Supreme Court Ruling Gives Greater Protection to Islam Than Gun Owners
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who sued Abercrombie & Fitch on the basis of discrimination because they denied her a job because she refused the dress code banning head scarves while at work.
First of all, I wonder if the court would rule in the same way if the girl in question was a Christian and was denied a job because she refused to remove a cross from around her neck.
But I digress. Let’s just focus on the 8-1 decision by the Supreme Court to award damages to Samantha Elauf. Of course, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is thrilled because this is a feather in their cap after they sued on behalf of Elauf.
I’m going to forgo equating the hijab with saggy pants, tattered jeans or wrinkled shirts. I will accept that the hijab is not a fashion choice but a religious observance and as such should be protected under the First Amendment along with yamakas and crosses.
Seemingly, the basis on which the Supreme Court made their ruling was a violation of Elauf’s First Amendment rights.
Elauf herself even echoes this sentiment in a statement released after the ruling:
“Observance of my faith should not have prevented me from getting a job. I am glad that I stood up for my rights, and happy that the EEOC was there for me and took my complaint to the courts.”
That’s a very good point Ms. Elauf.
And it is EXACTLY that point that I have such a problem with. You see, I, along with 300 million other Americans, have the right to keep and bear arms. As such, according to the ruling on Monday, any store, business, municipality or state that tries to infringe upon that right is discriminating against me.
By this ruling, the Supreme Court has set a precedence that says businesses cannot violate constitutional rights regardless of what rules or procedures they have established.
If Abercrombie & Fitch have to pay Elauf $20,000 because they wouldn’t hire her, how much am I owed for being kicked out of the coffee shop or a book store for being a gun owner?
My observance and practicing of my rights protected under the 2nd Amendment are no less valid or important than Ms. Elauf wearing her head scarf and, as such, must be afforded the same protections by the Supreme Court.
But it is in this way that half the justices have proven themselves to be supreme hypocrites. Of the 8 justices who voted in favor of Elauf’s claim, 4 have voted against the 2nd Amendment time and time again.
Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer are all for voting for Muslim rights via the First Amendment, but turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the equal argument for the 2nd Amendment.
I am pretty sure that it is still completely legal to refuse to hire someone because they own and carry a gun, just as it legal to bar people from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in your business.
These justices are betraying their oath, choosing Muslim rights over the 2nd Amendment and are making a mockery of the Judicial System.
They should be ashamed, but since they are rabidly liberal, shame died long ago in their hearts.
*Article by Tony Olivia at Bullets First