Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by TI:

Clients have asked DAS to make abayas to match the color of their designer bags and high heels by brands such as Christian Dior, Hermes, Channel and Gucci “because they will be wearing the abaya in public where they cannot show a dress that would match with their accessories,” Beljafla said. 

“High-end designers such as Hermes and Gucci are also trying to break into the Muslim market with scarves and other products,” said Tamara Hostal.

 

Way to throw some desert sand in our eyes chap. This is irrelevant to the case at bar. You people are free to have white people make designer curtains for you all to wear and charge you exorbitant amounts for the privilege.

 

The case here is one of Abercrombie NOT being in the hijab curtain business but the regular preppy douche business. She didn't meet their criteria. End of story.

just the usual chit chat to allay the reality that the court is not ruling that there is a right to usurp marketing strategies. I am fairly sure of it.

FM

~~~~~

Majid Al Futtaim (MAF) Fashion has signed an agreement with Abercrombie & Fitch Co. to see iconic American lifestyle brand make its Middle East debut.

 

Hot on the heels of its recent announcement to bring Hollister to the region, Majid Al Futtaim Fashion, the retail arm of Majid Al Futtaim Ventures, has finalised joint-venture agreement with Abercrombie & Fitch Co., to bring Abercrombie & Fitch to Dubai.

~~~~~,,

 

hahaha, they better get accustomed to hijabis, lol

 

 

TI
Originally Posted by TI:

~~~~~

Majid Al Futtaim (MAF) Fashion has signed an agreement with Abercrombie & Fitch Co. to see iconic American lifestyle brand make its Middle East debut.

 

Hot on the heels of its recent announcement to bring Hollister to the region, Majid Al Futtaim Fashion, the retail arm of Majid Al Futtaim Ventures, has finalised joint-venture agreement with Abercrombie & Fitch Co., to bring Abercrombie & Fitch to Dubai.

~~~~~,,

 

hahaha, they better get accustomed to hijabis, lol

 

 

I guess them muslim gals are itching to wear $600 embroidered assriders and floss with 400 dollar bikinis! I just looked at the tour of Dubai and Qatar and indeed I see why Fitty and Pdiddy can make a killing there with some ghetto gear as well

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by TI:

Clients have asked DAS to make abayas to match the color of their designer bags and high heels by brands such as Christian Dior, Hermes, Channel and Gucci “because they will be wearing the abaya in public where they cannot show a dress that would match with their accessories,” Beljafla said. 

“High-end designers such as Hermes and Gucci are also trying to break into the Muslim market with scarves and other products,” said Tamara Hostal.

 

Way to throw some desert sand in our eyes chap. This is irrelevant to the case at bar. You people are free to have white people make designer curtains for you all to wear and charge you exorbitant amounts for the privilege.

 

The case here is one of Abercrombie NOT being in the hijab curtain business but the regular preppy douche business. She didn't meet their criteria. End of story.

just the usual chit chat to allay the reality that the court is not ruling that there is a right to usurp marketing strategies. I am fairly sure of it.

 

I admit, I am absolutely amazed at the Islamist Agenda being advanced through liberalism. The very people who would be the first to be hung in any Islamist society as the allies of these people. The gays, the feminists, the academics.

 

Destroying our liberal secular values via our liberal secular values. All while shutting down the opposition for being "intolerant" and "racist" and "haters."

 

As it is, this case is not actually about the hijab or curtains. It's about whether we continue to adhere to the rule of placing the burden on applicants to ask for a religious accomodation or shift the burden to employers to read minds.

 

As in all cases such as this one, a decision is bound to create some bad law.

FM
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
 

As it is, this case is not actually about the hijab or curtains. It's about whether we continue to adhere to the rule of placing the burden on applicants to ask for a religious accomodation or shift the burden to employers to read minds.

 

 

Thank you good sir for pointing out what this case is all about. Meanwhile even the great Stormy thought it was about hijab. I have been itching to point this out but I was certain he would find enough nerve to oppose it. So I let it go feeling that you with your great legal eye would somehow bring it back to its true meaning. I doubt he would find joy in fighting with a fellow infidel.

FM
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
 

As it is, this case is not actually about the hijab or curtains. It's about whether we continue to adhere to the rule of placing the burden on applicants to ask for a religious accomodation or shift the burden to employers to read minds.

 

 

Thank you good sir for pointing out what this case is all about. Meanwhile even the great Stormy thought it was about hijab. I have been itching to point this out but I was certain he would find enough nerve to oppose it. So I let it go feeling that you with your great legal eye would somehow bring it back to its true meaning. I doubt he would find joy in fighting with a fellow infidel.

 

I often find myself (unwillingly) serving in the Cause of Allah

FM
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
 

As it is, this case is not actually about the hijab or curtains. It's about whether we continue to adhere to the rule of placing the burden on applicants to ask for a religious accomodation or shift the burden to employers to read minds.

 

 

Thank you good sir for pointing out what this case is all about. Meanwhile even the great Stormy thought it was about hijab. I have been itching to point this out but I was certain he would find enough nerve to oppose it. So I let it go feeling that you with your great legal eye would somehow bring it back to its true meaning. I doubt he would find joy in fighting with a fellow infidel.

