Women Giving up Seats on American Airliners for Religious Accomodation?

[Coyote]

Interesting story today about a woman who was bumped from her seat, because 2 Pakistani monks did not not want to be seated next to a woman. This is the type of "religious accommodation" that is dangerous when it conflicts with American values about equality. Not serious if handled quietly and VOLUNTARILY. Plenty of room on a airliner to make these adjustments. But to bump a Million Mile flyer because a couple of guys are no fun and don't want to adhere to OUR culture --- is a bit disturbing.

Before anyone jumps to conclusion about it being a Pakistani thing, READ THE 2nd link.. It's not..

Calif. woman: Airline changed my seat to honor Pakistani monks' religious beliefs

Not cool..

I voluntarily gave up my first class seats a couple times. One to an army lieutenant just coming back from Afghanistan still wearing his military uniform. Second to a pregnant women with a cast on her leg.

Which regards to the case of these 2 monks.......... I'm sorry I have to say no.

How about the Orthodox Jew?

I'd consider it, if asked nicely - no hide off my back. But I'd dig in if it was demanded of me.

That reminds me. The last time I heard about someone not wanting to sit next to women on a plane it was an orthodox Jewish man who wrapped himself in a plastic bag. The discussion about it was on USMB. Back then I had never heard of it. For the record - I have never heard of a story about a Muslim that didn't want to sit next to a woman on a plane. It's been frustrating reading post after post of people continuing to claim these guys were Muslims. Does anybody pay attention anymore? It's mind boggling! It feels like we've entered the twilight zone!

No matter what religion a person is if they don't want to sit next to a woman on a plane - that is fine - just ask and most folks will be happy to move. Not a problem.

I remember that story as well. Thing is - it's uncommon occurance. People make a big deal of it. The airline, in the OP, should have resolved in a better manner, not making her give up her seat unwillingly.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are making the same mistake as many other posters have by not actually reading the article.

The woman didn't identify them as "monks".

I read not only the article but similar accounts from other news agencies. The very title of the article QUOTES her as saying she was forced to move for men she described as Monks..

There has been absolutely no confirmation that they are Buddhist.
.

If you read the article, you'd know that she did not actually meet the men in question, and was informed that they were monks by the airline representative at the gate.

Who know that how? There is still nothing definitive about their identity.

Why am I reminded of the recent Mall shooter who the desperate press wanted to be Hispanic?

One last time-- then I can't deal with the belligerence of reading crap in because of your trigger biases.

SHE did not identify them as monks. The AIRLINE did. Airlines probably see a lot of monks and Imans. Might be better at it than most people including you. Imans wear head coverings. MONKS do not..

There will never be an interview unless this goes to court. I'm not gonna allow any bias other than the facts. Because, as a raised Jew, I know ugly stereotypes when I see one. And cannot allow totally off the wall sliming of people as MY tribe has been slimed.

And it is UGLY --- when it's on display... You COULD be right. But right now -- you are not. .Deal with it..

The misogyny inherent in these Pakistani men demanding that a woman vacate her seat is the true ugliness here.

OK -- now we're getting somewhere. Seems like the CULTURE of that region might encourage and PROTECT religious practice that is blatantly discrimination against women. I can go with that.

 

[charwin95]

Interesting story today about a woman who was bumped from her seat, because 2 Pakistani monks did not not want to be seated next to a woman. This is the type of "religious accommodation" that is dangerous when it conflicts with American values about equality. Not serious if handled quietly and VOLUNTARILY. Plenty of room on a airliner to make these adjustments. But to bump a Million Mile flyer because a couple of guys are no fun and don't want to adhere to OUR culture --- is a bit disturbing.

Before anyone jumps to conclusion about it being a Pakistani thing, READ THE 2nd link.. It's not..

Calif. woman: Airline changed my seat to honor Pakistani monks' religious beliefs

Not cool..

