to serve clients and if the way people look puts off clients it cost money.

Can you imagine the outcry if a business declined to hire a person for some reason associated with him being Jewish? "You skullcap doesn't fit our image, sorry."

This is why there are anti-discrimination laws, and also why, " Orthodox Jews who wear a skullcap, or who may not work on Saturdays, are routinely advised to withhold that information until after they are hired,"

Sorry man but I have to go against you on this one.

The very basis of business is to make money. The management, right of wrong, will decide what is the best way for a company to make money.

If a certain look or whatever interferes with making that money then they should have the right to say, "sorry we are looking for a different type of person."

Now what about the guy that tells a blatant lie about not being of a certain persuasion in order to get in and then claim discrimination. This is not beneficial to the company either and I personally believe that the company should have the ability to fire them for lying immediately as this is dishonesty. The employee owes a fiduciary duty.

Anyone who obeys the law hasn't any reason to apologize and business along with everything and everyone else needs to operate within the laws of the society.

The private sector has been doing this successfully since long before civil rights laws and civil liberties laws came onto the books and no one has died on the job because of the more recent laws.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one such law everyone needs to comply with because it's in the interests of society to comply. Cheerful is better than grumpy but compliance is the bottom line.

Businesses that fit well into the larger society, the rule of law and among the economic community generally do well...very well.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Publicus

[Tep]

It is clear that many cannot see beyond the 'muslim' element in this story. A pity because apart from the issues related to equality of employment opportunities, an issue which my home state regulated in the mid 1980's to fight discrimination, there are some quite serious issues about business ethics.

Are you familiar with Abercrombie & Fitch? They market to teenagers and have a strong Gay following. I went into one of their stores when I was in Portland Oregon in 2013 for the first time and every person in that store was quite jaw-droppingly beautiful. I am not beautiful. My parents did not give me such genes. So I am not in the target demographic for Abercrombie. I am also too old. But Abercrombie has been in trouble recently because of its stated policy that they market to beautiful people. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865579870/Abercrombie--Fitch-only-sells-to-cool-good-looking-people.html?pg=all

I question this morality particularly when their demographic is youth. Anyone who has worked with young people understand the issues of personality and identify development and the links to self esteem. It has been a long debate about promoting certain body images to impressionable younger people who may not be able to achieve the look of their idols.

I have long come to accept my non-beautifulness. Most of us are in the same boat. Good luck to the beautiful people who are welcome in the Abercrombie stores but I do think there is an argument that their business practices are unethical and dangerous to some impressionable people where those people do not have access to information or support to address the impact of these practices on their development.

Rejecting a mulsim applicant for employment sends a very loud message that this person and the way this person presents herself in public is not beautiful, does not fit their selective demographic. Those who are irrationally anti-muslim will not have a problem with that. Those who believe in equality of opportunity and that the way a muslim presents herself should be as acceptable as a way an orthodox jew or an Amish or whatever, would find this not acceptable.

Please look beyond the surface of this. The issue has deeper meaning that this current manufactured clash of civilisations bs.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Tep

[7by7]

I feel that an employer has every right to enforce a dress code on their employees (both my wife and I have to comply with our employers' dress codes); but any potential employee must be made aware of this from the outset. That does not seem to be the case here.

She wore a headscarf to the interview, but she was not asked if she intended to wear it every day to work if hired; nor was she told that doing so would violate the company's dress code.

As it says in the report

Several of Scalia's colleagues said there's an easy way to avoid stereotyping. Tell job applicants what the rules are and ask them, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "You have a problem with that?"

If employers do this then the job applicant, whether they be a hijab wearing Muslim woman, a turban wearing Sikh man, a yarmulke wearing Jewish man or whatever, can either say they will comply, or say they wont and refuse any offer of employment.

Many employers are willing to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs; if it's possible.

I have an acquaintance who works as a supervisor for a large supermarket chain. Everyone is on a flexible rota of duties and hours.

