Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How would YOU handle this? The airlines need some help here. And I'm not against TRYING to accommodate preferences.
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.
Is there such a thing as typical worldwide Muslims? You are lumping together cultures as disparate as Turkey, India, Saudi, Indonesia, etc.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.
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.
Is there such a thing as typical worldwide Muslims? You are lumping together cultures as disparate as Turkey, India, Saudi, Indonesia, etc.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.
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.
Key words here are Students and Faculty.
Not the dregs of society that are refugeeing their way across Europe.
I can now see where your life experiences have given you an blurred reality when it comes to Muslims. When you deal with the educated
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.
I don't have a problem with it as long as someone not wanting to sit next to a homosexual, transgender, or the like received the same level of 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.
I don't have a problem with it as long as someone not wanting to sit next to a homosexual, transgender, or the like received the same level of accommodation.
Why should they? There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not.
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.
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.
I don't have a problem with it as long as someone not wanting to sit next to a homosexual, transgender, or the like received the same level of accommodation.
Why should they? There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not.
Free exercise of religion but I guess that only applies to the fucking ragheads.
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.
I don't have a problem with it as long as someone not wanting to sit next to a homosexual, transgender, or the like received the same level of accommodation.
Why should they? There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not.
Free exercise of religion but I guess that only applies to the fucking ragheads.
You're deflecting. There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not sit next to a homosexual or transgender.
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.
I don't have a problem with it as long as someone not wanting to sit next to a homosexual, transgender, or the like received the same level of accommodation.
Why should they? There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not.
Free exercise of religion but I guess that only applies to the fucking ragheads.
You're deflecting. There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not sit next to a homosexual or transgender.
I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
The free exercise of my religious beliefs does whether you like it or not. If you're going to accommodate the ragheads, apply the same concept to all. Thanks for proving you're a hypocrite.
Is there such a thing as typical worldwide Muslims? You are lumping together cultures as disparate as Turkey, India, Saudi, Indonesia, etc.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.
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.
Key words here are Students and Faculty.
Not the dregs of society that are refugeeing their way across Europe.
I can now see where your life experiences have given you an blurred reality when it comes to Muslims. When you deal with the educated
Do you realize you keep moving goalposts here?
A couple of points to consider - some of our students ARE refugees.
Many of the refugees you are casually referring to as "dregs" are educated professionals. They Syrian civil war and the Iraqi war uprooted EVERYONE.
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.
Key words here are Students and Faculty.
Not the dregs of society that are refugeeing their way across Europe.
I can now see where your life experiences have given you an blurred reality when it comes to Muslims. When you deal with the educated
Do you realize you keep moving goalposts here?
A couple of points to consider - some of our students ARE refugees.
Many of the refugees you are casually referring to as "dregs" are educated professionals. They Syrian civil war and the Iraqi war uprooted EVERYONE.
I am not moving the goalposts. I have always wanted to stop or severely limit immigration From those areas.
I wouldn't allow any 3rd world person here unless they married a us citizen
There is a reason the 3rd world sucks. It's because their people behave like animals.
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.
Key words here are Students and Faculty.
Not the dregs of society that are refugeeing their way across Europe.
I can now see where your life experiences have given you an blurred reality when it comes to Muslims. When you deal with the educated
Do you realize you keep moving goalposts here?
A couple of points to consider - some of our students ARE refugees.
Many of the refugees you are casually referring to as "dregs" are educated professionals. They Syrian civil war and the Iraqi war uprooted EVERYONE.
I am not moving the goalposts. I have always wanted to stop or severely limit immigration From those areas.
I wouldn't allow any 3rd world person here unless they married a us citizen
There is a reason the 3rd world sucks. It's because their people behave like animals.
Ya but...plenty of 3rd world people immigrated here to become successful Americans. I suspect many of us here have such ancestry.
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.
Key words here are Students and Faculty.
Not the dregs of society that are refugeeing their way across Europe.
I can now see where your life experiences have given you an blurred reality when it comes to Muslims. When you deal with the educated
Do you realize you keep moving goalposts here?
A couple of points to consider - some of our students ARE refugees.
Many of the refugees you are casually referring to as "dregs" are educated professionals. They Syrian civil war and the Iraqi war uprooted EVERYONE.
I am not moving the goalposts. I have always wanted to stop or severely limit immigration From those areas.
I wouldn't allow any 3rd world person here unless they married a us citizen
There is a reason the 3rd world sucks. It's because their people behave like animals.
Ya but...plenty of 3rd world people immigrated here to become successful Americans. I suspect many of us here have such ancestry.