I voluntarily gave up my first class seats a couple times. One to an army lieutenant just coming back from Afghanistan still wearing his military uniform. Second to a pregnant women with a cast on her leg.

Which regards to the case of these 2 monks.......... I'm sorry I have to say no.

How about the Orthodox Jew?

I'd consider it, if asked nicely - no hide off my back. But I'd dig in if it was demanded of me.

I will only give up my seat....... to very specific need like physical disabilities or honor........ but never because of any religious beliefs. Even if they ask me nicely.

On the side. I have several Muslim employees and I made it clear during interviews that I do not tolerate any religious prayers. They cannot just suddenly stop working and go pray..............But they can pray during break or lunch time. So far it's working well.

 

[Coyote]

Interesting story today about a woman who was bumped from her seat, because 2 Pakistani monks did not not want to be seated next to a woman. This is the type of "religious accommodation" that is dangerous when it conflicts with American values about equality. Not serious if handled quietly and VOLUNTARILY. Plenty of room on a airliner to make these adjustments. But to bump a Million Mile flyer because a couple of guys are no fun and don't want to adhere to OUR culture --- is a bit disturbing.

Before anyone jumps to conclusion about it being a Pakistani thing, READ THE 2nd link.. It's not..

Calif. woman: Airline changed my seat to honor Pakistani monks' religious beliefs

Not cool..

I voluntarily gave up my first class seats a couple times. One to an army lieutenant just coming back from Afghanistan still wearing his military uniform. Second to a pregnant women with a cast on her leg.

Which regards to the case of these 2 monks.......... I'm sorry I have to say no.

How about the Orthodox Jew?

I'd consider it, if asked nicely - no hide off my back. But I'd dig in if it was demanded of me.

I will only give up my seat....... to very specific need like physical disabilities or honor........ but never because of any religious beliefs. Even if they ask me nicely.

On the side. I have several Muslim employees and I made it clear during interviews that I do not tolerate any religious prayers. They cannot just suddenly stop working and go pray..............But they can pray during break or lunch time. So far it's working well.

I think that's reasonable - the thing is to work out such things ahead of time. For instance - we have several 15 minute breaks and a lunch break. If a person needed to pray, they could work it in and if I were an employer I'd be willing to accommodate.

 

[Coyote]

In terms of giving up my seat - if it's a REQUEST, and it doesn't inconvenience me - why not? The reason doesn't matter.

 

[StLucieBengal]

I read not only the article but similar accounts from other news agencies. The very title of the article QUOTES her as saying she was forced to move for men she described as Monks..

There has been absolutely no confirmation that they are Buddhist.
.

If you read the article, you'd know that she did not actually meet the men in question, and was informed that they were monks by the airline representative at the gate.

Which means a $15/hr gate agent is who everyone is believing that in no way were these paki's Muslims?

It's reasonable to wonder if they are Muslims and really this whole story is a mess until someone puts a microphone In front of this gate agent.

Don't you think it's likely that the monks in question would have identified themselves to the agent, explained their beliefs in their request for different seating?

No. I have actually worked as a gate agent. They tell you they want to switch then when you tell them it's not possible they tell you it's a (insert reason) given that they are from Pakistan religious reasons were most likely used.

No one would normally call a Pakastani a monk nor would they normally wear identical orange garb. Monks are typically associated with shaved heads. I think folks are struggling hard to make it Islamic.

But does it MATTER whether or not it is? Would you react differently if it was a Muslim than a Buddhist or an Orthodox Jew?

Muslim's fly frequently, yet you rarely hear of an issue.

They are frequently causing problems. Every time we go see my inlaws Muslims are causing some sort of issue on the plane. Not all of them, but there hasn't been a flight where we at least have 1. No issue with the Jews on the same flights.