One employee is excused from working after sunset on Friday and all day Saturday; she is also excused working on the fresh meat counter so that she does not have to handle pork. She's Orthodox Jewish.

Other than some of the women wearing Hijabs, none of that branch's Muslim employees ask for any special treatment due to their religion.

Make of that what you will.

[Ulysses G.]

I feel that an employer has every right to enforce a dress code on their employees (both my wife and I have to comply with our employers' dress codes); but any potential employee must be made aware of this from the outset. That does not seem to be the case here.

That is reasonable. She should have been offered the chance to comply with the dress code.

[Robby nz]

While it has no relation to the specific instance of this topic :

I got an Email from a friend in Australia yesterday she told of leaving her job of seventeen and a half years because the company had hired a new Pakistani Muslim manager who was anti woman and had made it impossible for her to stay in the job, she said all the other women who worked there were also on the point of leaving.

She could neither understand his attitude or why the company had hired him.

This sense among the employees is why these anti-discrimination laws and agencies exist, in the US, Australia and elsewhere.

She would need to identify the discrimination then file a charge with the government agency. Sounds like the charge is sex discrimination but it could be but not necessarily limited to national origin or on the basis of religion, possibly skin color and other particulars in the laws.

Generally speaking, the more employees that file a charge of discrimination the more data and pattern and practice can be found if it exists, so in these respects there is a strength in numbers in addition to whatever the merits may be.

Filing with the appropriate government agency may amount to nothing but the point is that relief is available and possible and that not all hope is yet lost. Just to approach it realistically.

As she said, the easiest way for her was to take redundancy for as she had been with the company for a long time she got a good redundancy package.

Had she stayed on she believed she would have been sacked and if she had complained it would have been a lengthy process that would only have made things worse for her.

All very well having laws but when it comes down to it they may well not be of a lot of use to people.

[Publicus]

While it has no relation to the specific instance of this topic :

I got an Email from a friend in Australia yesterday she told of leaving her job of seventeen and a half years because the company had hired a new Pakistani Muslim manager who was anti woman and had made it impossible for her to stay in the job, she said all the other women who worked there were also on the point of leaving.

She could neither understand his attitude or why the company had hired him.

This sense among the employees is why these anti-discrimination laws and agencies exist, in the US, Australia and elsewhere.

She would need to identify the discrimination then file a charge with the government agency. Sounds like the charge is sex discrimination but it could be but not necessarily limited to national origin or on the basis of religion, possibly skin color and other particulars in the laws.

Generally speaking, the more employees that file a charge of discrimination the more data and pattern and practice can be found if it exists, so in these respects there is a strength in numbers in addition to whatever the merits may be.

Filing with the appropriate government agency may amount to nothing but the point is that relief is available and possible and that not all hope is yet lost. Just to approach it realistically.

As she said, the easiest way for her was to take redundancy for as she had been with the company for a long time she got a good redundancy package.

Had she stayed on she believed she would have been sacked and if she had complained it would have been a lengthy process that would only have made things worse for her.

All very well having laws but when it comes down to it they may well not be of a lot of use to people.

It's perhaps as much about options, balancing possibilities, choices, prospects for the future, remaining level headed about developments and the like.

It certainly has to do with whether one does in fact, truly, feel discriminated against. An EEOC trained and experienced investigator pretty much right off can recognize the anger of a person who is convinced s/he has been discriminated against.

For instance, anger about being released after 17 years is real but can be in fact mitigated by the separation package. Anger over an alleged racial or perhaps a perceived sexist remark is palpable and long lasting...and the upset is often overt so as to be visible for some time.

Examples:

"I'm gonna fire yo' black arsse!"

"Hey baby, you stick with me and we're going to go places together around here."

"Fact is, you're 55 and get paid too much when I can get a kid out of college to do your job for a quarter of what you cost me."

