Ohio Civil Rights Commission Rejects Complaint Over Muslim Police Cadet’s Hijab

flyingpig

Muslim refused to cooperate with Commission personnel. CAIRorists lose!

Source: FFA – Ohio Civil Rights Commission rejects and repudiates CAIR-OH complaint that Columbus Police unlawfully denied Muslim right to wear hijab while on duty, UPHOLDS police department’s values neutral dress code.

Ohio Civil Rights Commission rejects and repudiates CAIR-OH complaint that Columbus Police unlawfully denied Muslim right to wear hijab while on duty, UPHOLDS police department’s values neutral dress code.

Florida Family Association sent out several email alerts that asked people to send emails to encourage Ohio Governor and Civil Rights Commission to uphold Columbus Police Department’s “values neutral dress code” for law enforcement officers.  More than 15,000 people sent emails to each commissioner and the governor.

The last email alert, sent out on August 1, 2016 prompted the Ohio Civil Rights Commission to send a copy of their July 28, 2016 Letter of Determination regarding CAIR-OH’s complaint to Florida Family Association.

Subject:    RE: Ismahan Isse CAIR complaint
Date:    Tue, 2 Aug 2016 12:47:59 +0000
From:    Payton, Michael
To:    David Caton

August 2, 2016

Dear Mr. Caton,

Upon the conclusion of our investigation, our Commissioners voted 5-0 on July 28th to dismiss the charge of discrimination based on No Probable Cause to believe the law has been violated.  I will send you an electronic copy of our Letter of Determination in this matter in a separate email today.

G. Michael Payton
Executive Director
michael.payton@civ.ohio.gov

The Ohio Civil Rights Commission Letter of Determination:

•    Affirms the Columbus Police Department’s values neutral dress code.
•    Reports the Muslim cadet never asked to wear a hijab and was therefore not terminated for such issue.
•    Denies all discrimination allegations made by CAIR-OH affidavit.

Portions of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission Letter of Determination are provided below.

“On August 20, 2015, Charging Party, Council on American Islamic Relations, Ohio (CAIR-OH), filed an affidavit with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission alleging that Respondent, City of Columbus, Division of Police, engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices.   Specifically, CAIR-OH filed a sworn charge alleging a female police cadet, Ismahan Isse, was forced to resign because the police division did not allow her to wear her religiously mandated hijab (headscarf) while on duty.  CAIR-OH concurrently alleges Respondent placed a hiring ban on persons who wear a religious headscarf and therefore discriminated against Muslim women due to their sex and religion.

Despite repeated attempts, the Commission was unable to interview a material witness, Ms. Isse, who refused to cooperate with Commission personnel.  Based upon the investigation, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission finds that there is insufficient information to establish that Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Ms. Isse on the basis of sex or religion.

While witnesses did confirm Ms. Isse expressed concern over the inability to wear a hijab, there is no evidence to suggest Ms. Isse was terminated, constructively discharged or even resigned specifically because Respondent did not allow here to wear the headscarf while in police uniform.  Without Ms. Isse’s direct testimony, the Commission must credit Respondent’s witnesses on this point.  The witnesses stated Ms. Isse never asked to wear a hijab and did not seek a reasonable accommodation of her religious beliefs.  Each witness confirmed Ms. Isse resigned prior to becoming a sworn police officer, citing purely personal reasons for the resignation.

CAIR-OH also alleges Respondent placed a ban on hiring Muslim women.  The Commission’s investigation confirms Respondent does – in fact – hire Muslim women, which is most readily evidenced by the fact that Respondent hired Ismahan Isse.  Therefore, the Commission’s investigation uncovered no evidence to substantiate there is a ban on hiring Muslim women.

The Commission also examined general allegations concerning the alleged discriminatory application of Respondent’s policies.  While Respondent did confirm that Ms. Isse was not permitted to wear a headscarf, there is no evidence to suggest she was targeted due to her sex or religion.  Respondent is a para-military organization.  Respondent has a neutral “Professional Appearance Policy” (Policy No. 11.01).  This policy provides that division personnel shall only wear authorized uniform garments.  Policy, p.1)  Deviations from the Appearance Policy must be approved in advance through the chain of command.  (Policy, p.5)  Further, Respondent’s witnesses confirmed that religious insignia, such as head coverings, may not be visible on sworn officers while in uniform.  Respondent states deviations from the Appearance Policy are categorically denied.  Sworn peace officers are mandated to wear designated organization-issued uniforms and emblems for uniformity, safety, and neutrality, which Respondent emphasizes is germane to the position held, despite an employee’s sex or religious affiliation.