 

I often find myself (unwillingly) serving in the Cause of Allah

I am sure Allah appreciates any help you can offer.

FM
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
 

As it is, this case is not actually about the hijab or curtains. It's about whether we continue to adhere to the rule of placing the burden on applicants to ask for a religious accomodation or shift the burden to employers to read minds.

 

 

Thank you good sir for pointing out what this case is all about. Meanwhile even the great Stormy thought it was about hijab. I have been itching to point this out but I was certain he would find enough nerve to oppose it. So I let it go feeling that you with your great legal eye would somehow bring it back to its true meaning. I doubt he would find joy in fighting with a fellow infidel.

 

I often find myself (unwillingly) serving in the Cause of Allah

I am sure Allah appreciates any help you can offer.

 

Since I "hate" Muslims so much, how come I authored a law to formally recognize Imams and Pandits and masjids in state law beyond their current de facto status?

FM
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
 

As it is, this case is not actually about the hijab or curtains. It's about whether we continue to adhere to the rule of placing the burden on applicants to ask for a religious accomodation or shift the burden to employers to read minds.

 

 

Thank you good sir for pointing out what this case is all about. Meanwhile even the great Stormy thought it was about hijab. I have been itching to point this out but I was certain he would find enough nerve to oppose it. So I let it go feeling that you with your great legal eye would somehow bring it back to its true meaning. I doubt he would find joy in fighting with a fellow infidel.

you are nuts. I said nothing different from he did. I stated over a dozen times it is about the right of a business not to be forced to comply with religious rules. The business cannot by definition meet every religious obligation.

 

Hindus might  say that belts from cows offend them and Jews demand hotdogs and hams not be sold in their areas or liquor be banned. I think some Muslims in London took to sanitizing their neighborhood of these products because it offended them. They even wanted dog free zones! That is what I guard against  and hope the courts do not bend in this way or it opens up a can of worms

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
 

As it is, this case is not actually about the hijab or curtains. It's about whether we continue to adhere to the rule of placing the burden on applicants to ask for a religious accomodation or shift the burden to employers to read minds.

 

 

Thank you good sir for pointing out what this case is all about. Meanwhile even the great Stormy thought it was about hijab. I have been itching to point this out but I was certain he would find enough nerve to oppose it. So I let it go feeling that you with your great legal eye would somehow bring it back to its true meaning. I doubt he would find joy in fighting with a fellow infidel.

you are nuts. I said nothing different from he did. I stated over a dozen times it is about the right of a business not to be forced to comply with religious rules. The business cannot by definition meet every religious obligation.

 

Hindus might  say that belts from cows offend them and Jews demand hotdogs and hams not be sold in their areas or liquor be banned. I think some Muslims in London took to sanitizing their neighborhood of these products because it offended them. They even wanted dog free zones! That is what I guard against  and hope the courts do not bend in this way or it opens up a can of worms

Ego is that important to you eh bai?

FM
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
 

As it is, this case is not actually about the hijab or curtains. It's about whether we continue to adhere to the rule of placing the burden on applicants to ask for a religious accomodation or shift the burden to employers to read minds.

 

 

Thank you good sir for pointing out what this case is all about. Meanwhile even the great Stormy thought it was about hijab. I have been itching to point this out but I was certain he would find enough nerve to oppose it. So I let it go feeling that you with your great legal eye would somehow bring it back to its true meaning. I doubt he would find joy in fighting with a fellow infidel.

you are nuts. I said nothing different from he did. I stated over a dozen times it is about the right of a business not to be forced to comply with religious rules. The business cannot by definition meet every religious obligation.

 

Hindus might  say that belts from cows offend them and Jews demand hotdogs and hams not be sold in their areas or liquor be banned. I think some Muslims in London took to sanitizing their neighborhood of these products because it offended them. They even wanted dog free zones! That is what I guard against  and hope the courts do not bend in this way or it opens up a can of worms

Ego is that important to you eh bai?

what presumption...which world are you living in that you are concerned alone?

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
 

As it is, this case is not actually about the hijab or curtains. It's about whether we continue to adhere to the rule of placing the burden on applicants to ask for a religious accomodation or shift the burden to employers to read minds.

 

 

Thank you good sir for pointing out what this case is all about. Meanwhile even the great Stormy thought it was about hijab. I have been itching to point this out but I was certain he would find enough nerve to oppose it. So I let it go feeling that you with your great legal eye would somehow bring it back to its true meaning. I doubt he would find joy in fighting with a fellow infidel.

you are nuts. I said nothing different from he did. I stated over a dozen times it is about the right of a business not to be forced to comply with religious rules. The business cannot by definition meet every religious obligation.

 

Hindus might  say that belts from cows offend them and Jews demand hotdogs and hams not be sold in their areas or liquor be banned. I think some Muslims in London took to sanitizing their neighborhood of these products because it offended them. They even wanted dog free zones! That is what I guard against  and hope the courts do not bend in this way or it opens up a can of worms

Ego is that important to you eh bai?

what presumption...which world are you living in that you are concerned alone?

 

Look just be grateful he didn't call you a loser as his Holy Quran clearly says we both are

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×