[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Abercrombie and Fitch, the stylish clothing retail chain, can apparently no longer enforce the company’s appearance policy for employees if it conflicts with what a Muslim wants to wear to comply with their religion.[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]In 2008, the retailer known for its sometimes overly sexual advertising, refused to hire Samantha Elauf, because she insisted on wearing her black Muslim headscarf, a hijab, for religious reasons, even though she chose to apply with a company where her appearance would violate the company’s dress code.
The Obama Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EOEC) sued Abercrombie and Fitch on Elauf’s behalf, charging that the company was somehow guilty of religious discrimination for not having a Muslim scarf as part of their approved “look policy.”
The purpose of the hijab, according to Islamic FAQ:
“The purpose of hijab (veiling) in Islam is primarily to inspire modesty in both men and women. Women are admonished in the Holy Qur’an to cover their heads and to pull their coverings over their bosoms. Men are instructed in the Holy Qur’an to lower their gazes.”
Shockingly, in a 8-1 decision on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the hijab-wearing Muslim woman and against Abercrombie and Fitch, claiming they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, when the headscarf was a “motivating factor” in the decision to not hire Elauf, reports The Daily Caller.
Justice Clarence Thomas cast the lone dissenting vote, saying that the clothing store’s policy did not rise to the level of “intentional discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”553157113d3ff”][vc_column_text]Certainly Elauf was aware that A & F might not be best “fit” for her as a potential employer when she applied, which puts into question whether the entire situation was staged to further the Obama Regime’s pro-Islamic stance, especially considering it was a government entity that represented her.
One can only imagine what the outcome would have been if a conservative Christian had applied at the sexually provocative retailer, refusing to wear tight jeans or a skirt with a hemline above the knee.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]