May God bless her!
She’s correct and should be able to refuse service to anyone she chooses.
I wish her luck and hope she beats this bogus charge. This is the kind of thing that gets politicians off their butts to write laws that protect the people and not just the terrorists.
Of course that’s assuming they are working for the people and not their own selfish interests.
Why would a Muslim woman who wears a sack over her head worry about how her hair looked?
The fact that this became a court case makes me think it was a deliberate provocation from the start.
does the judge have a name?
if yes, what is it?
One day, if we’re not blown off the planet, she’ll have a statue erected in her honor.
They must put there money where their mouth is:
In the case of the baker targeted by gay-marriage activist that would be prominently posting on every wedding cake, the box the cake is delivered in and the vehicle delivering it "A Percentage of Every Sale Donated to {a group opposing gay marriage}" (and actually making those donations).
In the case of the hairdresser signs outside their store and throughout their store the same posting of their donations to a group opposing the invasion of Sharia values and people.
Ditto for all other business owners who would fight for their liberty and values against the cultural Nazis (Gay, Muslim or whatever) targeting them.
There would be virtually no likelihood that those activists could stomach patronizing a business openly supporting those opposing their activist agenda.
Tell the judge you are convinced it is the new KKK outfit, as worn by the grand kleagle’s wife
She’s doomed. She told the truth.
On trial. Prison. The muzzards have already won. They just have to pop out their babies and wait a few years. Then the crosses will disappear from the flags of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, and Great Britain.
How do you fix someone’s hair that is covered up to begin with?
Remove the sheet.
She’s screwed. Norway is run by twits
She should demand a citation in the Koran requiring women to be more covered, than just an invocation to “dress modestly”.
Since there is no such requirement in their religion, what the woman did is not religious, but a cultural affirmation of secular control and domination. As such, it is not modest, but oppressive.