The Commission could find no evidence suggesting employees of one religious preference are favored over another.  Nor could the Commission find evidence that Respondent treats males differently from females.  There is no evidence to suggest that Ms. Isse requested to wear the hijab as an accommodation of her religious beliefs and was consequently denied.  Nor is there evidence to suggest Respondent allowed non-Muslim peace officers the ability to wear headscarves, hats or head coverings, other than those defined in the Professional Appearance Policy, which are permitted only for tactical or weather-related purposes.

DECISION:

Based on the investigation conducted in this matter, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission has determined that there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE for the Commission to issue an administrative complaint accusing Respondent of an unlawful discriminatory practice.  Consequently, the Commission hereby orders that this matter be DISMISSED.

Colorado: Labor Dept Rules Muslim Workers Who Quit Deserve Unemployment Benefits

profit-mohammed

If a non-Muslim quit, or perhaps refused to bake a cake rather than “choose between fidelity to their religion and their job,” they’d lose their job and their business, not collect benefits. Obama would see to it.

Source: Fired Muslim workers deserve unemployment benefits from Cargill, Colorado labor department rules – The Denver Post

Colorado’s labor department has ruled that more than 100 Muslim workers fired from a Fort Morgan meatpacking plant are eligible for unemployment benefits because a company cannot force workers to choose between their religion and their jobs.

The workers filed for unemployment payments after they were fired in December by Cargill Inc., amid a dispute over whether the Muslim employees could take prayer breaks during their shifts. Cargill challenged the claims, but the company withdrew its appeals this summer after losing 20 cases, officials with the state Department of Labor said.

While the labor department declined to put a dollar amount on the total paid to the workers, Cher Haavind, the agency’s director of government, policy and public relations, said the average maximum benefit per claim was $8,841.

That means the payments could cost Colorado’s unemployment fund nearly $1 million. Unemployment benefits are funded by the state’s employers. Much like an insurance policy, a company’s rates rise with the number of claims filed from its former workers.

Cargill’s spokesman, Michael Martin, said the company had no comment about the unemployment claims. Cargill, based in Wichita, Kan., is one of the largest privately held companies in the United States, and its family includes 14 billionaires, according to a 2001 report in Forbes magazine.

Cargill fired more than 150 Muslim workers, most of them from Somalia, in December after they walked off the job because of the dispute.

At the time, Martin told The Denver Post that the company did everything it could to resolve the dispute.

“At no time did Cargill prevent people from prayer at Fort Morgan,” Martin said in December. “Nor have we changed policies related to religious accommodation and attendance. This has been mischaracterized.”

However, decision orders written by Colorado labor department hearing officers show a change in policy is what led to the walk out.

Throughout the hearings, workers told a similar story about how supervisors began informing them on Dec. 15 that prayer breaks no longer were allowed, according to documents obtained by The Denver Post.

The workers, many of whom could not read or speak English, told hearing officers that interpreters had reviewed employment policies upon their hiring, including a “Political and Religious Workplace Expression Policy.”

The policy said that employees could pray as long as business needs were met, and they should request religious accommodations through their supervisors. The workers said they understood they could pray but would not always be able to go when they wanted.

In one case, a woman who had worked at the plant since February 2012 told a hearing officer that she had never been denied an opportunity for prayer until Dec. 15.

It was normal for the woman to wait a few minutes for the supervisor to make sure the line was sufficiently staffed before approving a prayer break for a group of three people. The woman would use her paid 15-minute break to pray, the decision order said.

“The claimant was satisfied with the prayer arrangement,” the order said.

However, the woman said she asked for a prayer break on Dec. 15, and her supervisor told her she would be allowed to go the bathroom, but that if she wanted to pray, she had to go home, the decision order said.

“There was no piece of paper or policy sheet issued to the employees saying that the prayer policy had changed,” the order said.

The Muslim workers said that their religion requires that they pray five times per day to stay in favor with God.

The hearing officers repeatedly ruled that the change in prayer policy was substantial to the working conditions and was not favorable to the workers. Therefore, the workers were not at fault for losing their jobs.

The decision orders repeatedly said: “No person should be expected to choose between fidelity to their religion and their job.”

