On June 1, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Abercrombie & Fitch discriminated against a Muslim woman when they denied her employment because she wished to wear her head scarf at work. The court decided that the ban infringed upon her religious freedom.
You would think that this would be welcome news to people who are genuinely concerned about religious freedom in the U.S., and there are, admittedly, a few far right commentators who are being, well, cautiously optimistic about the ruling.
But this isn’t the case for all. At times, the ruling is being called a win for “Muslim rights” and a sign of creeping sharia law in America. One discussion board lit up with fears that the ruling will lead to a ban on bacon. The one that goes furthest over the top is a commentary reposted at BarbWire, which frets that now “Muslim rights” are more important than the rights of people who want to openly their carry guns everywhere else:
“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 coffee shop or a book store for being a gun owner?
“My observance and practicing of my Second Amendment rights 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.
“… Because 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 Second Amendment rights in your business…”
Reasonable cases can be made for owning firearms and handling them responsibly. But while gun rights are hardly a religion, there’s certainly a segment of the gun lobby for whom zero regulation and total arms freedom has become a matter of irrational belief.