Advance America has a security policy and post it on an obvious sign on the front door: Please remove sunglasses and hats before entering. I have some friends who insist I remove shoes before entering (to keep their floor clean I suppose). There are stores who post signs that say ‘no shoes, no shorts, no service’ which I have not quite understood other than it’s a possible hygienic policy.
So why can’t Advance America set their own policy and enforce it? The ‘remove sunglasses and hats’ policy at a check cashing place is an obvious one. The Muslim woman either didn’t understand the policy or wants to go sue crazy (the biggest trend in the Muslim community- find ways to sue Western culture, then contact CAIR).
When Raghdaa Ali passed through the door to Advance America to make a transaction wearing a hijab, the worker inside pointed out the sign and told her she would have to leave until she complied. The policy is obvious because they have large amounts of cash. Immediately Ms. Ali contacted CAIR.
Hamas funded organization called Council on American-Islamic Relations which is just code ‘we sue anything that is Western’. Ms. Ali says that it is her “religious beliefs, this is my country and I have the same right as they have.” I’m just curious why her rights are bigger than a private business rights to do business? Another curiosity, did Ms. Ali contact CAIR before ever trying to enter the check cashing business?
Advance America made a statement about their clerk’s right to enforce store security policy intended to keep customers safe. Their statement reads:
“For the safety of our customers and employees, Advance America requires the temporary removal of hoods, hats, sunglasses and other head coverings in order to be admitted into our centers. The safety and security of our customers and employees are our primary responsibilities and our policy ensures that those entering our centers are easily identifiable. The company respects all religious beliefs and serves all customers with dignity and respect. While Advance America understands the concerns expressed by the plaintiff we regret that she may have misinterpreted the intent of our policy, and we intend to vigorously defend the legitimate security purpose of our practice in court.”