The involvement of Hamas-linked CAIR makes this suspicious on its face, as does the fact that the woman was told she could not use the range unless she removed her hijab not because of “Islamophobia,” but because of a headgear rule that is enforced for everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim. This is a highly dubious lawsuit, but despite their lack of substance, such suits are often successful — and lucrative for CAIR’s lawyers and their clients — if they come up before a judge who is susceptible to their rhetoric of hatred, discrimination and “racism.”
“Lawsuit: Missouri shooting range made Muslim woman remove hijab,” Associated Press, December 29, 2021:
A firearms store and gun range in suburban Kansas City refused to let a Muslim woman use the range unless she removed her hijab, a Muslim civil rights organization alleged in a federal lawsuit.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the law firm of Baldwin & Vernon in Independence alleges that the gun range at Frontier Justice in Lee’s Summit enforces its dress code in a discriminatory way that disproportionately affects Muslim women….
Rania Barakat and her husband went to Frontier Justice on Jan. 1 to shoot at the gun range. According to the lawsuit, Barakat was told she would not be allowed to use the range unless she removed her hijab, a religious head covering typically worn by Muslim women.
The gun range requires shooters to remove all head coverings except baseball caps facing forward. A store manager explained that shrapnel could cause the hijab and skin to burn….
The lawsuit contends that it is Frontier Justice’s policy to turn away Muslims wearing hijabs, citing several social media posts from other Muslims about being refused use of the shooting range. It also claims that Instagram posts from Frontier Justice show customers wearing baseball caps turned backward, and hats and scarves.
“It is completely unacceptable for a business establishment to deny service to customers based on their religious beliefs — and that is exactly what Frontier Justice has done,” Moussa Elbayoumy, chairman of the board of CAIR-Kansas, said in a statement. “The claim that a hijab somehow presents a safety issue is merely a bad excuse in an attempt to justify a pattern of discriminatory treatment of Muslim women.”
CAIR had asked the U.S. Department of Justice in July to investigate civil rights practices at Frontier Justice.
At the time, Bren Brown, Frontier Justice’s president, said Barakat was not discriminated against and was asked to follow a dress code that is applied to all patrons equally, The Kansas City Star reported.
The lawsuit asks the federal court to find that Frontier Justice’s policies regarding the wearing of hijabs violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act and prohibit the gun range and its employees from acting in ways that discriminate against anyone based on their religion.
Frank Anderson says
Following this suit could be interesting. If Kansas has adopted the Litigation Accountability Act, it may be the plaintiffs and their lawyers who pay the defendants and their lawyers.
gravenimage says
Hope so, Frank.
GreekEmpress says
I have been following this case carefully from the beginning. The owners of the gun range even provide alternative female Muslim garb so that the women can change so they can utilize the range. It’s all stated in the customer reviews.
And you can bet they’ll be asking for a hefty settlement. This isn’t about dialogue, or coming to an understanding. It’s all about the $
gravenimage says
Thanks for that background information, GreekEmpress. Sounds as though the shooting range is more than accomodating.
Turns out CAIR is now involved. Hope this lawsuit is thrown out.
Kenneth J Johnson says
Now, in Missouri,, >Muslems can dctate safety codes. What else??? KEN
Kenneth J Johnson says
The Litigaion and Accountability Act. What an interesting law. It should be aplplied widely in many of these spurious law suits by Muslem,s. Hit ’em where it hurtsl, their pocketbooks. KEN
Charlie in NY says
The article describes the hijab as “a religious head covering typically worn by Muslim women”. But haven’t we been told that wearing the hijab is not a religious requirement but an option, allowing for some measure of free expression or that’s it’s really just a non-religious custom practiced in some countries?
Because US law doesn’t not define what constitutes a religion nor do courts examine the validity or any other aspect of dogma (which is a good thing, as no one would want judges deciding such matters), the case is likely to be decided on the slippery ground of the sincerity of her belief that wearing the hijab is a religious obligation.