After the workers were denied their prayers, leaders in Fort Morgan’s Somali community negotiated with the company for change. When the workers were told the company was standing by its new policy, they went home. After not reporting to work for three days, Cargill fired them.

The decision orders also revealed tension between the Somali workers and their representatives in the Teamsters union, which is led by Hispanic workers. The union did not fight for the Somalis, the orders said.

[Comments by terrorist group CAIR removed]

The attorneys have filed a complaint on behalf of the workers to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Rachel Arnow-Richman, director of the workplace law program at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law, has been watching the Cargill case.

The state unemployment decision has no bearing on any federal religious discrimination lawsuit that later might be filed, Arnow-Richman said, because lawyers cannot use those results in their arguments in federal court.

However, Cargill’s attorneys should be concerned, she said. The labor department’s decision shows that a neutral party hearing the facts of the case was sympathetic toward the workers.

“Cargill is going to have to steel itself for a serious fight if it wants to continue the federal discrimination case,” Arnow-Richman said.


The labor department is far from neutral. They only interviewed the Somali Muslims who have legal teams the average American could never afford and have been coached to say whatever is necessary to get more money from the filthy kuffar.

Truthfully, it couldn’t happen to a better company. Cargill deserves all the agony and financial losses they get for choosing cheap, foreign Muslim labor over American workers. Cargill will fold like a cheap Muslim prayer rug and bow down to their Muslim masters as they have many times already.

Islam means submission, not peace.

Michigan: Muslims Sue, DOJ Investigates, City That Rejected Mosque in Residential Neighborhood

As we noted here, Sterling Heights has a large population of Iraqi immigrants who opposed the special zoning request for a mosque in a residential neighborhood. Now the city faces the zoning jihad from an overwhelmingly pro-mosque Dept. of Justice who – rather than investigate the imams and mosques recruiting and training Muslim terrorists – are busy forcing the training facilities in residential neighborhoods. Source: Muslims sue Sterling Heights after city rejected mosque

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Department of Justice are investigating whether a proposed mosque was treated fairly by Sterling Heights government

The leaders of an Islamic center filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Sterling Heights after the city last year rejected their plans to build a mosque that was strongly opposed by many residents.

And the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan announced that her office and the Department of Justice are investigating whether the mosque was treated fairly.

In the federal lawsuit, the American Islamic Community Center accuses the city of being biased against Muslims, citing e-mails from city officials that talked about getting someone to investigate the possibility of the mosque’s leaders being terrorists. In one e-mail, a police official asks whether the FBI can be contacted to see whether the mosque leaders are “on their radar.”

Last year, the planning commission of Sterling Heights voted 9-0 to reject building a mosque on 15 Mile between Ryan and Mound roads. City officials and residents have said their rejection was not based on bigotry, noting that the city already has a mosque, but over concerns that the location was not suitable for such a large building and could cause traffic problems.

MIE McQuade

U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade. Enforcing the sharia on Sterling Heights?

Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said Wednesday: “The Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s Office have been conducting an independent investigation, and that investigation is ongoing.”

The lawsuit alleges that the constitutional rights of the mosque members were violated in denying the mosque. Residents who opposed the Shi’ite  mosque have said the building would be in a residential area that would cause congestion and wasn’t suitable to the area around 15 Mile.

But the lawsuit said that some of the residential opposition was rooted in anti-Islam prejudice. At public meetings, some in Sterling Heights expressed concern about Islamic extremism; the tensions exposed strained relations between some in the Chaldean (Iraqi Catholic) community in Sterling Heights and metro Detroit Muslims.

“With a vociferous and racist member of the Planning Commission leading the charge, the Planning Commission voted to reject the site plan,” said the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit. “With no other choice, the American Islamic Community Center has filed this suit seeking equitable relief to build the Mosque and seeks damages as the City of Sterling Heights’ conduct violates, among other things, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act … and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

The lead attorney filing the case on behalf of the mosque, currently based in Madison Heights, is Azzam Elder, once the deputy to former Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano.

Mayor Taylor has said previously that Sterling Heights respects diversity. About 23% of the residents of the city are immigrants, one of the highest percentages among cities in southeastern Michigan. It has a sizable Iraqi-American Christian community, some of whom escaped Islamic extremism in Iraq and had voiced worries about the mosque.

On Sept. 2 last year, Taylor wrote on Facebook: “I completely and unequivocally denounce any anti-Muslim bigotry.”