You are trying to compare Muslims from the west who have moved to a normal western life. Those people aren't the same as typical worldwide Muslims. You couldn't pick them out of a crowd.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Interesting story today about a woman who was bumped from her seat, because 2 Pakistani monks did not not want to be seated next to a woman. This is the type of "religious accommodation" that is dangerous when it conflicts with American values about equality. Not serious if handled quietly and VOLUNTARILY. Plenty of room on a airliner to make these adjustments. But to bump a Million Mile flyer because a couple of guys are no fun and don't want to adhere to OUR culture --- is a bit disturbing.

Before anyone jumps to conclusion about it being a Pakistani thing, READ THE 2nd link.. It's not..

Calif. woman: Airline changed my seat to honor Pakistani monks' religious beliefs

Not cool..

I voluntarily gave up my first class seats a couple times. One to an army lieutenant just coming back from Afghanistan still wearing his military uniform. Second to a pregnant women with a cast on her leg.

Which regards to the case of these 2 monks.......... I'm sorry I have to say no.

How about the Orthodox Jew?

I'd consider it, if asked nicely - no hide off my back. But I'd dig in if it was demanded of me.

I will only give up my seat....... to very specific need like physical disabilities or honor........ but never because of any religious beliefs. Even if they ask me nicely.

On the side. I have several Muslim employees and I made it clear during interviews that I do not tolerate any religious prayers. They cannot just suddenly stop working and go pray..............But they can pray during break or lunch time. So far it's working well.

I want to suggest something to you about not giving up your seat to anyone with religious beliefs that would prevent them from sitting next to a woman on a plane. If someone stated that their faith forbid them from sitting next to a woman the best possible example of love we can show them would be to give them our seat and move. Here is why. If we force them to sit next to us and they truly believe they are breaking one of their religious laws - we are doing that person a great deal of harm. While we may know that their holiness doesn't hinge on who they sit next to - they don't. In their mind, they are doing something they should not be doing and we are the one preventing them from doing what they believe is right.. We therein become a stumbling block to that person because it could be at a latter time they will realize this truth but if they are not ready and it is forced upon them it may be that at the latter time they won't be willing to consider it. The right thing to do is to give them your seat and remember them in your prayers that God will reveal to them what He means by holiness.

example:

Imagine someone has a fear of water and doesn't know how to swim. You drag them into the deep end of the water against their will - therein forcing them to sink or swim and the entire experience is sheer panic. Now imagine you say, that is alright. Have a seat in a lounge chair and watch me give a swimming lesson to this little child. You go out a little ways, shallow water and give a little swimming lesson to a child - splashing around having fun,you both come back up the steps and out of the pool and say nothing. Eventually they realize that if a child can do it, so can they. When they are ready? They will find an instructor they trust, dip their toe in the water and eventually they will swim. That's the better way. In other words, Charwin, have some compassion. It's only a seat for heaven's sake. You'll still get to your destination. Why make someone else's trip a nightmare for them?

 

[Coyote]

If you read the article, you'd know that she did not actually meet the men in question, and was informed that they were monks by the airline representative at the gate.

Which means a $15/hr gate agent is who everyone is believing that in no way were these paki's Muslims?

It's reasonable to wonder if they are Muslims and really this whole story is a mess until someone puts a microphone In front of this gate agent.

Don't you think it's likely that the monks in question would have identified themselves to the agent, explained their beliefs in their request for different seating?

No. I have actually worked as a gate agent. They tell you they want to switch then when you tell them it's not possible they tell you it's a (insert reason) given that they are from Pakistan religious reasons were most likely used.

No one would normally call a Pakastani a monk nor would they normally wear identical orange garb. Monks are typically associated with shaved heads. I think folks are struggling hard to make it Islamic.

But does it MATTER whether or not it is? Would you react differently if it was a Muslim than a Buddhist or an Orthodox Jew?

Muslim's fly frequently, yet you rarely hear of an issue.

They are frequently causing problems. Every time we go see my inlaws Muslims are causing some sort of issue on the plane. Not all of them, but there hasn't been a flight where we at least have 1. No issue with the Jews on the same flights.