On the other hand, given the safety and neutral explanation, the court might well uphold the regulation regardless of its impact on religious observance unless there is some less intrusive way to accomplish the safety goal.
somehistory says
the school teacher in Canada claimed that the scarf is not religious, so she could wear it for the “empowerment” it gave her, although knowing it was against the law to do so.
mozlums are all about breaking laws….they pick and choose and use the ones, such as the act of ’64, to get what they want in order to break other laws. and lying is so common, they will lie and say it has nothing to do with islam, and then, it’s their religious ‘right’ to wear it…whichever way the wind is blowing. They lie about everything. Never trust a moslum to tell the truth.
Hopefully the court will see this for what it is and rule against her and the c.a.i.rats.
Shannon says
??So true!
gravenimage says
Muslims shift back and forth on whether wearing the Hijab is religious or not–whichever suits their agenda.
Bikinis not Burkas says
Actually it was originally worn to signify that the wearer was a Muslim and if anyone raped her they would be hunted down and killed!
gravenimage says
It indicates which women are fair game for Muslims to rape–anyone who is not immured in “cover”.
somehistory says
Whine, sue and lie. mozlums seek out places that have ***rules*** which they seek to violate and when not allowed to whine and demand their way into the violation, they sue because if they win, they get what they were whining for, they get some money for their whine and they make other businesses that have rules that mozlums break, to allow the whining to work.
If this gun range allowed mozlums to wear their ugly scarves and maybe even the full burka with eye coverings, how many mozlum women would frequent the range? If the suit goes through, and if the slime win, it should be ruled that they must pay the fees and must go x number of times a month to practice.
My guess is they want to sue to force the issue, get money and make other businesses afraid to say no, but they don’t really want to do much real practice….unless they are planning a mass murdering, sniper attack to further the fear of mozlums.
Perhaps it can be shown that the ‘instagram’ photos have been altered.
gravenimage says
Likely so.
Keith O says
An easy fix for these whingeing arseholes would be to have some Catholic nuns turn up with wearing their habits and tell them they have to remove them to se the range.
This proves total lack of bias.
somehistory says
My mother often wore a scarf when she did field work to keep some of the dirt from her hair. And in the ’60’s girls …lot of them White….wore scarves over their heads when using curlers, and while riding in convertibles. Regular users of the range could pass the word and have some country types arrive with scarves tied around their heads. Have the cameras running while they get told they have to take them off.
mozlums cheat. We don’t need to because there are “smart” ways, as you suggest, to get around them.
gravenimage says
Exactly. My mother and her friends often wore scarves on windy days during the ’60s. I doubt they’d have been allowed to shoot at this range dressed like that, either.
Keith O says
Mate, Just occurred to me, here in Australia “workplace health and safety laws” override basically any other laws, people want to go home at the end of the days work.
It also applies to places like,,,, ranges!
If something similar is in place in the US, then it would shit can the Mudslima’s “hurt feelings”.
gravenimage says
Kansas City: Firearms store won’t let Muslima use gun range with hijab, Hamas-linked CAIR sues
……………
Good grief–as noted, you can’t wear anything but a front-facing baseball cap. This is just about safety, not “Islamophobia”.
PRCS says
Oh, how I wish the gun shop/range owner had posted a sign at the business’ entrance:
Hijab offends my “unbelieving” customers
Remove yours or stay out
Qur’an 33:59
gravenimage says
PRCS, if they did that they’d likely be charged with “Islamophobia”. Instead, they just have safety rules that apply to everyone. Besides, the store owners may not know about Islam one way or the other–or care.
PRCS says
Yes, they are discriminating against Muslims, in a manner that unfortunately puts so many U.S. businesses, agencies, and individuals in CAIR’s sights. Islamophobia lawsuits generally follow.
Per the AP article:
(1) “The lawsuit contends that it is Frontier Justice’s policy to turn away Muslims wearing hijabs, citing several social media posts from other Muslims about being refused use of the shooting range. It also claims that Instagram posts from Frontier Justice show customers wearing baseball caps turned backward, and hats and scarves.”