People with these real (and normally much too obvious) complaints can be quite upset and for some considerable time. Your friend is upset but no longer quite so upset as before the separation package. Two qualitatively different upsets. Ne c'est pas....

[luk AJ]

I think discrimination has to be re-defined, IMO not allowing a headscarf is not discriminating. Relegion should be separated from state, public and business. It belongs at home and in places of worship.

[Xircal]

What a screwed world we live in...with all efforts, experience, creativity and own money you set up a business, try to make it profitable and you can't choose the people you want to work with to make this happen?

because you end up with a society that will not employ black people or women or gays, for example. Discrimination will occur if it is not regulated.

Do you propose that society may discriminate because of religion? What about gender? Race? Sexual orientation?

Obviously, and the law accommodates for this, some jobs require a person who is specifically NOT something or other, eg a woman's toilet attendant can not be a man, but in general, discrimination has to be discouraged with regulation.

I think it's fair to point out that at least where Muslims are concerned, their lifestyle needs to be taken into account.

For example, Muslims pray five times a day. This takes place at dawn, midday, late afternoon and dusk and typically takes 5-15 mins. Praying follows a set procedure of bowing and prostrating using a prayer mat and the individual must be facing Makkah (Saudi Arabia). Such activity may not coincide with an employer's work schedule.

Muslims don't drink alcohol, so office parties are out as is socializing down the pub after work.

There are restrictions on what Muslims are allowed to eat. Meat must always be halal with the animal slaughtered according to Islamic practice.

These kind of things need to be taken into account when considering a Muslim as an employee and employers may well take the view that this type of person just isn't suitable for the job.

[Seastallion]

What a screwed world we live in...with all efforts, experience, creativity and own money you set up a business, try to make it profitable and you can't choose the people you want to work with to make this happen?

because you end up with a society that will not employ black people or women or gays, for example. Discrimination will occur if it is not regulated.

Do you propose that society may discriminate because of religion? What about gender? Race? Sexual orientation?

Obviously, and the law accommodates for this, some jobs require a person who is specifically NOT something or other, eg a woman's toilet attendant can not be a man, but in general, discrimination has to be discouraged with regulation.

I think it's fair to point out that at least where Muslims are concerned, their lifestyle needs to be taken into account.

For example, Muslims pray five times a day. This takes place at dawn, midday, late afternoon and dusk and typically takes 5-15 mins. Praying follows a set procedure of bowing and prostrating using a prayer mat and the individual must be facing Makkah (Saudi Arabia). Such activity may not coincide with an employer's work schedule.

Muslims don't drink alcohol, so office parties are out as is socializing down the pub after work.

There are restrictions on what Muslims are allowed to eat. Meat must always be halal with the animal slaughtered according to Islamic practice.

These kind of things need to be taken into account when considering a Muslim as an employee and employers may well take the view that this type of person just isn't suitable for the job.

I think it's fair to point out that you have a rather romanticised (putting it nicely) view of how Muslims live. Except in movies, I have never seen this 5 times a day praying....I currently live in Southern Thailand, and I used to live in another country also with a high number of Muslims. Never seen it. I did see in NZ that the mosque down the road filled up at lunch time on Fridays, and otherwise was basically empty.

Sure, there may be some "orthodox" Muslims, but they are certainly a minority in the West and SE Asia.

Don't drink? So what. Many people don't drink.

What about other religions that don't drink, or that have regular rituals? Or 7th Day Adventists and Jews who don't work Saturday? Jews that won't even use a light switch from sundown on Friday because that effort is "work"?

Jews and Hindus...and Mormons, for that matter, have dietary stipulations too.

Obviously you have a point when it comes to a few orthodox or strict followers of various religions...don't single just one religion out or generalise about the entire congregation...there's quite a few that are, shall we say, eccentric.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Seastallion

[JockPieandBeans]

Elauf was 17 when she interviewed for a "model" position, as the company calls its sales staff, at an Abercrombie Kids store in a shopping mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 2008. She impressed the assistant store manager. But her application faltered over her headscarf, or hijab, because it conflicted with the company's Look Policy, a code derived from Abercrombie's focus on what it calls East Coast collegiate or preppy style.

