Submit, Kafir!

Here I documented what appears to be a coordinated campaign all over the world of muslim cab drivers to refuse service to the blind, because of their "unclean" guide-dogs, as well as to infidels seen to be carrying alcohol.

The purpose is, step by step, to assert dominance over our culture by obtaining special treatment and recognition.

Now, cashiers at Target in Minneapolis (where they had such trouble with the drivers at the airport), are refusing to service customers with pork products!

Because you are an unclean ("najis") infidel ("kafir") and they are superior!

MINNEAPOLIS - Muslim cashiers at some local Target stores who object to ringing up products that contain pork are being shifted to other positions where they don’t need to, the discount retailer said Saturday.

The Star Tribune reported this past week that some Muslim cashiers at local Targets had declined to scan pork products such as bacon because doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs. They would ask other cashiers to ring up such purchases, or sometimes customers would scan those items themselves, the newspaper reported.

Minneapolis-based Target Corp. has now offered its local Muslim cashiers who object to handling pork the option of wearing gloves while cashiering, shifting to other positions or transferring to other nearby stores.

This isn't spontaneous, it's part of a plan cooked up by the muslim brotherhood and defended by CAIR.

Some interesting comments followed that article at jihadwatch; many are angry that Target didnt' seem to "stand and fight", for a fight is coming one day, but others see wheels within wheels:

muslim = ubervictim

and perfect

"i-am-not-responsible-for-any-of-my-actions-everything-offends-me" specimen for the idiot-left's "victimhood industry"

the muslim feeds the cultural marxists' psychotic need to defend every form of idiocy - even to suicidal ends - while the left feeds constant affirmation to the muslim of its perpetual-state of self-induced victimhood

-----------
Hey Everyone,

I am a lawyer in Minnesota and I can assure you that Target's decision to shift the workers is the only one it could reach. Someone has been advising their Muslim cashiers to make an issue of pork handling just like the local cabbies did about transporting passengers from the airport carrying alcohol. (It's interesting that the cabbies lost a few weeks, perhaps days, before the cashier issue reared its ugly head. To me this is not coincidence and I am convinced that the local Muslim activists in concert with CAIR have chosen this sequence, and have probably already planned their next move.)

If Target had not offered other positions it would have been arguably violating its employees rights under Minnesota's Human Rights Act and left itself legally vulnerable. The Muslim activist strategy has moved from the cabs which they lost, to this one. Their move would have shifted the decision-maker from the Metro Airports Commission to the Muslims choice between the Minnesota Human Rights Department and/or the local Federal Court. My guess is that their choice would have been the MHRD which is softer than the courts on discrimination claims.

Target made a correct decision for itself by deflecting this naked attempt to create a legal precedent in favor of fake Muslim sensibilities. It is also a fortunate decision for the long legal war we are now beginning. We all need to remember that we can choose our battles with them, and not take their bait whenever they choose to hang it in front of us. The cabbie case was stupidly chosen by them; the Target cashier case was less obviously a loser for them, and is not the best legal scenario for us to fight them. Avoiding litigation prevents this battle, which is good for the long war ahead.
...
I have handled numerous employment discrimination cases over the years. Target made a logical choice that preserves its rights and gives the Muslim troublemakers nothing. Had Target said check pork or leave, they all would have sued and, trust me, the possibility of a bad result was considerably greater than the airport cab case. The law is built on precedents, so a smart litigant only chooses to fight when ending the conflict is untenable, and the outcome of a lawsuit is nearly certain.

This is not a victory for Muslims. In fact, it shows them that they are up against a society and a legal system that is far more complex than their ability to comprehend or manipulate it. The only people disappointed by Target's decision are those who were spoiling for a fight, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

We win evertime the Muslims don't get what they want. Here, they wanted a fight, followed by a lawsuit and bad publicity for those who fought them; they got nothing. They wanted separate rules for Muslims, and instead got themselves excluded from being cashiers in grocery stores.

And, maybe best of all, everytime they fail to make an issue and win, the crediblity of their issue-raising shrinks.

bobnoxious

No to islam, of course, has a simpler solution:

The answer is simple.

Boycott muslim owned, operated and staffed stores.

Boycott all goods and services provided by muslims and islamic countries.

Stop funding people who hate us.

That works too.