The Left's Support of Islam - Another Irony

In a recent commentary by The New Yorker's Margaret Talbot, she gleefully covered a recent case in which it was found that Abercrombie & Fitch discriminated against a Muslim applicant because she needed to wear a hijab at work.   To the employer, the hijab did not fit within their confines of their "look policy" - a wide-ranging policy that covered random things like disallowing facial hair, dictating the length of cuffs that were acceptable on skinny jeans, and determining which hair highlights were and were not OK for work.

Draconian?  Yeah, kind of.  But for a brand like Abercrombie, I get it.  I may not want to work there, but I do get it.

Unfortunately, our hijab-wearing applicant didn't get it, and immediately assumed religious discrimination.  The court case she opened was taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where she won 8-1.  Sweet victory!

And in celebrating this victory against the oppressive Abercrombie, Ms. Talbot wrote the following (emphasis mine):

In its marketing strategy if not its legal one, the company is trying to catch up. Last December, after protests from shareholders and many months of declining store sales, Jeffries stepped down as C.E.O. In April, the company let it be known that it would pursue “more inclusive and diverse” hiring practices and allow for a dress code that was “more individualistic.” It was clearly announcing these changes in hopes of reversing its sales slump. That might seem trivial. But if it’s no longer profitable to tout your cultural intolerance, that’s pretty cool.

Touting cultural intolerance, huh?  Like, I don't know, maybe like a religion that considers women such second class citizens that they have to be mandated to cover themselves with a hijab?  That kind of intolerance?  The one in which, in some places of the world, mandate that their women be covered head to toe?  And those that don't abide are murdered?  That kind of intolerance?

Sweet irony.