You are trying to compare Muslims from the west who have moved to a normal western life. Those people aren't the same as typical worldwide Muslims. You couldn't pick them out of a crowd.

Is there such a thing as typical worldwide Muslims? You are lumping together cultures as disparate as Turkey, India, Saudi, Indonesia, etc.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Ok. Let me ask you a simple question - it's straightforward, so let's not bother with insulting each other.

Would it matter if the person was Muslim, Buddhist or Orthodox Jew?

Given: All three (though only Buddhist Monks) have religious restrictions in how they can relate to women.

Given: Muslims obviously fly as frequently as any other religious demographic, yet instances like this are really quite uncommon.

In my opinion - it doesn't. The issue should have been resolved at the point at which reservations were made, just like special diets are or any other special accommodations. Then it's up to the airline to make an accommodation (without inconveniencing other passengers) or not. Do you agree or disagree?

No, it would not matter.

The fact that person A has chosen an ideology of their own volition that discriminates against person B should not empower them to follow through on such discrimination simply because they have chosen it.

What's next -- demanding a person of color move because a KKK member wants them to?

People here, are so caught up in calling a person a bigot lest they dare reject bigotry that they lose sight of the forest for all the trees. An airline should be under no pressure to accommodate such bigotry. Special diets usually have a medical reason, as eating something with peanut oil can kill a person, and this is something they CANNOT control. It does not involve another person having to give up anything. Allowing those to act on something they CAN control in such a way as force another person to give up something is not in the least bit the same.

 

[pwjohn]

Interesting story today about a woman who was bumped from her seat, because 2 Pakistani monks did not not want to be seated next to a woman. This is the type of "religious accommodation" that is dangerous when it conflicts with American values about equality. Not serious if handled quietly and VOLUNTARILY. Plenty of room on a airliner to make these adjustments. But to bump a Million Mile flyer because a couple of guys are no fun and don't want to adhere to OUR culture --- is a bit disturbing.

Before anyone jumps to conclusion about it being a Pakistani thing, READ THE 2nd link.. It's not..

Calif. woman: Airline changed my seat to honor Pakistani monks' religious beliefs

Not cool..

I voluntarily gave up my first class seats a couple times. One to an army lieutenant just coming back from Afghanistan still wearing his military uniform. Second to a pregnant women with a cast on her leg.

Which regards to the case of these 2 monks.......... I'm sorry I have to say no.

How about the Orthodox Jew?

I'd consider it, if asked nicely - no hide off my back. But I'd dig in if it was demanded of me.

That reminds me. The last time I heard about someone not wanting to sit next to women on a plane it was an orthodox Jewish man who wrapped himself in a plastic bag. The discussion about it was on USMB. Back then I had never heard of it. For the record - I have never heard of a story about a Muslim that didn't want to sit next to a woman on a plane. It's been frustrating reading post after post of people continuing to claim these guys were Muslims. Does anybody pay attention anymore? It's mind boggling! It feels like we've entered the twilight zone!

No matter what religion a person is if they don't want to sit next to a woman on a plane - that is fine - just ask and most folks will be happy to move. Not a problem.

I remember that story as well. Thing is - it's uncommon occurance. People make a big deal of it. The airline, in the OP, should have resolved in a better manner, not making her give up her seat unwillingly.

Should have. But they chose not too. And for all the wrong reasons. And that's where the rubber meets the road.

 

[novasteve]

Say if the women identified as men?

 

[Coyote]

Ok. Let me ask you a simple question - it's straightforward, so let's not bother with insulting each other.

Would it matter if the person was Muslim, Buddhist or Orthodox Jew?

Given: All three (though only Buddhist Monks) have religious restrictions in how they can relate to women.

Given: Muslims obviously fly as frequently as any other religious demographic, yet instances like this are really quite uncommon.

In my opinion - it doesn't. The issue should have been resolved at the point at which reservations were made, just like special diets are or any other special accommodations. Then it's up to the airline to make an accommodation (without inconveniencing other passengers) or not. Do you agree or disagree?