(2) CAIR had asked the U.S. Department of Justice in July to investigate civil rights practices at Frontier Justice.
Frontier Justice managers have been shot in their collective feet–by Muslims.
Long past time for “filthy unbelievers” to learn how the game is played.
It is not Islamophobic to state that the hijab’s primary purpose (Qur’an 33:59) offends “unbelievers”.
gravenimage says
Here is Frontier Justice’s Instagram page:
https://www.instagram.com/frontier_justice/?hl=en
I can’t find any picures there of anyone *using the range* wearing baseball caps backward or other hats or scarves.
I agree that all Infidels should understand Islam–but that is not the main point here re this store.
It does not surprise me to hear that CAIR has already targeted this shop, though.
Frontier Justice has strict rules–and most of these are about safety. Here is the dress code:
https://frontier-justice.com/rules-and-regulations/
And this is quite explicit:
5. Undergarments worn as outer garments are not permitted, including muscle shirts. Hats, caps, bandanas or any other head covering will be removed in the facility, except baseball caps facing forward.
Nothing discriminatory here.
PRCS says
That you can’t find said Instagram photos doesn’t mean they weren’t there that a customer might have taken them–and when.
The claim, re: that store, is inconsistent, discriminatory enforcement of their dress code
We’ll see.
PRCS says
or that a customer
PRCS says
Of note: the incident occurred on 1-1-2020, two years ago.
Not sure why CAIR is just now this on.
gravenimage says
PRCS, the suit doesn’t cite others being allowed to violate Frontier Justice’s dress code–it just claims that the dress code itself is unfair, despite its applying to everyone. If they had proof that FJ was specifically singling out Muslims, I think they would cite it–that they don’t is very telling.
Bikinis not Burkas says
How about “Obey Allah and the Quran 33:33 stay home”
gravenimage says
You aren’t wrong. But Muslimahs are allowed out and about if it works to further the cause of Islam–as in this case.
Major Tom says
Another Unindicted Co-Conspirator whining and complaining………….
Mr John L Smith says
No Muslims should be allowed to use ranges – they could just be practising for their next Jihad attack. The Koran (Peaceful Holy book????) tells them that they are free in the matter of lies when speaking with unbelievers.
Violet C says
I agree!
notnolib says
CAIR is a terror organization. Its supporters, its members, and its officers are terrorists.
Does the range have a policy about eating the barrel of your own firearm? Perhaps they can modify the rules for muslims and muslimas.
Diver Dan says
Just another frivolous lawsuit due to muslims believing that laws, policies, and standards don’t apply to them. I can’t count the number of similar lawsuits I have read about. The real problem, as mentioned in the article, are judges that rule in favor of muslims despite clearly stated rules. I am reminded of a muslima that thought her skirt on her issued work uniform was too short, so she lengthened it below her knee. When she climbed a ladder at work, the lack of mobility caused by her own modification to the uniform caused her to fall. She sued and won, despite her supervisor telling her numerous times to changed her skirt back to its original length for safety reasons. I don’t know what possible reason a judge could rule in her favor. I do hope that this case results in the plaintiff paying all costs for bringing forth this meritless case. Just follow the rules that apply to everyone else.
OLD GUY says
Once they are here in America islamics will continually chip away at our laws and social norms. I guess NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO SERVICE is illegal now too. Or how about HARD HATS REQUIRED at construction sites. Or CHILDREN MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ADULT.
hrb says
This is America. If our laws and rules offend you then go back where you belong. God bless America!
Infidel says
I actually supported a Florida gun range 5 years ago when they declared that they were an islam-free zone and banned muslims outright: this was following the San Bernardino shooting. Of course, Little Marco had to object
In this case, I’d investigate that muslimah for jihad terror links as a part of her background check before allowing her into that range
Brian Hunter says
How does that leftist narrative go again? Something like “If you don’t like the rules at this gun range, start your own gun range”?