At the time of the interview, the policy required employees to dress in a way consistent with the clothing Abercrombie sells, and it prohibited wearing headscarves or anything in black.

The Company had a dress policy that prohibited wearing headscarves or anything black.

Seems straight forward to me. That is the dress policy regardless of your race, religion, creed or colour.

Do people not research Companies nowadays that they wish to work for ?

It would not surprise me if this whole thing was set up by an ambulance chasing lawyer.

[simon43]

Do you propose that society may discriminate because of religion? What about gender? Race? Sexual orientation?

Seems to work OK in Thailand...

[NeverSure]

Did no one else here ever have to comply with a company dress code? I did - a suit and tie for both banking and IT. In banking a sport coat, meaning a dress coat with a complimenting but not matching slacks, wouldn't do. It was OK in IT.

No one ever see a nurse or Fed Ex or UPS employee in uniform? No plumbers or electricians wearing the company shirt with logo?

Ever seen a police officer in a burka? Huh? That's crazy.

What next, the military?

So a company in the designer clothes business hires what it actually calls "models" and thinks it's good for business (where the paychecks come from) for the employees to have a dress code but PC idiots say "no"?

This world is going nuts.

[NeverSure]

I will add that it's apparent that those judges never had to meet a payroll.

[ttthailand]

I don't understand why someone would want to work at a place where they don't fit in unless it is only to cause problems. PCness is out dated and has run its course. There are enough people of all races, genders, etc to take care of their own if need be. I think in most cases it is not even an issue as most companies do the correct thing.

Having said that there can not be people being fired for unfair matters but being hired should be up to the employer unless the government is financing the company.

[Seastallion]

I think discrimination has to be re-defined, IMO not allowing a headscarf is not discriminating. Relegion should be separated from state, public and business. It belongs at home and in places of worship.

So Sihks have to remove their turbans, Jews their yamulkes, Christians their cricifixes (crucifices?), Hindus their tulsi bracelets and red dots.....?

[JockPieandBeans]

I think discrimination has to be re-defined, IMO not allowing a headscarf is not discriminating. Relegion should be separated from state, public and business. It belongs at home and in places of worship.

So Sihks have to remove their turbans, Jews their yamulkes, Christians their cricifixes (crucifices?), Hindus their tulsi bracelets and red dots.....?

Of course, in the deluded world it is only Muslims that are discriminated against.

A British Airways employee suffered discrimination at work over her Christian beliefs, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled.

Nadia Eweida took her case to the ECHR after BA made her stop wearing her white gold cross visibly

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21025332

Nice picture of the woman and the huge cross that she is wearing, so easy to see how it would cause offence.

[luk AJ]

I think discrimination has to be re-defined, IMO not allowing a headscarf is not discriminating. Relegion should be separated from state, public and business. It belongs at home and in places of worship.

So Sihks have to remove their turbans, Jews their yamulkes, Christians their cricifixes (crucifices?), Hindus their tulsi bracelets and red dots.....?

excuse me, where I come from crucifixes sre banned from schools and state buildings!

[7by7]

I think discrimination has to be re-defined, IMO not allowing a headscarf is not discriminating. Relegion should be separated from state, public and business. It belongs at home and in places of worship.

So Sihks have to remove their turbans, Jews their yamulkes, Christians their cricifixes (crucifices?), Hindus their tulsi bracelets and red dots.....?

Of course, in the deluded world it is only Muslims that are discriminated against.

A British Airways employee suffered discrimination at work over her Christian beliefs, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled.

Nadia Eweida took her case to the ECHR after BA made her stop wearing her white gold cross visibly

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21025332

Nice picture of the woman and the huge cross that she is wearing, so easy to see how it would cause offence.