No, it would not matter.

The fact that person A has chosen an ideology of their own volition that discriminates against person B should not empower them to follow through on such discrimination simply because they have chosen it.

What's next -- demanding a person of color move because a KKK member wants them to?

People here, are so caught up in calling a person a bigot lest they dare reject bigotry that they lose sight of the forest for all the trees. An airline should be under no pressure to accommodate such bigotry. Special diets usually have a medical reason, as eating something with peanut oil can kill a person, and this is something they CANNOT control. It does not involve another person having to give up anything. Allowing those to act on something they CAN control in such a way as force another person to give up something is not in the least bit the same.

Airlines make accommodations all the time though - as a matter of business, for example providing vegetarian, kosher or halal meals. My feeling is - if no one is inconvenienced or forced - it wouldn't bother me if they chose to accommodate religious preferences - choice being key for both the airline and the affected passengers. KKK is a bit different - no religion involved, no expectations of "reasonable accommodation".

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Ok. Let me ask you a simple question - it's straightforward, so let's not bother with insulting each other.

Would it matter if the person was Muslim, Buddhist or Orthodox Jew?

Given: All three (though only Buddhist Monks) have religious restrictions in how they can relate to women.

Given: Muslims obviously fly as frequently as any other religious demographic, yet instances like this are really quite uncommon.

In my opinion - it doesn't. The issue should have been resolved at the point at which reservations were made, just like special diets are or any other special accommodations. Then it's up to the airline to make an accommodation (without inconveniencing other passengers) or not. Do you agree or disagree?

No, it would not matter.

The fact that person A has chosen an ideology of their own volition that discriminates against person B should not empower them to follow through on such discrimination simply because they have chosen it.

What's next -- demanding a person of color move because a KKK member wants them to?

People here, are so caught up in calling a person a bigot lest they dare reject bigotry that they lose sight of the forest for all the trees. An airline should be under no pressure to accommodate such bigotry. Special diets usually have a medical reason, as eating something with peanut oil can kill a person, and this is something they CANNOT control. It does not involve another person having to give up anything. Allowing those to act on something they CAN control in such a way as force another person to give up something is not in the least bit the same.

Airlines make accommodations all the time though - as a matter of business, for example providing vegetarian, kosher or halal meals. My feeling is - if no one is inconvenienced or forced - it wouldn't bother me if they chose to accommodate religious preferences - choice being key for both the airline and the affected passengers. KKK is a bit different - no religion involved, no expectations of "reasonable accommodation".

"Religion" is simply a name we slap on to a particular form of ideology. It is a choice -- or at least SHOULD be -- and there is absolutely no difference between choosing a religion and choosing any other ideology. Sure, if no one is forced to do anything, then there are few reasons to deny simple requests IF they are simple and IF they do not requite those accommodating them to jump through a bunch of hoops. At some point, such requests become unreasonable.

People get so hung up on this word "religion" that they fail to see the unreasonableness of some of the demands. It should not give one person the power over another simply because we have given it a certain reverential cache.

 

[Coyote]

Ok. Let me ask you a simple question - it's straightforward, so let's not bother with insulting each other.

Would it matter if the person was Muslim, Buddhist or Orthodox Jew?

Given: All three (though only Buddhist Monks) have religious restrictions in how they can relate to women.

Given: Muslims obviously fly as frequently as any other religious demographic, yet instances like this are really quite uncommon.

In my opinion - it doesn't. The issue should have been resolved at the point at which reservations were made, just like special diets are or any other special accommodations. Then it's up to the airline to make an accommodation (without inconveniencing other passengers) or not. Do you agree or disagree?

No, it would not matter.

The fact that person A has chosen an ideology of their own volition that discriminates against person B should not empower them to follow through on such discrimination simply because they have chosen it.

What's next -- demanding a person of color move because a KKK member wants them to?