He added: “I will work with the AICC (American Islamic Community Center) to ensure they have a place to worship in our city.”

Taylor told the Free Press last year: “I urge all residents to be respectful and tolerant of each other. Regardless of the outcome, Sterling Heights must remain a place that is open and welcoming for people of all races, faiths, ethnicities, and backgrounds.”

Mohammed Abdrabboh, an attorney helping with the lawsuit, wrote on Twitter on Wednesday that “Islamophobia (is) alive and well in Sterling Heights.”

The lawsuit says that some mosque members have lived in Sterling Heights for decades and others have served in the U.S. military.

“I am proud to have served in Desert Storm as a Senior Airman for the United States Air Force,” said Khalil Abbas, who is a member of the Muslim Center. “My grandfather served in WWI and other family members served in other wars to protect the rights of all Americans. All I want is for the City of Sterling Heights to follow the U.S. Constitution, and protect my rights as a veteran and citizen.”

The lawsuit cites an e-mail sent Aug. 19 from a resident to city officials asking that the mosque leaders be vetted for possible extremism and terrorism.

City Planner Donald Mende then forwarded that e-mail, along with the names of mosque leaders, including its imam, to the police chief at the time, Reese. Reese then forwarded it to John Berg, then a captain and now Sterling Heights police chief, asking him to ask a contact at the FBI whether the mosque leaders are “on their radar.”


The mayor stated plainly the solution is simple: find a location that is not in a residential area…where the hordes of Muslims will come and go at all hours of the day and night, ignore traffic and other laws, and become a nuisance to their neighbors…as they are already proving.

That said, one doesn’t have to look far to find Islamic supremacist links to this group, as if the mandated terrorizing of non-Muslims in the Koran is not enough.

The mosque website‘s very first “Useful Link” is “Sayed FadluAllah” leading to Bayynat.org. Screen shot before it disappears.

aicc-screen1

A quick gander around the English version of the site, typically less revealing than the native tongue, quickly renders a Friday lecture on…JIHAD, titled: The conditions of Jihad.

The lecture notes tell Muslims about “a need for institutionalizing the lesser Jihad (against the enemy)” and “celebrating victory over the Zionist Enemy.”

That was found within minutes, literally. What would be found if the other links were reviewed; if the mosque founders and those funding a new mosque were vetted; not to mention the legal duo who’ve made some wild claims? 

More on Sterling Heights:

Muslim “refugees” secretly flooding into Sterling Heights

Sterling Heights: Muslim doctors arrested in ‘biggest Medicare take down in FBI history’

Muslim Chemo Doc Called ‘Most Egregious Fraudster’ in U.S. History, Operated in Sterling Heights

CAIR goes to bat for Muslim who killed, almost beheaded, wife in Sterling Heights

 

 

NYC: Muslim quits city job, then demands rehire with Friday’s off to attend mosque

After changing his name of course.

Source: Muslim man says DHS refuses to give him off on holy day | New York Post  h/t The Religion Of Peace

A practicing Muslim who works for the city’s Department of Homeless Services has filed a grievance against the agency for refusing to allow him off on Fridays — the Muslim holy day.

Jesse Pender, a community assistant at the Bellevue Men’s Shelter, claims the agency violated city policy requiring employers to give workers time off for religious observances, documents show.

Pender, who recently changed his name to Abdul-Wahhab Ibrahim, had a Sunday-through-Thursday schedule before he left DHS to take a job with another city agency in January 2015.

But when he returned a month later, the agency forced him to work Fridays.

Forced him to work? The NY Post provides more details on naked pictures of Trump’s wife.

An agency spokesman said, “DHS’s policy is to offer employees schedules that accommodate their religious beliefs.”

Minnesota: Muslim demands use of sharia law, U.S. court rejects

It’s a solution (banning sharia) without a problem they say. Until Muslims are imported to the U.S. by the millions. Source: U.S. court rejects Muslim’s demand to use Shariah

A state court in Minnesota, which already is heavily influenced by a large population of Muslim immigrants and has one district represented in Congress by a Muslim, has decided that in America, it’s American inheritance law that applies.

The recent ruling from the Court of Appeals affirmed a Hennepin County District Court decision that the widow, Nariman Sirag Elsayed Khalil, of a taxi driver who died in an accident should be the one to benefit from a $183,000 settlement over her husband’s death.