This Christian woman won her case; the court agreed that she was discriminated against due to her religion!

So what is your point?

Are you saying that Christians should be allowed to wear expressions of their faith at work, but followers of other religions, especially Islam, should not be?

[JockPieandBeans]

This Christian woman won her case; the court agreed that she was discriminated against due to her religion!

So what is your point?

Are you saying that Christians should be allowed to wear expressions of their faith at work, but followers of other religions, especially Islam, should not be?

Waft away the steam of indignation from your ears.

Wipe away the tears of rage clouding your vision.

Re-read my post.

You will see that I used that particular instance to highlight to another poster that it is not only Muslims that are discriminated against.

The clue was in this sentence.

Of course, in the deluded world it is only Muslims that are discriminated against.

When you have worked that out.

Go lie down in a darkened room. Repeat x100. '' I must not let my hatred of JP&B cloud my reading and comprehension ability ''

[7by7]

Why the phrase "in the deluded world" then?

From your many, many previous posts on anything to do with Islam, it is obvious that you have up to now been among the deluded!

BTW, I do not hate you; I pity you for your hatred and prejudice caused by your ignorance. If that ignorance and the hatred and prejudice it's spawned is dissipating; well done.

[JockPieandBeans]

Why the phrase "in the deluded world" then?

From your many, many previous posts on anything to do with Islam, it is obvious that you have up to now been among the deluded!

BTW, I do not hate you; I pity you for your hatred and prejudice caused by your ignorance. If that ignorance and the hatred and prejudice it's spawned is dissipating; well done.

That's what happens when you take 4 words from a sentence. Here is the FULL sentence again.

Of course, in the deluded world it is only Muslims that are discriminated against.

Is you English comprehension so bad that you need me to break that sentence down into manageable parts for you ?

I'm deluded ? Really ? Have a look in a mirror.

Pity me ? Don't ever pity me. You know nothing about me. Hatred and ignorance ? If only you knew me.

[ableguy]

I can only say I would risk jail as I would never employ a transgender donkey wearing a skull cap chomping on a grilled shrimp asking what time the beer break was, refusing to accept Christian holidays, Ramadan or work on Fridays, but then perhaps I am old fashioned or maybe from another planet.

[7by7]

Pity me ? Don't ever pity me. You know nothing about me. Hatred and ignorance ? If only you knew me.

I know the persona you present in this and any topic which has any mention of the words 'Muslim' or 'Islam.' A persona full of hatred and ignorance.

An extremely unpleasant persona, worthy of pity.

If you are now claiming that persona is not the real you; one has to wonder why you use it here so much.

[JockPieandBeans]

Pity me ? Don't ever pity me. You know nothing about me. Hatred and ignorance ? If only you knew me.

I know the persona you present in this and any topic which has any mention of the words 'Muslim' or 'Islam.' A persona full of hatred and ignorance.

An extremely unpleasant persona, worthy of pity.

If you are now claiming that persona is not the real you; one has to wonder why you use it here so much.

Totally off topic, but I will respond.

Just to make things absolutely clear for you.

I do not hate anything. I have a great loathing for a group of Muslims just as I have a great loathing for many aspects of Islam. I also have a great loathing for people who constantly try to defend the indefensible.

Ignorance is a word that can be applied to the deniers, apologists and deflectors, and those that scream '' Islamophobe, racist and bigot '' I do not think that it is a word that can be applied to me. I trust that you now see the error in your ways of making that statement.

My persona has not changed one iota. I will still continue to call a spade a spade. If you recall, I and others, have consistently said that not all Muslims are bad. Or did you forget that part.

Pity ? I have said before, I have no need for pity from anyone, save it for those that really need it.

However just to try and keep it on topic.

Did you manage to re-read my post above and work out its meaning, did wafting the steam and tears away make my post crystal clear ?