People here, are so caught up in calling a person a bigot lest they dare reject bigotry that they lose sight of the forest for all the trees. An airline should be under no pressure to accommodate such bigotry. Special diets usually have a medical reason, as eating something with peanut oil can kill a person, and this is something they CANNOT control. It does not involve another person having to give up anything. Allowing those to act on something they CAN control in such a way as force another person to give up something is not in the least bit the same.

Airlines make accommodations all the time though - as a matter of business, for example providing vegetarian, kosher or halal meals. My feeling is - if no one is inconvenienced or forced - it wouldn't bother me if they chose to accommodate religious preferences - choice being key for both the airline and the affected passengers. KKK is a bit different - no religion involved, no expectations of "reasonable accommodation".

"Religion" is simply a name we slap on to a particular form of ideology. It is a choice -- or at least SHOULD be -- and there is absolutely no difference between choosing a religion and choosing any other ideology. Sure, if no one is forced to do anything, then there are few reasons to deny simple requests IF they are simple and IF they do not requite those accommodating them to jump through a bunch of hoops. At some point, such requests become unreasonable.

Agree, that's why the legal term is "reasonable accommodation" - and many such requests are refused or lost in court battles because they are not reasonable.

People get so hung up on this word "religion" that they fail to see the unreasonableness of some of the demands. It should not give one person the power over another simply because we have given it a certain reverential cache.

It's really a bit more than that though. Freedom of religion is a foundational right in our country, and a protected one. I think it's a balancing act between what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. Generally, I'm ok with that.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

A transgenered man should sit next to them. Halfway through the flight say "I'm a woman, smell my pussy."

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Ok. Let me ask you a simple question - it's straightforward, so let's not bother with insulting each other.

Would it matter if the person was Muslim, Buddhist or Orthodox Jew?

Given: All three (though only Buddhist Monks) have religious restrictions in how they can relate to women.

Given: Muslims obviously fly as frequently as any other religious demographic, yet instances like this are really quite uncommon.

In my opinion - it doesn't. The issue should have been resolved at the point at which reservations were made, just like special diets are or any other special accommodations. Then it's up to the airline to make an accommodation (without inconveniencing other passengers) or not. Do you agree or disagree?

No, it would not matter.

The fact that person A has chosen an ideology of their own volition that discriminates against person B should not empower them to follow through on such discrimination simply because they have chosen it.

What's next -- demanding a person of color move because a KKK member wants them to?

People here, are so caught up in calling a person a bigot lest they dare reject bigotry that they lose sight of the forest for all the trees. An airline should be under no pressure to accommodate such bigotry. Special diets usually have a medical reason, as eating something with peanut oil can kill a person, and this is something they CANNOT control. It does not involve another person having to give up anything. Allowing those to act on something they CAN control in such a way as force another person to give up something is not in the least bit the same.

Airlines make accommodations all the time though - as a matter of business, for example providing vegetarian, kosher or halal meals. My feeling is - if no one is inconvenienced or forced - it wouldn't bother me if they chose to accommodate religious preferences - choice being key for both the airline and the affected passengers. KKK is a bit different - no religion involved, no expectations of "reasonable accommodation".

"Religion" is simply a name we slap on to a particular form of ideology. It is a choice -- or at least SHOULD be -- and there is absolutely no difference between choosing a religion and choosing any other ideology. Sure, if no one is forced to do anything, then there are few reasons to deny simple requests IF they are simple and IF they do not requite those accommodating them to jump through a bunch of hoops. At some point, such requests become unreasonable.

Agree, that's why the legal term is "reasonable accommodation" - and many such requests are refused or lost in court battles because they are not reasonable.

People get so hung up on this word "religion" that they fail to see the unreasonableness of some of the demands. It should not give one person the power over another simply because we have given it a certain reverential cache.

It's really a bit more than that though. Freedom of religion is a foundational right in our country, and a protected one. I think it's a balancing act between what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. Generally, I'm ok with that.

