Topic: WorldNetDaily
An anonymously written Jan. 13 WorldNetDaily article states:
Does an American gun range have the right to exclude Muslims who are members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations because of the group’s ties to terrorism?
That question could soon have a legal answer as a Muslim has filed a discrimination suit against the owners of a gun range in Oklahoma.
A federal court dismissed the discrimination complaint by Raja’ee Fatihah against Chad and Nicole Neal, owners of Save Yourself Survival and Tactical Gun Range in Oktaha, Oklahoma. But the judge set a trial to resolve conflicting accusations.
Fatihah claims the range owners banned him because of his religion.
But the Neals claim he was banned from the range on Oct. 23, 2015, because after telling Nicole Neal he was Muslim, Fatihah “took a threatening stance, revealing his handgun to her, and recklessly created a controversy and disturbance.” WND quietly added that only later did the Neals discover that "Fatihah was a board member of CAIR’s Oklahoma affiliate."
WND goes on to quote the gun range's attorneys from the right-wing American Freedom Law Center -- whose press release WND basically rewrites -- who laughably put the burden on the Muslim to prove he isn't a terrorist, despite the fact that Fatihah is an Army reservist and, presumably, has already been cleared of such suspicions: "Had Fatihah’s motives been pure, he would have reached out to the Neals to alert them and to schedule a time to have a civil conversation about Islam, if that were truly his goal, as he claims in this case. Rather, what Fatihah did here was reckless. And that recklessness alone is enough to ban him from the range.
WND bizarrely devotes the last half of its article to a list of "individuals linked to CAIR who have been charged with terror-related crimes." WND does provide evidence that any of these people have any direct link to Fatihah.
WND's and the AFLC's invoking Fatihah's relationship to CAIR is an after-the-fact attempt to justify the gun range's no-Muslims rule, which is blatantly illegal under longstanding federal non-discrimination laws like thte Civil Rights Act of 1964.AFLC never explains why the burden should be on the Muslim to prove he['s not a threat; after all, blacks do not have to prove they're not a threat to use a commercial establishment.
Further, it appears the gun range's stated policy is "no Muslims," not "no terrorists," which the AFLC is apparently failing to concede. AFLC provides no evidence that the gun range has similarly investigated the backgrounds of its white and Christian customers the way it investigated Fatihah, or that it has ever barred use of the range by a non-Mulsim customer due to terrorist links, however tenuous.
