A tidy little profit comes with getting your feelings hurt — at least it did for a 19-year-old Muslim woman who convinced a court in London that her hurt feelings were worth $7,800.
She wore her feelings on her — well, headscarf.
The Daily Mail explained what happened. She applied for a job at a hair salon, but the 32-year-old salon owner rapidly concluded during their 10-minute meeting that she wasn’t right for the job.
The applicant made it clear that she would not remove her headscarf, which she wore for religious reasons, while working. The salon owner thought that wouldn’t do, since she believed a job requirement of any hairdresser was that the stylist's hair would provide clients with a showcase of different looks, the Daily Mail reported.
She said balking at the Muslim applicant’s scarf had nothing to do with religion. She would’ve had the same reaction if the gal had come in wearing a baseball cap, she told the Daily Mail.
But the salon owner was ordered to pay $7,800 to the Muslim woman for “indirect indiscrimination by way of injury to her feelings,” the Daily Mail reported.
The Muslim woman admitted she had attended 25 interviews and not been chosen for any of them before she met the salon owner she ended up suing, the paper reported.
It’s not like the salon owner cut the Muslim woman’s head off. I guess her feelings will be a little less hurt with a $7,800 reward for professional victimhood.
I wonder if Westerners could persuade an Islamic court to award them money by claiming their feelings were hurt by Islamics’ expressions of hatred for Westerners, and their threats of annihilation.
I don’t envy Sheriff Bobby Grubbs for being in the situation he faced recently: a handful of jailers had allegedly broken state laws by allowing snuff and cell phones into the jail.
It’s easy to say, come on! Snuff? Cell phones? Slap their hands. Deal with it internally, privately — or as privately as you can with a thing like that, and that’s not very. I might have been tempted to follow that road.
Grubbs said he never considered that as an option because it involved alleged criminal offenses. It did not seem that he enjoyed a bit of it.
Referring to the jailer-Guardsman he’d given a letter of appreciation to just a few days earlier, Grubbs said the situation “killed my soul.”
I know the family of one of the jailers, and they’re good people. I don’t know that particular jailer personally — I don’t know any of them — but from what I know of him, he’s a good man.
I had a discussion with someone who wanted to calculate the political costs of either scenario — look the other way or take the action Grubbs did. Whether or not you agree with Grubbs’ action, he did what he thought was right, irrespective of the political costs.
He is getting some criticism on the Bulletin’s Web site for doing what he did. Had he done nothing or dealt with it internally, word would have gotten around and he’d be criticized for that, too.
Steve Nash writes his column for the Brownwood Bulletin on Thursdays. He may be reached by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.