Well, certainly freedom of religion is a right, but there is nothing inherent in that right that provides people the right to use theirs in such a way as to demand others comply. Freedom of belief is one thing. Freedom to ACT upon belief is quite another matter. A person has the right to believe in Baal if they wish, but they do not have the right to human sacrifice. Similarly, these men have the right to choose to believe women are dirty, but they should not have the right to force a women to change seats simply because they made such a choice.

 

[StLucieBengal]

Which means a $15/hr gate agent is who everyone is believing that in no way were these paki's Muslims?

It's reasonable to wonder if they are Muslims and really this whole story is a mess until someone puts a microphone In front of this gate agent.

Don't you think it's likely that the monks in question would have identified themselves to the agent, explained their beliefs in their request for different seating?

No. I have actually worked as a gate agent. They tell you they want to switch then when you tell them it's not possible they tell you it's a (insert reason) given that they are from Pakistan religious reasons were most likely used.

No one would normally call a Pakastani a monk nor would they normally wear identical orange garb. Monks are typically associated with shaved heads. I think folks are struggling hard to make it Islamic.

But does it MATTER whether or not it is? Would you react differently if it was a Muslim than a Buddhist or an Orthodox Jew?

Muslim's fly frequently, yet you rarely hear of an issue.

They are frequently causing problems. Every time we go see my inlaws Muslims are causing some sort of issue on the plane. Not all of them, but there hasn't been a flight where we at least have 1. No issue with the Jews on the same flights.

You are trying to compare Muslims from the west who have moved to a normal western life. Those people aren't the same as typical worldwide Muslims. You couldn't pick them out of a crowd.

Is there such a thing as typical worldwide Muslims? You are lumping together cultures as disparate as Turkey, India, Saudi, Indonesia, etc.

Yes i am. They are all still loud, rude and impatient. They all still demand a separate society

I have 2 clients one is a christian and one if muslim. Both born in Egypt and both living here now. My staff knows that when the muslim comes in that no woman can speak with him or it will turn into a mess of him shouting. And God forbid anyone addresses his wife.

The Christian comes in and while his wife doesn't speak much she is allowed to speak. My wife is able to run the meeting with them with no issues. There are no barriers.


Edit:

Westernized muslims are not your typical worldwide muslim. We need the westernized ones to straighten out backwards ones.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

How would YOU handle this? The airlines need some help here. And I'm not against TRYING to accommodate preferences.

Told the monks and Rabbi's to either suck it up or walk and swim to their destination... It is one thing to switch the seats if the woman had agreed on it but if not then those men need to realize their religious freedom end at my nose and do not have the right to force me to change my seating because they object to me...

( I am not female even if I bitch daily )

 

[Coyote]

Don't you think it's likely that the monks in question would have identified themselves to the agent, explained their beliefs in their request for different seating?

No. I have actually worked as a gate agent. They tell you they want to switch then when you tell them it's not possible they tell you it's a (insert reason) given that they are from Pakistan religious reasons were most likely used.

No one would normally call a Pakastani a monk nor would they normally wear identical orange garb. Monks are typically associated with shaved heads. I think folks are struggling hard to make it Islamic.

But does it MATTER whether or not it is? Would you react differently if it was a Muslim than a Buddhist or an Orthodox Jew?

Muslim's fly frequently, yet you rarely hear of an issue.

They are frequently causing problems. Every time we go see my inlaws Muslims are causing some sort of issue on the plane. Not all of them, but there hasn't been a flight where we at least have 1. No issue with the Jews on the same flights.

You are trying to compare Muslims from the west who have moved to a normal western life. Those people aren't the same as typical worldwide Muslims. You couldn't pick them out of a crowd.

Is there such a thing as typical worldwide Muslims? You are lumping together cultures as disparate as Turkey, India, Saudi, Indonesia, etc.

Yes i am. They are all still loud, rude and impatient. They all still demand a separate society

I have 2 clients one is a christian and one if muslim. Both born in Egypt and both living here now. My staff knows that when the muslim comes in that no woman can speak with him or it will turn into a mess of him shouting. And God forbid anyone addresses his wife.

The Christian comes in and while his wife doesn't speak much she is allowed to speak. My wife is able to run the meeting with them with no issues. There are no barriers.


Edit:

Westernized muslims are not your typical worldwide muslim. We need the westernized ones to straighten out backwards ones.

I'm a woman, and I work with a number of international undergraduate and graduate students, including foreign born Muslims both men and women. We also have visiting faculty and research fellows. I've never run into any real problems working with them. My one big peeve is the Saudi students tend to be a lot more pushy, but that's cultural. We clearly have different experiences.

 

[Coyote]

Ok. Let me ask you a simple question - it's straightforward, so let's not bother with insulting each other.

Would it matter if the person was Muslim, Buddhist or Orthodox Jew?

Given: All three (though only Buddhist Monks) have religious restrictions in how they can relate to women.

Given: Muslims obviously fly as frequently as any other religious demographic, yet instances like this are really quite uncommon.

In my opinion - it doesn't. The issue should have been resolved at the point at which reservations were made, just like special diets are or any other special accommodations. Then it's up to the airline to make an accommodation (without inconveniencing other passengers) or not. Do you agree or disagree?

No, it would not matter.

The fact that person A has chosen an ideology of their own volition that discriminates against person B should not empower them to follow through on such discrimination simply because they have chosen it.

What's next -- demanding a person of color move because a KKK member wants them to?

People here, are so caught up in calling a person a bigot lest they dare reject bigotry that they lose sight of the forest for all the trees. An airline should be under no pressure to accommodate such bigotry. Special diets usually have a medical reason, as eating something with peanut oil can kill a person, and this is something they CANNOT control. It does not involve another person having to give up anything. Allowing those to act on something they CAN control in such a way as force another person to give up something is not in the least bit the same.

Airlines make accommodations all the time though - as a matter of business, for example providing vegetarian, kosher or halal meals. My feeling is - if no one is inconvenienced or forced - it wouldn't bother me if they chose to accommodate religious preferences - choice being key for both the airline and the affected passengers. KKK is a bit different - no religion involved, no expectations of "reasonable accommodation".

"Religion" is simply a name we slap on to a particular form of ideology. It is a choice -- or at least SHOULD be -- and there is absolutely no difference between choosing a religion and choosing any other ideology. Sure, if no one is forced to do anything, then there are few reasons to deny simple requests IF they are simple and IF they do not requite those accommodating them to jump through a bunch of hoops. At some point, such requests become unreasonable.

Agree, that's why the legal term is "reasonable accommodation" - and many such requests are refused or lost in court battles because they are not reasonable.

People get so hung up on this word "religion" that they fail to see the unreasonableness of some of the demands. It should not give one person the power over another simply because we have given it a certain reverential cache.

It's really a bit more than that though. Freedom of religion is a foundational right in our country, and a protected one. I think it's a balancing act between what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. Generally, I'm ok with that.

Well, certainly freedom of religion is a right, but there is nothing inherent in that right that provides people the right to use theirs in such a way as to demand others comply. Freedom of belief is one thing. Freedom to ACT upon belief is quite another matter. A person has the right to believe in Baal if they wish, but they do not have the right to human sacrifice. Similarly, these men have the right to choose to believe women are dirty, but they should not have the right to force a women to change seats simply because they made such a choice.

Agreed. No one should have the right to force another to give up their paid for seat. I would not consider that a reasonable religious accommodation. The airline should not have handled it in that way imo and further more, the passengers involved should have made their preferences known at the time of booking so the airline could decide whether or not to accommodate with the least amount of disruption and no one being forced into changing seats. If it isn't possible to voluntarily accommodate them - then they are out of luck.