It was the cab driver’s brother who argued in court that Islamic law should apply, so that the widow of Nadir Ibrahim Ombabi would only get 25 percent of the wrongful death settlement, 16.7 percent should go to his mother’s estate and the rest to Ombabi’s siblings, “with the males to receive ‘twice the share of the female.’”

The opinion, which was marked “unpublished” and not to be used for citation, involved the claim of Hosameldin Ibrahim Imbabi of Gold River, California.

Representing himself, he claimed that all of the parties in the case were Muslims, so the state court should apply Islamic law.

The appeals court ruling, however, knocked down his assertions, pointing out that he didn’t even bother providing a transcript of lower-court proceedings so the appellate judges could check his claims.

“This court therefore cannot resolve issues that require a transcript, such as whether the district court judge made statements indicating that he had predetermined the outcome of the case or whether the district court erred by refusing to allow cross-examination of certain witnesses,” the court found.

“None of appellant’s assertions of error are adequately supported by legal argument or citation to legal authority. For example, appellant’s main assertion of error appears to be that the district court should have applied Sudanese Islamic law instead of Minnesota law when distributing the wrongful-death settlement proceeds.

“But the appellant does not explain why, other than stating, ‘[he] strongly believe[s] that the principles of the private international law should have been applied from the beginning…”

The ruling found: “The district court found that ‘there is no credible evidence to prove Mr. Ombabi’s mother, brother, or sisters experienced a pecuniary loss, or more importantly what that pecuniary loss is, because of Mr. Ombabi’s passing.’ Accordingly, the district court ordered than 100 percent of settlement proceeds remaining after deduction of attorney feeds, litigation expenses, funeral costs, and trustee services be distributed to respondent.”

Legal blogger Eugene Volokh said of the decision, “I think it was also influenced by a basic American legal principle: American courts apply American law, rather than one rule for Muslims, one rule for Christians, one rule for Jews, and so on.

“Sometimes American law does allow the implementation of foreign legal rules, or religious legal rules. A contract might, for instance, call for applying the law of Sudan, or a will might specify that the property be distributed one-fourth to the widow, one-sixth to the parents, one-sixth each to the three brothers, and one-twelfth to the one sister (whether or not that’s the Shariah-mandated split). A court may well enforce such provisions, subject to any constraints imposed by American public policy. (For instance, a contract calling for the cutting off of a person’s hand would be unenforceable; a will calling for a court to apply a legal rule that requires the court to distinguish males from females might be unenforceable, though a will calling for a court to distribute property to named parties would be enforceable.)

“But there, too, the principle is simple: American courts apply American law, including when an American law principle calls on American courts to enforce a foreign judgment, to apply foreign law or to follow terms in a contract or a will that deliberately track foreign or religious law. But there has to be an American law principle calling for such application of foreign law. And in this case, there was no such principle,” he said.

North Dakota: Muslim corrections officer smuggles recipes to Muslim inmates who then file pork lawsuit

What else do Muslim corrections officers smuggle to their coreligionist criminals behind bars?

Source: Muslim inmates sue Cass County Jail, claim they were fed pork | Grand Forks Herald

FARGO—Four Muslim inmates have sued the Cass County Jail and several of its jailers, claiming they secretly were fed pork, according to a complaint filed in federal court.

Jail officials declared its meals were pork-free in November 2015, according to the complaint, but continued to serve pork to inmates, including Muslims whose religion prohibits them from eating pork, the inmates allege in their hand-written lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Fargo.

“We believe that having kitchen staff prepare separate meals for Muslim inmates was becoming a hassle and affecting their budget,” the complaint said.

The complaint says inmates weren’t told why the jail declared itself pork-free, though the plaintiffs—including Ashley Hunter, the man charged with murder in the slayings of two men in north Fargo last summer—allege it was in response to requests from Muslim inmates.

Prior to jail staff claiming they didn’t serve any meals with pork in them, Muslim inmates were served pork-free food, the inmates say in their complaint.

“We believe their declaration of being a non-pork facility was a lie to calm our worries of being fed pork in any form,” the complaint said.

Uyin Alau, one of the plaintiffs, told The Forum in a phone interview that he and other inmates learned the jail was serving them pork from a Muslim corrections officer, who brought them labels and recipes from the jail’s kitchen that listed pork products as ingredients in inmates’ meals. He said the inmates believed they weren’t being fed pork until the officer told them otherwise.

The corrections officer who allegedly tipped off the inmates isn’t named in the lawsuit.