I don't have a problem with it as long as someone not wanting to sit next to a homosexual, transgender, or the like received the same level of accommodation.
Why should they? There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not.
Free exercise of religion but I guess that only applies to the fucking ragheads.
You're deflecting. There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not sit next to a homosexual or transgender.
I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
The free exercise of my religious beliefs does whether you like it or not. If you're going to accommodate the ragheads, apply the same concept to all. Thanks for proving you're a hypocrite.
There is no hypocrisy. Show me some doctrine that states a person can sit near a homosexual and I'd agree with you. As far as I can remember - in Christianity at least - it's always been "hate the sin, love the sinner".
Why should they? There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not.
Free exercise of religion but I guess that only applies to the fucking ragheads.
You're deflecting. There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not sit next to a homosexual or transgender.
I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
The free exercise of my religious beliefs does whether you like it or not. If you're going to accommodate the ragheads, apply the same concept to all. Thanks for proving you're a hypocrite.
There is no hypocrisy. Show me some doctrine that states a person can sit near a homosexual and I'd agree with you. As far as I can remember - in Christianity at least - it's always been "hate the sin, love the sinner".
I Corinthians 15:33 - Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”
Let me guess. You're one of those that isn't part of a religion but thinks he know more about it than those who are.
Why should they? There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not.
Free exercise of religion but I guess that only applies to the fucking ragheads.
You're deflecting. There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not sit next to a homosexual or transgender.
I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
The free exercise of my religious beliefs does whether you like it or not. If you're going to accommodate the ragheads, apply the same concept to all. Thanks for proving you're a hypocrite.
There is no hypocrisy. Show me some doctrine that states a person can sit near a homosexual and I'd agree with you. As far as I can remember - in Christianity at least - it's always been "hate the sin, love the sinner".
I Corinthians 15:33 - Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”
Let me guess. You're one of those that isn't part of a religion but thinks he know more about it than those who are.
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
COTO DE CAZA, Calif. -- A Southern California woman said she is the victim of discrimination, CBS Los Angeles reports. Mary Campos said her pre-booked ticket was given away by United Airlines. The reason? She’s a woman, and two men didn’t want to sit next to a female.
A million-mile flier, Campos, a mom who lives in Coto de Caza, said she thought she’d seen it all - until a gate agent handed her a new boarding pass just before she got on a flight to Houston last Monday.
She was shocked.
“I thought I lived in a culture where females were equal to men,” she said.
Campos is a senior consultant in the oil and gas industry. She said she had no choice but to take her new seat assignment.
That’s when she said she wrote a letter to the CEO of United Airlines.
The letter said, in part, “What if I were handicapped or transgender? What if your entire flight crew were female? Any belief that prevents individuals from interacting with females should not travel on commercial aircraft.”
She got a reply that said United would look into it. She said she didn’t hear from them again. “We can’t discriminate against half the population,” Campos said, “for a belief from another nation.”
CBS Los Angeles asked Campos if she intended on suing the airline, and she said that was not her intention. But she did want two things from United:
1) Apologize to every female that was on that plane, including their employees.
2) Change their policy.
The 2nd link shows that this issue has ALSO come with Orthodox Jewish men traveling on domestic flights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/u...-over-seat-assignments-and-religion.html?_r=0
Not cool..
How would YOU handle this? The airlines need some help here. And I'm not against TRYING to accommodate preferences.
'Free exercise of religion but I guess that only applies to the fucking ragheads.
You're deflecting. There is no religious doctrine stating that they can not sit next to a homosexual or transgender.
I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
The free exercise of my religious beliefs does whether you like it or not. If you're going to accommodate the ragheads, apply the same concept to all. Thanks for proving you're a hypocrite.
There is no hypocrisy. Show me some doctrine that states a person can sit near a homosexual and I'd agree with you. As far as I can remember - in Christianity at least - it's always been "hate the sin, love the sinner".
I Corinthians 15:33 - Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”
Let me guess. You're one of those that isn't part of a religion but thinks he know more about it than those who are.
Pretty vague and non-specific. Be hard to claim a religious accommodation on that. Not to mention the legality of asking people if they are gay.
How would YOU handle this? The airlines need some help here. And I'm not against TRYING to accommodate preferences.
I have seen airlines try to accommodate other differences- but entirely voluntarily.
Ultimately though- if a person has religious objections sitting next to someone for any reason(race, religion, gender) then they should reserve seats together and without seats that might include people who could offend their religious sensibilities. If that means paying for another seat- then that is what they should do.
THAT would never fly today in an extra seat..