The inmates are seeking $100 million, a public apology and the firing of jail staff connected to serving pork to Muslim inmates, according to the complaint.

“They fed us pork during the holy month of Ramadan,” Alau said, “which is completely disrespectful. It’s the most disrespectful thing you could do to somebody.”

“We have no one left to trust at this point,” said Alau, who recently pleaded guilty to helping rob a Casey’s General Store in January 2015.

Inmates Donivan Weis and Abdi Sahel also signed on to the lawsuit. Weis was arrested on drug charges in March, and Sahel is charged with simple assault, attempted kidnapping, terrorizing and robbery.

It’s not the first time a Muslim inmate has accused Cass County jailers of failing to honor his religious practices.

In 2012, Cass County Jail inmate Tyrone Jones accused the jail of treating Muslims in the jail unfairly when trying to practice their religion, alleging jail staff didn’t allow Muslims to hold prayer services in the facility’s day room.

The new lawsuit, which was filed July 8, names the jail and six corrections officers as defendants. The defendants haven’t filed a written response.

Lt. Amanda Henrickson said the jail administrator is out of town, and she had no knowledge of a lawsuit and couldn’t comment.

Sgt. Tim Briggeman, spokesman for the sheriff’s office, said he was not aware of the lawsuit.


The last time we wrote about the Cass County jail it was a Muslim refugee who raped a gas station clerk while screaming “Allah Akbar” and before that, a Muslim who threatened jihad on Jews at a synagogue.

Isn’t it time to end special privileges in jails that do nothing but waste taxpayer money? If you are locked up, you LOST your right to choose your food among other things.

PS: Tatiana Suskin was jailed for 2 years in Israel for her 1997 drawing, above.

Corporate America is Allowing Sharia to Creep In

We would re-title this, Corporate America – Led by Big Media – is Ushering in Sharia. And Obama is enforcing it. Just another form of jihad.

Can you say frivolous? Excerpt via: Counter Jihad

Muslims make up only one percent of the population, but file 40% of workplace discrimination complaints.

The authors in the Bloomberg article reveal information that shows the strength of Muslim activism in trying to transform America through litigation – especially that of the workplace to become more sharia compliant.  The Bloomberg article states:

While people who practice Islam make up only about 1 percent of the U.S. population, some 40 percent of religion-based workplace complaints filed with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission last year were related to Muslims. The agency has pursued a wide range of disputes, including whether Muslims can be fired for refusing to handle pork or alcohol at work. In many instances, the courts have said they cannot.

It’s shocking that such a small fraction of the U.S. population are exerting so outsized an influence.  What should businesses do – cater to Muslim religious demands in order to avoid complaints?  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states, “An employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer.”  Furthermore, trying to pacify sharia compliant Muslims is useless, since sharia is an all-encompassing ideology that dictates not just clothing and diet but includes rules for speech, prayer, banking, commerce, etc. The Bloomberg article gives a short list of how some companies are furthering this gradual sharia agenda:

JPMorgan Chase & Co. provides transportation to mosques, and other places of worship, for employees in offices not big enough to have prayer rooms. Alcohol wasn’t served at a recent party at a New York architecture firm because a new staff member who’s [sic] Muslim wouldn’t feel comfortable attending if it were, according to the office manager, asking not to be named because he’s not authorized to speak publicly about the firm. At Accenture Plc, the corporate calendar is organized to prevent events from conflicting with Muslim holidays, as well as those of other faiths.

In addition, “[o]ne goal of the Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield Q&A session in Newark last year was to dispel concerns that Islam is a dangerous faith[.]” Since, when did it become the job of a health insurance network to advocate for Islamic apologetics?  Is that not the job of clerics and believers of the faith?  For that matter, when did employers become a free taxi service to the local “place of worship”?

We have seen accommodations for Muslim employees played out in businesses such as prayer rooms, prayer breaks, reassignments when faced with pork and alcohol products, permitting Islamic clothing and facial hair, and in many other areas. Some U.S. companies are willing to go to outstanding lengths to appease one percent of the U.S. population because some Muslim activists shout the loudest. Corporate America needs to say “No!” to more sharia.


Check out Bloomberg’s Carol Hymowitz repeat the Muslim victimization non-sense in the link above.

PS: Wait until Muslims are 10% of the U.S. population. 20%. 30%!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59,937 other followers

%d bloggers like this: