View Full Version : Woman forced to move seats on a flight.
Johnnyuk123
25-10-2016, 02:39 PM
KDZez2WMtG4
Northern Monkey
25-10-2016, 02:46 PM
Sounds like the airline were more concerned about the money they got from these two muslims than the passengers who had already booked their seats.
They should have told the muslims that the only seat available was next to a woman so take it or leave it.Or feck off and fly Arab Airways.
UserSince2005
25-10-2016, 03:07 PM
She had a lucky escape if you ask me.
Amy Jade
25-10-2016, 03:13 PM
This is disgusting. If she had refused to sit by them she would have been told to deal with it.
If they want to make demands don't fly commercial.
kirklancaster
25-10-2016, 03:22 PM
Should have found the two arrogant bastards very exclusive seats - on the fecking wings.
'Creeping Islamification of our Western Democracies? 'Subjugation' of our citizens? 'Usurpation' of our culture? No sireeee. Bet your BillyBob bottom dollar that's just Islamophobia and good 'ole racist talk.
The fecking world's gone mad.
Cherie
25-10-2016, 03:28 PM
Incredible
Kizzy
25-10-2016, 04:07 PM
Were the monks Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist?.... WHO CARES!! *waves pitchfork*
...'because Muslims wouldn't sit next to her'...some reporting media seems very slanted again...they were only described so far as I can see as two Pakistani monks wearing orange robing...I don't think that the Muslim religion has monks so possibly Buddhist Pakistani monks...
Crimson Dynamo
25-10-2016, 04:11 PM
Were the monks Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist?.... WHO CARES!! *waves pitchfork*
They were sexist
Kizzy
25-10-2016, 04:16 PM
They were sexist
Well as we know that's not a crime.. yet :hee:
Cherie
25-10-2016, 05:05 PM
so we can excuse this on religious grounds? But not the Christian baker :hehe:
...I'm not excusing, there just isn't enough information to make any further comment because there seems some inaccuracy in reporting with the use of Muslim...it's not known whether the airline accepted the passenger's restrictions..the restrictions I believe may have also been that they couldn't be served by female staff....so did the airlines know and accept all of this beforehand.../which would be different to the cake scenario...
Kizzy
25-10-2016, 05:37 PM
so we can excuse this on religious grounds? But not the Christian baker :hehe:
Who's excusing anything? Everyone thinks the airline was wrong :conf:
Cherie
25-10-2016, 06:26 PM
Were the monks Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist?.... WHO CARES!! *waves pitchfork*
Who's excusing anything? Everyone thinks the airline was wrong :conf:
...I'm not excusing, there just isn't enough information to make any further comment because there seems some inaccuracy in reporting with the use of Muslim...it's not known whether the airline accepted the passenger's restrictions..the restrictions I believe may have also been that they couldn't be served by female staff....so did the airlines know and accept all of this beforehand.../which would be different to the cake scenario...
Isn't it discrimation based on religious beliefs whether the airline accepted it or not?
Crimson Dynamo
25-10-2016, 06:36 PM
we should end respect for religious belief
just as we do for belief in the Moomins
Kizzy
25-10-2016, 06:43 PM
Isn't it discrimation based on religious beliefs whether the airline accepted it or not?
It may well be, however unless that discriminating view is applied to a real life scenario as it was here it's hard to hold them accountable.
Jason.
25-10-2016, 06:50 PM
Sounds like the airline were more concerned about the money they got from these two muslims than the passengers who had already booked their seats.
They should have told the muslims that the only seat available was next to a woman so take it or leave it.Or feck off and fly Arab Airways.
:unsure:
Isn't it discrimation based on religious beliefs whether the airline accepted it or not?
...I wouldn't say it was discriminating against for religious beliefs, it was more favouring in that the woman was moved from her seat to accommodate those religious beliefs...the 'ism' I would say was sexism because she wouldn't have been asked to move or been moved had she been a male I presume...as I said though and this is the Independent article...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mary-campos-united-airines-pakistani-monks-california-houston-cultural-religious-beliefs-a7340796.html
...all we have/all the story has atm is this lady's words in an interview so there really isn't (for me..)...anything else to comment on atm...
...well so far as I can see, the airline have basically said that they will look into it/are looking into it so no they're denying it but looking into it, which would be what would be expected of them..and then maybe there would be more to comment on because it appears to be sexism to me..someone asked to move a seat that they occupied, whether pre-booked or not just because they were female and no other reason...but it is only as I say for me 'half a story' so far...whether it has any bearing/the airline story to the decision they made or their staff made on that one flight..?...an accusation has been made against them so it's only fair that their response is heard..I'm at least very interested in more information...with the cake case as was mentioned earlier, the thing with that is it had all been decided in a court and all stories again were given so no doubt at all that a discrimination took place...
Cherie
26-10-2016, 10:58 AM
Woman Told to Switch Seats Due to Religious Beliefs of Pakistani Monks
A woman was told to switch seats due to the religious beliefs of two monks from Pakistan, who did not want to sit next to her aboard an airplane — which was operated by United Airlines, on which the woman had earned million miler status — being used for a flight from Santa Ana to Houston on Monday, September 26, 2016.
Furthermore, any members of the flight crew who were female were not allowed to serve the two men who were wearing long orange shirts.
Woman Told to Switch Seats Due to Religious Beliefs of Pakistani Monks
Mary Campos was shocked when a gate agent suddenly handed her a new boarding pass prior to boarding the airplane for the flight, stating that “this is your new seat” because “the two gentlemen seated next to you have cultural beliefs that prevent them for sitting next to, or talking to or communicating with females”, according to this article from KCBS-TV CBS2 News in Los Angeles.
The senior consultant in the oil and gas industry thought that she “lived in a culture where women were equal to men” — yet had no choice but to take her new seat assignment.
Part of a letter in which Campos wrote to Oscar Munoz — who is the current chief executive officer of United Airlines — reportedly included questions such as “What if I were handicapped, or transgender? What if your entire crew were female? Any belief that prevents individuals from interacting with females should not travel on commercial aircraft.”
The only reply which Campos received was one in which United Airlines would look into the matter — otherwise, she received no further communications from the airline.
She got a reply that said United Airlines would look into it. She said she didn’t hear from them again; but if United Airlines did not comply with the following two requests, she would “do whatever she had to do to protect women’s rights”:
Apologize to every female who was on that airplane — including members of the flight crew
Change its policy
Should Airlines Consider Religious Beliefs in How Seats Are Assigned?
El Al Israel Airlines Limited was charged with discrimination and sexism because a grandmother — who was 81 years of age at the time — was asked to change to a “better seat” when an ultra-Orthodox Jewish man did not want to sit next to her aboard an airplane operating as El Al Flight 028 from Newark to Tel Aviv back in December of 2015.
The “better seat” turned out to be at the end of a row of three seats in which two of the seats were occupied by other women; and Renee Rabinowitz — who was married to two rabbis in her lifetime — felt further insulted because the member of the flight crew who asked her to move had allegedly attempted to mislead her.
This issue of seating based on religious beliefs and gender is unfortunately not new and has indeed been problematic, as a number of flights from New York to Israel within the past two years have been delayed when ultra-Orthodox Jewish men have refused to sit next to women, according to this article written by Michael Paulson of The New York Times, who wrote that “some ultra-Orthodox travelers have tried to avoid mixed-sex seating for years. But now the ultra-Orthodox Jewish population is growing rapidly because of high birthrates. Ultra-Orthodox men and their families now make up a larger share of airline travelers to Israel and other locations, giving them more economic clout with airlines, and they are making their views more widely known in response to what they see as the sexualization of society.”
One example is when several ultra-Orthodox Jewish men reportedly refused to sit in their assigned seats because those seats were located next to seats in which women sat aboard an airplane operated by Delta Air Lines as flight 468 on Saturday, December 20, 2014 from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York to Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv — with the commotion resulting in a delay of the departure of the flight by approximately 30 minutes.
It is important to note that there are different denominations, beliefs and movements of Orthodox Judaism; and that not all ultra-Orthodox Jewish men believe similarly in what can be considered an extreme measure pertaining to seat assignments aboard airplanes. In response to this article which I first wrote on this topic back on Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Daniel Eleff of Dans Deals posted this comment that “I’ve never had an issue with my seatmate and these stories horrify me. Unless you’re obese there’s no reason you should have to touch the person sitting next to you. And if you are obese-you should be buying 2 tickets or sitting in the pointy nose section of the plane.”
Summary
So what happens when an airplane is full of passengers who have strong religious beliefs, need emotional support animals, are allergic to peanuts and other types of food as well as animals, have a fear of flying, wrestle over who gets the armrest and who gets to open and close the window shade, argue over what gets to be stored in the overhead storage bin, and want to recline their seats in order to be slightly more comfortable?
People who plan on being passengers aboard a commercial airplane should expect to have to compromise and respect fellow passengers and not have an obnoxious attitude of DYKWIA — or Do You Know Who I Am — but unfortunately, compromise, respect and civility is not guaranteed to be reciprocal; and therein lies the problem.
Swapping seats is already a contentious issue on a number of different levels — which includes sitting in the middle seat between two travel companions who could be chatty; and a practice known as seat squatting…
…but invoking religious beliefs on fellow passengers — especially when they are not even of the same religion — is unacceptable and exacerbates the problems of being a passenger aboard an airplane, in my opinion. Religious passengers do not have the authority or the right to attempt to require other people to conform to what they believe — no matter how strongly or devoutly are their beliefs.
As to whether or not airlines consider religious beliefs in how seats are assigned, I am wondering if airlines should not include a specific question pertaining to special seating — that is, if a comment section for custom requests is not already included — during the booking process to prevent situations similar to the aforementioned ones from occurring.
I believe that it is more important to keep an open mind and be respectful and considerate to other people around you — whether it is you or someone else engaging in their religious beliefs. Tolerance is one of the important keys towards a pleasant flight.
..that's basically the same information that I could find as well...thanks for posting Cherie...that the response she's had so far is that the airline are looking into it all...perfect though.... She got a reply that said United Airlines would look into it. She said she didn’t hear from them again; but if United Airlines did not comply with the following two requests, she would “do whatever she had to do to protect women’s rights”...hopefully she's have a good case of discrimination against her gender to take up and I wish her the best of luck with that...:love:...
jaxie
26-10-2016, 11:23 AM
...'because Muslims wouldn't sit next to her'...some reporting media seems very slanted again...they were only described so far as I can see as two Pakistani monks wearing orange robing...I don't think that the Muslim religion has monks so possibly Buddhist Pakistani monks...
I'm not sure it matters really who they were but that it happened at all. Its outrageous to think that a woman in 2016 has to move to pander to someones else's prejudice and whim. I hope she does sue. I'm afraid I'd have gone and plonked myself next to them with a big, warm smile and dared the airline to move me.
We don't move the woman, we tell the bigots, regardless of the religious label to put up and shut up or walk.
I'm even a little shocked there are people in this thread not outraged by this and looking to quibble over what religion it was. Imagine if someone said they wouldn't sit next to someone because they were black. There would be outrage.
Vicky.
26-10-2016, 11:30 AM
The Muslim part doesn't matter at all, however this seems ridiculous. if someone refuses to sit by someone else on a plane, tough ****. They pay for an upgrade if its available or they change flights. At the very least this lady should have been offered a first class seat which would have sweetened the blow, but shouldn't have been MADE to move (though most would when offered 1st class :laugh: )
Northern Monkey
26-10-2016, 11:30 AM
I'm not sure it matters really who they were but that it happened at all. Its outrageous to think that a woman in 2016 has to move to pander to someones else's prejudice and whim. I hope she does sue. I'm afraid I'd have gone and plonked myself next to them with a big, warm smile and dared the airline to move me.
We don't move the woman, we tell the bigots, regardless of the religious label to put up and shut up or walk.
I'm even a little shocked there are people in this thread not outraged by this and looking to quibble over what religion it was. Imagine if someone said they wouldn't sit next to someone because they were black. There would be outrage.
Exactly:clap1:
jaxie
26-10-2016, 11:39 AM
Were the monks Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist?.... WHO CARES!! *waves pitchfork*
They were sexist bigots, we should all care about discrimination against women.
About a month ago I had to sit next to a fat woman (and I mean fat, huge actually) on a coach, but I didn't complain, I just got on with it.
The length of the M62 on half a seat.
Cherie
26-10-2016, 12:58 PM
About a month ago I had to sit next to a fat woman (and I mean fat, huge actually) on a coach, but I didn't complain, I just got on with it.
The length of the M62 on half a seat.
:joker: sorry I know this isn't a laughing matter
Kizzy
26-10-2016, 02:35 PM
They were sexist bigots, we should all care about discrimination against women.
And we do, nobody is defending their right to discriminate are they?
Northern Monkey
26-10-2016, 03:13 PM
Oh you mean they weren't muslims?
Oh that's ok then.They can be as sexist as they like.
Carry on
Vanessa
26-10-2016, 05:22 PM
i don't mind changing seats, but not near the window, i hate it :nono:
...I don't know if it's accurate but I read on one media site that Mary Campos doesn't intend to sue the airline...she's insisting that they apologise to every female passenger on the plane, including any female staff...
...I think the main fault with this is with the airline/staff who made the decision to ask her to move, not the monks...not that I don't think their request was unreasonable because I think it was...but they could only ask is all they could do and they should have been told no, I'm sorry but these are the seats available on the flight/if they don't suit your needs then another flight maybe and you'll have to look at the alternatives...if for instance the monk's practice was to never speak../a vow of silence, they're obviously very entitled to that practise and it should be respected...but then it wouldn't be reasonable of them to place themselves in a position were spoken words were needed from them../where a requirement would be to answer a question or something...the airline should never have agreed to accommodate something that was going to discriminate against something else and I think all fault is with them when all they had to do was say no, we can't guarantee no female contact sorry...
Cherie
27-10-2016, 08:12 AM
Yeah I agree Ammi and this is why I felt it was similar to the cake situation but maybe even worse because in this case they accepted both customers money and then proceeded to prioritise the monks needs over the woman (I understand she chose the seat?) and the female staff, that said maybe the airline were not aware of the monks requests until check in and on a full flight they were unable to reseat them alone, and obviously it's easier to swap one person around than 2, still doesn't make it right though, the monks should have been told if they travel on public transport in a westernised country they will be sat next to females and served by them religious beliefs or not, then it's up to them to make alternate arrangement, equality forms part of our culture and they have to accept that or stay put, this would have been a difficult call for the check in staff on a busy day though and to avoid hassle they just went with it, according to the article I posted its not an unusual request so maybe western airlines need a clear policy for their staff to follow
Yeah I agree Ammi and this is why I felt it was similar to the cake situation but maybe even worse because in this case they accepted both customers money and then proceeded to prioritise the monks needs over the woman (I understand she chose the seat?) and the female staff, that said maybe the airline were not aware of the monks requests until check in and on a full flight they were unable to reseat them alone, and obviously it's easier to swap one person around than 2, still doesn't make it right though, the monks should have been told if they travel on public transport in a westernised country they will be sat next to females and served by them religious beliefs or not, then it's up to them to make alternate arrangement, equality forms part of our culture and they have to accept that or stay put, this would have been a difficult call for the check in staff on a busy day though and to avoid hassle they just went with it, according to the article I posted its not an unusual request so maybe western airlines need a clear policy for their staff to follow
...I'm failing to see the cake analogy...(I'm not saying there isn't one...)...just that I can't see it and that could be entirely me...mainly because one case tried to accommodate and to not discriminate..but in doing that, they failed to see another discrimination.../so tried to do right but completely failed in doing wrong if you like...whereas the cake situation was just saying no, we wont accommodate at all and clear discrimination, not trying to do right in any way...(it makes sense in my head ..:laugh:..)...also I think just too many 'presumptions' reported with it for me because I don't think we know how full the flight was/..there were certainly some seats available as she was moved to another or asked if she would move so not a full flight anyway...the obvious would have been...(assuming they were rows of 3 seats or even 4 as some have..)...yes, we can do that but you have to purchase 3(4) seats on the flight to assure your needs are met...
it raises an interesting point. If that form of demand is accommodated, do they also ask fat people to move to a different seat, perhaps someone with a cold, a family with a crying baby, a passenger that is vomiting, someone who drinks alcohol.
The airline were completely wrong
Cherie
27-10-2016, 08:44 AM
...I'm failing to see the cake analogy...(I'm not saying there isn't one...)...just that I can't see it and that could be entirely me...mainly because one case tried to accommodate and to not discriminate..but in doing that, they failed to see another discrimination.../so tried to do right but completely failed in doing wrong if you like...whereas the cake situation was just saying no, we wont accommodate at all and clear discrimination, not trying to do right in any way...(it makes sense in my head ..:laugh:..)...also I think just too many 'presumptions' reported with it for me because I don't think we know how full the flight was/..there were certainly some seats available as she was moved to another or asked if she would move so not a full flight anyway...the obvious would have been...(assuming they were rows of 3 seats or even 4 as some have..)...yes, we can do that but you have to purchase 3(4) seats on the flight to assure your needs are met...
In both cases the discrimation was caused by religious beliefs, with regard to buying the seats even then they would still have to accept being served by female staff
it raises an interesting point. If that form of demand is accommodated, do they also ask fat people to move to a different seat, perhaps someone with a cold, a family with a crying baby, a passenger that is vomiting, someone who drinks alcohol.
The airline were completely wrong
..indeed they were...but I think (and not meaning to be controversial at all..)...that Kizzy has also made some points in the thread that are very valid also in that it does matter how the media portray as in 'muslim'... and I'm saying that having read quite a few global articles now....all saying basically the same because there isn't really anything to say other than the words of the lady...but it's more the many comments that have been made from some readers and really quite something in their racism and 'hate'../I mean awful but sadly commonplace as well because to some and far too many...?...'Muslim' has come to be representative of fear and hate for them with the rise of ISIS and terrorist acts ....we're all sensible people, we can distinguish and separate but some can't and don't so there is an importance of accurate reporting..(I feel anyway..)....if wording like Muslim and 'forced' are used in media titles, which neither are true it would seem...then it's just going to be provocative in negativity....
Cherie
27-10-2016, 09:00 AM
..indeed they were...but I think (and not meaning to be controversial at all..)...that Kizzy has also made some points in the thread that are very valid also in that it does matter how the media portray as in 'muslim'... and I'm saying that having read quite a few global articles now....all saying basically the same because there isn't really anything to say other than the words of the lady...but it's more the many comments that have been made from some readers and really quite something in their racism and 'hate'../I mean awful but sadly commonplace as well because to some and far too many...?...'Muslim' has come to be representative of fear and hate for them with the rise of ISIS and terrorist acts ....we're all sensible people, we can distinguish and separate but some can't and don't so there is an importance of accurate reporting..(I feel anyway..)....if wording like Muslim and 'forced' are used in media titles, which neither are true it would seem...then it's just going to be provocative in negativity....
Don't you think that is part of the problem though, businesses are so frightened of appearing racist and hurting their brand they are rolling over to ridiculous requests that would not be tolerated from other groups of people?
In both cases the discrimation was caused by religious beliefs, with regard to buying the seats even then they would still have to accept being served by female staff
...(I'm getting confused Cherie in trying to understand the analogy, I had to think a bit...:laugh:..)...all I can say really..(my thought processes..)...is yes, I can understand that religious beliefs/faiths etc are involved with both cases...but with the airline (what appears to me from the information we have..)...it appears that it did try to accommodate but with doing that, that's exactly where the discrimination occurred but in another direction.../more just not thought out as it should have been and maybe as you say/busy day etc for the staff who made the decision...so a blunder which did cause discrimination on gender to happen...that still doesn't mean the airline aren't fully accountable though because they are...whereas with the cake, it wasn't a blunder of any kind but a very deliberate discrimination/refusal on sexuality...also it left with no option as to the cake being purchased there because it was no, you just won't get it here...whereas with the seat, there was always the option of still having the flight with that airline but not moving seats so not allowing the discrimination to take place at all...still though, the airline would have had fully accountability for making the request ...
...I guess for me there just isn't a 'one size fits all' with these things and I can only look individually at them with my thoughts or when I try to see analogies of similarity...but yes, they both involved religious faiths/beliefs/practises etc is what I can see ....
..indeed they were...but I think (and not meaning to be controversial at all..)...that Kizzy has also made some points in the thread that are very valid also in that it does matter how the media portray as in 'muslim'... and I'm saying that having read quite a few global articles now....all saying basically the same because there isn't really anything to say other than the words of the lady...but it's more the many comments that have been made from some readers and really quite something in their racism and 'hate'../I mean awful but sadly commonplace as well because to some and far too many...?...'Muslim' has come to be representative of fear and hate for them with the rise of ISIS and terrorist acts ....we're all sensible people, we can distinguish and separate but some can't and don't so there is an importance of accurate reporting..(I feel anyway..)....if wording like Muslim and 'forced' are used in media titles, which neither are true it would seem...then it's just going to be provocative in negativity....
there is bias in all reporting though, and there is always an agenda behind it. Just sometimes we are more accepting of the agenda.
I think its up to us as individuals to treat reporting with the respect/contempt it deserves based on its content.
While i'm not happy with hatred of any type, I do believe the world has become much to politically correct toward certain sensitive subjects, and that forces agendas to be pursued using methods like this. We can't change the way people are, they do have thoughts if they don't agree with something and artificial suppression makes the problem worse, I think.
there is bias in all reporting though, and there is always an agenda behind it. Just sometimes we are more accepting of the agenda.
I think its up to us as individuals to treat reporting with the respect/contempt it deserves based on its content.
While i'm not happy with hatred of any type, I do believe the world has become much to politically correct toward certain sensitive subjects, and that forces agendas to be pursued using methods like this. We can't change the way people are, they do have thoughts if they don't agree with something and artificial suppression makes the problem worse, I think.
....hate in the content of how it was being expressed on some of these media reporting sites should always be supressed and not be allowed its voice at all ...it should be charged and it should be accountable and any media which is provocative/supportive of hate in it's reporting should also be accountable...I love how PC is brought into bear in feeling how wrong something is and feeling its importance and danger in that wrong/..I'll take my PC ass off the forum now because I have lots to do today...:laugh:..(btw, this wasn't slanting in reporting, the media headlines were incorrect to the facts as they appear to be and were left to be incorrect..)...
Northern Monkey
27-10-2016, 09:49 AM
Well i did say it was the airlines fault back on page 1:hee:
....hate in the content of how it was being expressed on some of these media reporting sites should always be supressed and not be allowed its voice at all ...it should be charged and it should be accountable and any media which is provocative/supportive of hate in it's reporting should also be accountable...I love how PC is brought into bear in feeling how wrong something is and feeling its importance and danger in that wrong/..I'll take my PC ass off the forum now because I have lots to do today...:laugh:..
i think you are not hearing what I'm saying. Its PC culture that ultimately contributes to hate items, because people are suppressed from voicing opinions in a natural flow. Where hateful feelings are allowed to fester and then the floodgates are unleashed in a destructive way.
Feel free to be as PC as you like, and i will continue to mutter away in my corner :laugh:
i think you are not hearing what I'm saying. Its PC culture that ultimately contributes to hate items, because people are suppressed from voicing opinions in a natural flow. Where hateful feelings are allowed to fester and then the floodgates are unleashed in a destructive way.
Feel free to be as PC as you like, and i will continue to mutter away in my corner :laugh:
....I do hear you completely and I'm all in agreement of the free flowing of opinions and communication being the way etc...I just don't agree with the whole 'PC culture' thing as it's portrayed...there would always be something..today it's PC culture, tomorrow it'll be whatever, in ages gone by before human rights laws, it was something else and a history of evidence of the existence of hate in the world...when people were allowed to voice their hate more freely and were less accountable, they still felt equally and they still hated equally and they still prejudiced equally as humans have at any time in history...we just now may feel a bigger voice in telling that hate how unacceptable it is....(I think we might have taken it off topic..:laugh:...and I really do have stuff to do so have a good day..:love:..)...
user104658
27-10-2016, 10:48 AM
I am 100% certain that this video was posted to highlight women's rights and had absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that it was supposedly Muslims. :hehe:.
I am 100% certain that this video was posted to highlight women's rights and had absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that it was supposedly Muslims. :hehe:.
...Niamh's USA flight..?...and leaving us a thread while she's away...
Kizzy
27-10-2016, 11:41 AM
i think you are not hearing what I'm saying. Its PC culture that ultimately contributes to hate items, because people are suppressed from voicing opinions in a natural flow. Where hateful feelings are allowed to fester and then the floodgates are unleashed in a destructive way.
Feel free to be as PC as you like, and i will continue to mutter away in my corner :laugh:
It's really not, it's those who resist change railing against that change.
PC should just be renamed P, for progressive... Anything I have ever heard as a counter to anything 'PC' has been negative and regressive.
Nobody here is suppressed, there are plenty of media and organisations which cater for the non PC, the floodgates are constantly ajar.
Crimson Dynamo
27-10-2016, 12:35 PM
you can repsect people's views however bat**** they are but religion should be given no favour, "oh you are a monk are you so what? Oh you are a vicar that is great I drive a bus, oh you are a full veil wearing muslim big deal I have on cords"
etc
user104658
27-10-2016, 12:38 PM
"I drive a bus. I have on cords"
What nonsense LT... no one has worn cords since before the invention of the wheel. Get your story straight.
Crimson Dynamo
27-10-2016, 12:47 PM
What nonsense LT... no one has worn cords since before the invention of the wheel. Get your story straight.
:nono:
I have a nice pair of country green cord trousers in my clothing rotation
:nono:
I have a nice pair of country green cord trousers in my clothing rotation
so have I :smug:
Northern Monkey
27-10-2016, 02:29 PM
It's really not, it's those who resist change railing against that change.
PC should just be renamed P, for progressive... Anything I have ever heard as a counter to anything 'PC' has been negative and regressive.
Nobody here is suppressed, there are plenty of media and organisations which cater for the non PC, the floodgates are constantly ajar.
There's a point where political correctness becomes regressive also and does more harm than good.
Kizzy
27-10-2016, 04:45 PM
There's a point where political correctness becomes regressive also and does more harm than good.
Could you define 'political correctness' for me, and highlight at what point it becomes regressive?
user104658
27-10-2016, 04:58 PM
IMO the limitations of "political correctness" begin when being (supposedly) politically correct begins to cause others to suffer. I don't mean "because they're not free to say or do whatever they want boo hoo" etc. but yes, this would be a good example, it's not OK to discriminate against women because doing so is part of a faith, and therefore it's "PC" to respect that faith. Equality wins out over adhering to / respecting a belief system, always.
I also do not believe in positive discrimination, of any kind, in the slightest... which is another limitation.
Northern Monkey
27-10-2016, 05:45 PM
Could you define 'political correctness' for me, and highlight at what point it becomes regressive?
Quite simple really
political correctness
noun
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
Notice the word 'perceived'.This means that what is 'PC' is up for interpretation from anyone.
It becomes regressive when it is used as a tool to try and shut down debate or conversation which could improve a situation and is used very often by the regressive left.
Political correctness can very quickly turn into shouts of racism or any other 'ism/phobic' you can think of.Many people especially in the political arena will avoid issues like the plague for fear of being labelled.An example would be the immigration issue being swept under the carpet for years.This was regressive as it stoked up alot of people feeling ignored and some turning to the BNP and far right.Remember Nick Griffin getting his spot on Question Time?That would not have happened without political correctness squashing any sensible conversation.
kirklancaster
27-10-2016, 06:17 PM
Quite simple really
political correctness
noun
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
Notice the word 'perceived'.This means that what is 'PC' is up for interpretation from anyone.
It becomes regressive when it is used as a tool to try and shut down debate or conversation which could improve a situation and is used very often by the regressive left.
Political correctness can very quickly turn into shouts of racism or any other 'ism/phobic' you can think of.Many people especially in the political arena will avoid issues like the plague for fear of being labelled.An example would be the immigration issue being swept under the carpet for years.This was regressive as it stoked up alot of people feeling ignored and some turning to the BNP and far right.Remember Nick Griffin getting his spot on Question Time?That would not have happened without political correctness squashing any sensible conversation.
:clap1::clap1::clap1:
Kizzy
27-10-2016, 09:32 PM
Quite simple really
political correctness
noun
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
Notice the word 'perceived'.This means that what is 'PC' is up for interpretation from anyone.
It becomes regressive when it is used as a tool to try and shut down debate or conversation which could improve a situation and is used very often by the regressive left.
Political correctness can very quickly turn into shouts of racism or any other 'ism/phobic' you can think of.Many people especially in the political arena will avoid issues like the plague for fear of being labelled.An example would be the immigration issue being swept under the carpet for years.This was regressive as it stoked up alot of people feeling ignored and some turning to the BNP and far right.Remember Nick Griffin getting his spot on Question Time?That would not have happened without political correctness squashing any sensible conversation.
So basically what you're saying is that there is no definition, which is a bit of a cop out tbh.
The term politically correct for me is a benchmark as to what is socially and politically accepted in civil society .
One that you think would speak for those who have right leaning views, if it weren't for the fact that they are 99% of the time trotting the term out as a negative if someone dares to shine a light on the bigoted 'ist' things they say regularly.
To blame the 'Left' and accuse anyone who disagrees with swathes of the media and at times the govt marginalising those they deem undesirable as being 'regressive' is pathetic.
Northern Monkey
27-10-2016, 10:39 PM
So basically what you're saying is that there is no definition, which is a bit of a cop out tbh.
The term politically correct for me is a benchmark as to what is socially and politically accepted in civil society .
One that you think would speak for those who have right leaning views, if it weren't for the fact that they are 99% of the time trotting the term out as a negative if someone dares to shine a light on the bigoted 'ist' things they say regularly.
To blame the 'Left' and accuse anyone who disagrees with swathes of the media and at times the govt marginalising those they deem undesirable as being 'regressive' is pathetic.
The regressive left is'nt a term used to describe everyone left of centre.It's a subsection of the left who will defend any other culture other than their own no matter how right or wrong they think they are.They will dismiss the bigotry of certain cultures as 'just part of that culture' and won't stand up to it.They will defend terrorists if they believe in the cause(Hamas for example).Just look at the Stop The War coalition(Corbyns favourite club).They only want to 'stop the war' if the west are involved.The kind of people who say things like 'our friends from Hamas'.These people will regularly use political correctness as their weapon of choice.
It does not describe every left leaning person as regressive.
Withano
27-10-2016, 10:44 PM
feck off and fly Arab Airways.
It becomes regressive when it is used as a tool to try and shut down debate or conversation which could improve a situation and is used very often by the regressive left.
Political correctness can very quickly turn into shouts of racism or any other 'ism/phobic' you can think of.
Cool posts, what other things are regressive?
Northern Monkey
27-10-2016, 10:53 PM
Cool posts, what other things are regressive?
Well i'm sure there are other airlines that will cater for all these peoples gender segregation needs without those pesky women getting all uptight about it eh?
Withano
27-10-2016, 10:58 PM
Well i'm sure there are other airlines that will cater for all these peoples gender segregation needs without those pesky women getting all uptight about it eh?
I love missing the irony of sticking up for women by telling other groups of people to feck off
Thats because youre progressive, right? Certainly no isms or phobics here, thats just PC gone mad.
Kizzy
27-10-2016, 11:16 PM
The regressive left is'nt a term used to describe everyone left of centre.It's a subsection of the left who will defend any other culture other than their own no matter how right or wrong they think they are.They will dismiss the bigotry of certain cultures as 'just part of that culture' and won't stand up to it.They will defend terrorists if they believe in the cause(Hamas for example).Just look at the Stop The War coalition(Corbyns favourite club).They only want to 'stop the war' if the west are involved.The kind of people who say things like 'our friends from Hamas'.These people will regularly use political correctness as their weapon of choice.
It does not describe every left leaning person as regressive.
Oh so it's only regressive Corbyn supporters now, and Corbyn himself?
:joker: I'm sorry this is just laughable now.
Kizzy
27-10-2016, 11:21 PM
Well i'm sure there are other airlines that will cater for all these peoples gender segregation needs without those pesky women getting all uptight about it eh?
How about the ones you suggested? Arab airlines. Theresas pals the Saudis? They're really friendly and they are sooo all about womens rights and such.
jaxie
28-10-2016, 06:05 AM
I love missing the irony of sticking up for women by telling other groups of people to feck off
Thats because youre progressive, right? Certainly no isms or phobics here, thats just PC gone mad.
There is no irony when the'other group's' point of view is discriminatory. Why would anyone excuse such discrimination because it's a claimed religious view? Religion doesn't excuse people from abiding by laws and common decency.
How can you claim isms and phobia's over this issue? Are you saying that a woman should be treated as if she is less than a man so long as that man is from a different race or religion to her? This somehow makes it OK does it?
Your argument does not have the moral high ground here.
jaxie
28-10-2016, 06:12 AM
How about the ones you suggested? Arab airlines. Theresas pals the Saudis? They're really friendly and they are sooo all about womens rights and such.
She wasn't travelling on those airlines. She was travelling with a company that isn't based in a country with 3000 year old discriminatory rules, and should expect to be treated as an equal to anyone else. She is not less, her presence is not unclean, she has rights.
When you are a woman in Saudi you can't drive a car because it's against the law there and you have to respect the law of that country. When you are on a domestic US flight you shouldn't be discriminated against because of some whacko's view that half the world, including those who have given birth to said whacko's, are somehow unclean.
Be careful what you choose to champion, you wouldn't want to live like that and by championing those kinds of views you advocate them.
kirklancaster
28-10-2016, 06:22 AM
The regressive left is'nt a term used to describe everyone left of centre.It's a subsection of the left who will defend any other culture other than their own no matter how right or wrong they think they are.They will dismiss the bigotry of certain cultures as 'just part of that culture' and won't stand up to it.They will defend terrorists if they believe in the cause(Hamas for example).Just look at the Stop The War coalition(Corbyns favourite club).They only want to 'stop the war' if the west are involved.The kind of people who say things like 'our friends from Hamas'.These people will regularly use political correctness as their weapon of choice.
It does not describe every left leaning person as regressive.
:clap1::clap1::clap1:
Withano
28-10-2016, 06:53 AM
There is no irony when the'other group's' point of view is discriminatory. Why would anyone excuse such discrimination because it's a claimed religious view? Religion doesn't excuse people from abiding by laws and common decency.
How can you claim isms and phobia's over this issue? Are you saying that a woman should be treated as if she is less than a man so long as that man is from a different race or religion to her? This somehow makes it OK does it?
Your argument does not have the moral high ground here.
No, how did you even get that from what ive said lol. The poster that I quoted just cant cry for common decency when their posts lack the exact same thing in this thread.
The video could also be titled 'angry woman would rather force novice buddhist out of their religion than switch seats' but it wasnt, the title went on about muslims so of course its a big deal. Monks who reach sunyata can sit next to women, monks who spend their whole life practicing for a religion but have not yet reached sunyata would rather not because of the respect that they have for women.
But of course because of the title the uploader gave the video, this is a big deal and its all muslims fault, this woman is hard done by and theres no point researching it a tiny bit further. Give over.
jaxie
28-10-2016, 07:59 AM
No, how did you even get that from what ive said lol. The poster that I quoted just cant cry for common decency when their posts lack the exact same thing in this thread.
The video could also be titled 'angry woman would rather force novice buddhist out of their religion than switch seats' but it wasnt, the title went on about muslims so of course its a big deal. Monks who reach sunyata can sit next to women, monks who spend their whole life practicing for a religion but have not yet reached sunyata would rather not because of the respect that they have for women.
But of course because of the title the uploader gave the video, this is a big deal and its all muslims fault, this woman is hard done by and theres no point researching it a tiny bit further. Give over.
Your POV is completely influenced by perceived opinions of other users and racism perceived by you rather than looking at the actual facts. :shrug:
I couldn't give a flying what respect their faith is meant to have for women. It is not respectful to expect her to move because she is a woman. It doesn't matter what the headline said, it doesn't matter if they are Muslims, Hindu, Buddhist, or the we love pink elephants cult. The issue is that they didn't want to sit next to a woman who wasn't even asked if she would mind moving or upgrading her seat. She was just shunted away to another seat like a dirty secret. That is, and should be, unacceptable. There is nothing to research.
Northern Monkey
28-10-2016, 08:33 AM
How about the ones you suggested? Arab airlines. Theresas pals the Saudis? They're really friendly and they are sooo all about womens rights and such.
No arguments from me.
Kizzy
28-10-2016, 08:55 AM
She wasn't travelling on those airlines. She was travelling with a company that isn't based in a country with 3000 year old discriminatory rules, and should expect to be treated as an equal to anyone else. She is not less, her presence is not unclean, she has rights.
When you are a woman in Saudi you can't drive a car because it's against the law there and you have to respect the law of that country. When you are on a domestic US flight you shouldn't be discriminated against because of some whacko's view that half the world, including those who have given birth to said whacko's, are somehow unclean.
Be careful what you choose to champion, you wouldn't want to live like that and by championing those kinds of views you advocate them.
It wasn't a serious suggestion Jaxie.... It was to highlight the hypocrisy of holding one person up for scrutiny.
I don't need a Saudi culture lesson from you thanks :laugh:
Kizzy
28-10-2016, 08:59 AM
There is no irony when the'other group's' point of view is discriminatory. Why would anyone excuse such discrimination because it's a claimed religious view? Religion doesn't excuse people from abiding by laws and common decency.
How can you claim isms and phobia's over this issue? Are you saying that a woman should be treated as if she is less than a man so long as that man is from a different race or religion to her? This somehow makes it OK does it?
Your argument does not have the moral high ground here.
Being 'non PC' does, and that's ok :shrug:
jaxie
28-10-2016, 10:40 AM
It wasn't a serious suggestion Jaxie.... It was to highlight the hypocrisy of holding one person up for scrutiny.
I don't need a Saudi culture lesson from you thanks :laugh:
So you are arguing with People just for sake of disagreeing with them because of some perceived view you hold of them and their views and not because you hold an opposing view. That seems to be what you are implying. :shrug:
We can always learn something new, even when we think we know it all.
jaxie
28-10-2016, 10:45 AM
Being 'non PC' does, and that's ok :shrug:
I've not discussed PC on this thread therefore you don't know what I view as OK, however, I'll tell you what I think isn't OK. It's not OK to defend PC by upholding and defending discrimination and discrimination comes in more shapes and forms than the colour of a person's skin.
I have to say I find it bizarre that you decry on one hand what you are literally doing on the other because you are using preconceived prejudices to say that someone else can't have an opinion.
Kizzy
28-10-2016, 10:49 AM
So you are arguing with People just for sake of disagreeing with them because of some perceived view you hold of them and their views and not because you hold an opposing view. That seems to be what you are implying. :shrug:
We can always learn something new, even when we think we know it all.
Nope, I was discussing an issue with another member, regarding the definition of PC.
I don't hold a view on anyone, perceived or otherwise.
jaxie
28-10-2016, 10:53 AM
:pat::pat:Nope, I was discussing an issue with another member, regarding the definition of PC.
I don't hold a view on anyone, perceived or otherwise.
:pat:
Kizzy
28-10-2016, 11:00 AM
I've not discussed PC on this thread therefore you don't know what I view as OK, however, I'll tell you what I think isn't OK. It's not OK to defend PC by upholding and defending discrimination and discrimination comes in more shapes and forms than the colour of a person's skin.
I have to say I find it bizarre that you decry on one hand what you are literally doing on the other because you are using preconceived prejudices to say that so some else can't have an opinion.
What on earth are you on about.... Where have I said someone can't have an opinion?
How can I defend 'PC' when nobody appears to be able to define it?
Tom4784
28-10-2016, 11:14 AM
People that complain about 'PC gone mad' are often the same people who have bigotted views and can't accept that the world has moved on from a point when their views were considered the majority.
As I've said a thousand times, you're entitled to your opinion but so is everyone else and everyone is entitled to their thoughts on other opinions too. Too many people think that 'I'm entitled to my opinion' means 'You can't question my opinion or have an opinion that opposes mine'.
kirklancaster
28-10-2016, 12:42 PM
What on earth are you on about.... Where have I said someone can't have an opinion?
How can I defend 'PC' when nobody appears to be able to define it?
It has been defined, but you just refuse to accept the definition.
Kizzy
28-10-2016, 12:47 PM
It has been defined, but you just refuse to accept the definition.
Nope, what NM posted was not a definition as he said himself it relies on what is 'perceived' and that can change from person to person.
Northern Monkey
28-10-2016, 01:35 PM
Nope, what NM posted was not a definition as he said himself it relies on what is 'perceived' and that can change from person to person.
This makes no sense and appears to be reaching further than a Stretch Armstrong doll.
Kizzy
28-10-2016, 01:41 PM
This makes no sense and appears to be reaching further than a Stretch Armstrong doll.
What? You yourself said the dictionary definition you posted focused on the word 'perceived' :/
kirklancaster
28-10-2016, 01:44 PM
This makes no sense and appears to be reaching further than a Stretch Armstrong doll.
:laugh:
Withano
28-10-2016, 02:21 PM
There is nothing to research.
I mean 80% of the posts on the first page blamed an entirely different religion, although alot have rightfully been removed now. So perhaps research can be good. There are compromises to make in life, cultures conflict and religions are the main priorities to some people, this should be respected. Crying equal rights for all whilst saying religious people should skirt around the beliefs you dont like is just a bit hypocritical.
Their intentions were not sexist, it was the opposite, it was out of respect for the woman. Not researching this and making untrue assumptions is just intolerant.
The airline didnt handle this correctly, the woman certainly didnt handle this correctly, the monks should have probably explained themselves better to avoid the confusion from the woman and those who havent researched on this thread, but perhaps they didnt realise how little people know about cultural differences.
jaxie
28-10-2016, 04:08 PM
I mean 80% of the posts on the first page blamed an entirely different religion, although alot have rightfully been removed now. So perhaps research can be good. There are compromises to make in life, cultures conflict and religions are the main priorities to some people, this should be respected. Crying equal rights for all whilst saying religious people should skirt around the beliefs you dont like is just a bit hypocritical.
Their intentions were not sexist, it was the opposite, it was out of respect for the woman. Not researching this and making untrue assumptions is just intolerant.
The airline didnt handle this correctly, the woman certainly didnt handle this correctly, the monks should have probably explained themselves better to avoid the confusion from the woman and those who havent researched on this thread, but perhaps they didnt realise how little people know about cultural differences.
No religious belief is more important than the right of human equality. It's simple, not hypocritical at all. You can believe in fairies if you like, as long as you don't presume to infer that your belief in fairies somehow makes someone else less worthy to sit next to you. You have no way of knowing what their intentions were. But the simple fact is demanding not to sit next to a woman is sexist. Cultural differences piffle.
When you are busy pandering to others beliefs are you also agreeable with people, usually women, being stoned to death for appostacy or adultery? Those are religious beliefs too.
Withano
28-10-2016, 05:27 PM
No religious belief is more important than the right of human equality. It's simple, not hypocritical at all. You can believe in fairies if you like, as long as you don't presume to infer that your belief in fairies somehow makes someone else less worthy to sit next to you. You have no way of knowing what their intentions were. But the simple fact is demanding not to sit next to a woman is sexist. Cultural differences piffle.
When you are busy pandering to others beliefs are you also agreeable with people, usually women, being stoned to death for appostacy or adultery? Those are religious beliefs too.
Bit in bold never happened though so your entire point is irrelevant, we do know what their intentions were because we understand buddhism and sunyata. There are battles to fight, this shouldnt be one of them. (It wouldnt be with a bit of research anyway)
Kizzy
28-10-2016, 06:29 PM
Bah! PC research? No thank you! :fist:
jaxie
28-10-2016, 07:45 PM
Bit in bold never happened though so your entire point is irrelevant, we do know what their intentions were because we understand buddhism and sunyata. There are battles to fight, this shouldnt be one of them. (It wouldnt be with a bit of research anyway)
Irrelevant piffle. As I pointed out, I don't care what brand of fairies they believed in.
Kizzy
28-10-2016, 07:52 PM
Irrelevant piffle.
It kinda explains the whole situation though :umm2:
Withano
28-10-2016, 09:44 PM
Irrelevant piffle. As I pointed out, I don't care what brand of fairies they believed in.
Then dont make a comment on their actions haha.
Youre refusing half of the story and expecting everyone to agree with you... Well no, some like 2 halves before they make a conclusion.
jaxie
28-10-2016, 10:16 PM
Then dont make a comment on their actions haha.
Youre refusing half of the story and expecting everyone to agree with you... Well no, some like 2 halves before they make a conclusion.
There is nothing to refuse, it doesn't matter what fantasy they believe in, a belief is not more important than a person. It's not hard to understand.
Completely agree with you Jaxie. Religious beliefs don't take precedence over law, and last time I checked woman are not considered second class passengers
jaxie
28-10-2016, 10:38 PM
Completely agree with you Jaxie. Religious beliefs don't take precedence over law, and last time I checked woman are not considered second class passengers
Exactly! :wavey:
Cherie
29-10-2016, 08:05 AM
No, how did you even get that from what ive said lol. The poster that I quoted just cant cry for common decency when their posts lack the exact same thing in this thread.
The video could also be titled 'angry woman would rather force novice buddhist out of their religion than switch seats' but it wasnt, the title went on about muslims so of course its a big deal. Monks who reach sunyata can sit next to women, monks who spend their whole life practicing for a religion but have not yet reached sunyata would rather not because of the respect that they have for women.
But of course because of the title the uploader gave the video, this is a big deal and its all muslims fault, this woman is hard done by and theres no point researching it a tiny bit further. Give over.
Interesting, bringing this back to this Christian cake story, in your view then as it seems we can accept religious practices if it suits us, that story should have been spun as gay couple take Christian baker to court over beliefs when they could have gone down the road and ordered elsewhere :umm2:
Northern Monkey
29-10-2016, 08:14 AM
Interesting, bringing this back to this Christian cake story, in your view then as it seems we can accept religious practices if it suits us, that story should have been spun as gay couple take Christian baker to court over beliefs when they could have gone down the road and ordered elsewhere :umm2:
Exactly:clap1:
Or 'gay couple try to stop Christians practicing their beliefs rather than using alternative cake maker'.
Anything can be spun
kirklancaster
29-10-2016, 08:26 AM
Interesting, bringing this back to this Christian cake story, in your view then as it seems we can accept religious practices if it suits us, that story should have been spun as gay couple take Christian baker to court over beliefs when they could have gone down the road and ordered elsewhere :umm2:
:clap1::clap1::clap1::laugh: O-U-C-H!!!!!!:hee:
..I do have to say that I have to step in for Withano here and all he's trying to say because he isn't saying that discrimination by the airline didn't take place any I don't see any 'ouch' here...with the Christian baker story, there was no 'spinning' that took place, the headlines ware factual...Christian baker being sued over refusal to make Bert and Ernie-themed gay marriage cake says she 'knew in her heart' she couldn't complete the order
...that was one media headline but they're all in the same vein of containing fact../no spinning at all and rightly, they we found to show discrimination in the courts because they did...with this headline in the vid and on news media sites, there isn't the same factual involved at all, it's almost totally inaccurate...the two people were Pakastani monks and they didn't 'force' anything, it wasn't in the control to do so... that was a decision made by the airline alone, all they could do was to request...but the airline chose to discriminate on gender.../that's clear cut and the lady has an option to bring legal action against the airline if she so chooses to do so.../that's her decision as the airline made theirs as the airline made theirs and discriminated against her in doing so....
...honestly some SD threads start to lose interest pretty quickly in how personal they seem to get with 'point scoring' that it's easy to wonder how much is in concern of the discrimination or story itself...so much 'concern' (by some, I will add that..)...about the respect of a female in this story and yet not the same respect for any female apparent at all when Donald Trump totally and completely disrespects females and more or less said that he practised sexual abuse of females and a defence of his age and his back in the day ways.../streuth....
/streuth....
Waiting for more ammi Aussie banter :laugh:
I do agree with what you are saying, the airline are ultimately responsible for the situation. However, making the request of them in the first place is out of order and rightly deserves criticism too
kirklancaster
29-10-2016, 09:12 AM
Irrespective of any other argument, Cherie identified a flaw in Withano's argument and the point she made is irrefutably true.
Besides being humorous. :hee:
..(I think, personally of course..)...that it's overlooking what he's saying by considering it 'an argument' because all he's really saying is that the world and situations are not black and white..I don't think anyone is disputing things that Jaxie has said in that the law is though/black and white and that discrimination did take place by the airline...and the lady is fully entitled to take action with that...but 'understanding' of cultures and religions/beliefs as well is what brings the colour to the world because that's a huge part in general tolerances..it doesn't mean the world has to accommodate but understanding/tolerance is never a bad thing..and I mean tolerance in everything should be had and also respect.../that doesn't mean that unlawful discrimination should ever play a part of that though...I wouldn't expect anything else from Withano, being the person that he is and having spent a large part of his adult life doing vocational work in 'differing cultures'..that he shows interest in a culture/belief involved as well and hopes for tolerance and 'colour' to be added....
Cherie
29-10-2016, 09:30 AM
..I do have to say that I have to step in for Withano here and all he's trying to say because he isn't saying that discrimination by the airline didn't take place any I don't see any 'ouch' here...with the Christian baker story, there was no 'spinning' that took place, the headlines ware factual...Christian baker being sued over refusal to make Bert and Ernie-themed gay marriage cake says she 'knew in her heart' she couldn't complete the order
...that was one media headline but they're all in the same vein of containing fact../no spinning at all and rightly, they we found to show discrimination in the courts because they did...with this headline in the vid and on news media sites, there isn't the same factual involved at all, it's almost totally inaccurate...the two people were Pakastani monks and they didn't 'force' anything, it wasn't in the control to do so... that was a decision made by the airline alone, all they could do was to request...but the airline chose to discriminate on gender.../that's clear cut and the lady has an option to bring legal action against the airline if she so chooses to do so.../that's her decision as the airline made theirs as the airline made theirs and discriminated against her in doing so....
...honestly some SD threads start to lose interest pretty quickly in how personal they seem to get with 'point scoring' that it's easy to wonder how much is in concern of the discrimination or story itself...so much 'concern' (by some, I will add that..)...about the respect of a female in this story and yet not the same respect for any female apparent at all when Donald Trump totally and completely disrespects females and more or less said that he practised sexual abuse of females and a defence of his age and his back in the day ways.../streuth....
With all due respect Ammi I don't see why you have to step in to help anyone? posts are made and responded to? I made a point based on Withanos (im beginning to think he is 5 :worry:) post which to me seems pretty obvious, you have said all along through the thread you couldn't see the similarities between the two cases and I respect that, so I assume you again can't see where I am coming from on this :shrug:
Northern Monkey
29-10-2016, 09:32 AM
Also we've already established that the religion of these two is not important to the story.It shouldn't have happened on any airline but especially not a western one where womens rights are equal to mens.The way this was reported is inconsequential to the outcome.The religion keeps getting brought up but that doesn't change the fact that a woman was forced out of her seat which she had paid for.The bad reporting is just a distraction to the issue.
Northern Monkey
29-10-2016, 09:41 AM
It basically boils down to Political Correctness again in the end.The airline were more afraid of upsetting religious beliefs over a womans right to sit in the seat she'd paid for.It is an ideal candidate for 'PC gone mad':laugh:
Cherie
29-10-2016, 09:42 AM
Also, and I have to say I'm quite annoyed now as the intimation is that a member is being targeted, if I feel strongly enough about something it doesnt matter to me if we are "friends" or not, as an example Kizzy and I have been battering each other over another issue, that's not to say that I won't agree with her on a different subject tomorrow, and that I still love her :love: SD is being killed by the notion that some people can have their say and not be pulled up on it
With all due respect Ammi I don't see why you have to step in to help anyone? posts are made and responded to? I made a point based on Withanos (im beginning to think he is 5 :worry:) post which to me seems pretty obvious, you have said all along through the thread you couldn't see the similarities between the two cases and I respect that, so I assume you again can't see where I am coming from on this :shrug:
..I wasn't 'stepping in to help' anyone Cherie...I was stepping in..(as that was the phrasing I used..)..to say that I understood what he's trying to say in that an understanding in beliefs/cultures etc is a good thing also in leading to tolerance in the world...because the world's general times at the moment..(and sadly often encouraged by media slanting..)...seem to often be very intolerant.../but without denying that discrimination by the airline did indeed take place...
Cherie
29-10-2016, 09:44 AM
..I wasn't 'stepping in to help' anyone Cherie...I was stepping in..(as that was the phrasing I used..)..to say that I understood what he's trying to say in that an understanding in beliefs/cultures etc is a good thing also in leading to tolerance in the world...because the world's general times at the moment..(and sadly often encouraged by media slanting..)...seem to often be very intolerant.../but without denying that discrimination by the airline did indeed take place...
Maybe just quote his post and the relevant bits them as it came across as defensive to me
...just to be really clear so that there's no misunderstandings/or feeling of 'defence' taking place...I mentioned 'targeting' in another thread recently because I believed targeting in that situation was applicable and had I believed that 'defence' was necessary at all or any targeting taking place in this thread, I would have been equally clear and direct about it...
Withano
29-10-2016, 10:26 AM
Also we've already established that the religion of these two is not important to the story.It shouldn't have happened on any airline but especially not a western one where womens rights are equal to mens.The way this was reported is inconsequential to the outcome.The religion keeps getting brought up but that doesn't change the fact that a woman was forced out of her seat which she had paid for.The bad reporting is just a distraction to the issue.
And this is precisely why most of the comments on this thread are ridiculous. If people looked at both sides of the story, and still sided with the woman, then fine. But as far as I can see every single person who sides wih the woman on this thread has completely ignored one half of the story, their opinion on the subject barely matters.
and to Cherie no, if you want to fight for common decency, then practice it - we all have our line, i personally dont believe anybody can really say much about gender equality when they clearly dont care for religious beliefs. Monks arent against gender equality, those who havent reached sunyata are taught that they themselves should not approach women because they are not at a high enough level yet. The outrage on this thread is simply stupid. But what would i know, i'm 5. Although maybe a 5 year old whos open to research and both sides of the story is a tad more mature than the adults here.
The cake situation would be similar if the bakers refused because their hands werent good enough for gay men. So. Thats convos done. Obviously.
Kizzy
29-10-2016, 11:23 AM
..I do have to say that I have to step in for Withano here and all he's trying to say because he isn't saying that discrimination by the airline didn't take place any I don't see any 'ouch' here...with the Christian baker story, there was no 'spinning' that took place, the headlines ware factual...Christian baker being sued over refusal to make Bert and Ernie-themed gay marriage cake says she 'knew in her heart' she couldn't complete the order
...that was one media headline but they're all in the same vein of containing fact../no spinning at all and rightly, they we found to show discrimination in the courts because they did...with this headline in the vid and on news media sites, there isn't the same factual involved at all, it's almost totally inaccurate...the two people were Pakastani monks and they didn't 'force' anything, it wasn't in the control to do so... that was a decision made by the airline alone, all they could do was to request...but the airline chose to discriminate on gender.../that's clear cut and the lady has an option to bring legal action against the airline if she so chooses to do so.../that's her decision as the airline made theirs as the airline made theirs and discriminated against her in doing so....
...honestly some SD threads start to lose interest pretty quickly in how personal they seem to get with 'point scoring' that it's easy to wonder how much is in concern of the discrimination or story itself...so much 'concern' (by some, I will add that..)...about the respect of a female in this story and yet not the same respect for any female apparent at all when Donald Trump totally and completely disrespects females and more or less said that he practised sexual abuse of females and a defence of his age and his back in the day ways.../streuth....
Excellent point maybe these monk should have said that their views were 'banta' and that would have been more socially acceptable?
In the case of the Christian bakers as I recall there was a degree of sympathy there, even though it is a similar scenario... religious beliefs, perceived bigotry. Odd.
Cherie
29-10-2016, 11:25 AM
And this is precisely why most of the comments on this thread are ridiculous. If people looked at both sides of the story, and still sided with the woman, then fine. But as far as I can see every single person who sides wih the woman on this thread has completely ignored one half of the story, their opinion on the subject barely matters.
and to Cherie no, if you want to fight for common decency, then practice it - we all have our line, i personally dont believe anybody can really say much about gender equality when they clearly dont care for religious beliefs. Monks arent against gender equality, those who havent reached sunyata are taught that they themselves should not approach women because they are not at a high enough level yet. The outrage on this thread is simply stupid. But what would i know, i'm 5. Although maybe a 5 year old whos open to research and both sides of the story is a tad more mature than the adults here.
The cake situation would be similar if the bakers refused because their hands werent good enough for gay men. So. Thats convos done. Obviously.
The cake situation is exactly the same, it's just Christain beliefs aren't as trendy to uphold as other religions these days
Kizzy
29-10-2016, 11:32 AM
With all due respect Ammi I don't see why you have to step in to help anyone? posts are made and responded to? I made a point based on Withanos (im beginning to think he is 5 :worry:) post which to me seems pretty obvious, you have said all along through the thread you couldn't see the similarities between the two cases and I respect that, so I assume you again can't see where I am coming from on this :shrug:
Why are you beginning to worry he's 5... He has offered by far the most rational and plausible reasoning behind the whole debacle?
Northern Monkey
29-10-2016, 11:33 AM
[/B]
The cake situation is exactly the same, it's just Christain beliefs aren't as trendy to uphold as other religions these daysTruth
Cherie
29-10-2016, 11:37 AM
Why are you beginning to worry he's 5... He has offered by far the most rational and plausible reasoning behind the whole debacle?
:laugh: always the joker Kizzy
Kizzy
29-10-2016, 11:38 AM
It basically boils down to Political Correctness again in the end.The airline were more afraid of upsetting religious beliefs over a womans right to sit in the seat she'd paid for.It is an ideal candidate for 'PC gone mad':laugh:
Again with the 'political correctness'
Monk doesn't want to sit next to female... WHAT?! BIGOTRY! DISCRIMINATION!
Christian won't bake cake for gay... WELL?! IT'S HIS CHOICE BASED ON HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
:/
kirklancaster
29-10-2016, 11:38 AM
Why are you beginning to worry he's 5... He has offered by far the most rational and plausible reasoning behind the whole debacle?
Why are you worrying if Cherie's beginning to worry if he's 5 or not? AND 'He has offered by far the most rational and plausible reasoning behind the whole debacle?' - IN YOUR OPINION, which isn't mine. THAT honour goes to Cherie and Northern Monkey - in my opinion. :hee:
Kizzy
29-10-2016, 11:41 AM
Also, and I have to say I'm quite annoyed now as the intimation is that a member is being targeted, if I feel strongly enough about something it doesnt matter to me if we are "friends" or not, as an example Kizzy and I have been battering each other over another issue, that's not to say that I won't agree with her on a different subject tomorrow, and that I still love her :love: SD is being killed by the notion that some people can have their say and not be pulled up on it
True :love:
Kizzy
29-10-2016, 11:41 AM
Why are you worrying if Cherie's beginning to worry if he's 5 or not? AND 'He has offered by far the most rational and plausible reasoning behind the whole debacle?' - IN YOUR OPINION, which isn't mine. THAT honour goes to Cherie and Northern Monkey - in my opinion. :hee:
Good for you.
Withano
29-10-2016, 12:02 PM
[/B]
The cake situation is exactly the same, it's just Christain beliefs aren't as trendy to uphold as other religions these days
Theyre not exactly the same, i wont explain why again, you can reread the post above.
..I don't think that trendy is a factor at all, I just don't get that...Christianity is respected by most, equally as other religions and beliefs are..but those beliefs with the cake baking also discriminated against and infringed on the rights of others...the airline in their 'respect' as it were for the beliefs and practises of the monks also discriminated and their discrimination also infringed on the rights of others or another so both are indeed equal in how they have been viewed.../no trends involved that would favour one over the other...Withano was never questioning the discrimination...all he was saying basically is...why not take a few moments out of a day to understand the practises/beliefs etc of different less familiar cultures as well...it wouldn't and shouldn't make any difference to the conclusion of it being discrimination with what happened and with the airline...but it does help in general understanding and knowledge which is never a bad thing...
Tom4784
29-10-2016, 12:20 PM
Interesting, bringing this back to this Christian cake story, in your view then as it seems we can accept religious practices if it suits us, that story should have been spun as gay couple take Christian baker to court over beliefs when they could have gone down the road and ordered elsewhere :umm2:
Not really comparable. Those bakers denied service on account of the customer's sexuality. This is more of a **** up by the airline rather than prejudice on anyone's part.
Northern Monkey
29-10-2016, 12:27 PM
Again with the 'political correctness'
Monk doesn't want to sit next to female... WHAT?! BIGOTRY! DISCRIMINATION!
Christian won't bake cake for gay... WELL?! IT'S HIS CHOICE BASED ON HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
:/
'Monk doesn't want to sit next to female... WHAT?! BIGOTRY! DISCRIMINATION!'
:joker:
Over simplifying the situation just a little there.
If monk did'nt want to sit next to female he is entitled to ask for that however the airline should have told them that there were no available gender segregated seats instead of putting them next to a female who had already booked and paid for her seat and making her move for fear of upsetting their religious beliefs.They could have told them to use another airline who caters for religious gender segregation if they want to be guaranteed no females will be near them.
Kizzy
29-10-2016, 12:35 PM
'Monk doesn't want to sit next to female... WHAT?! BIGOTRY! DISCRIMINATION!'
:joker:
Over simplifying the situation just a little there.
If monk did'nt want to sit next to female he is entitled to ask for that however the airline should have told them that there were no available gender segregated seats instead of putting them next to a female who had already booked and paid for her seat and making her move for fear of upsetting their religious beliefs.They could have told them to use another airline who caters for religious gender segregation if they want to be guaranteed no females will be near them.
Nope, that is what I see...
It might just not e PC enough for you to notice?
I agree the person booking the flights should have been honest and said their request could not be honoured due to the pre booked seats.
It is not the fault of the monks this lady was affronted.
jaxie
29-10-2016, 12:39 PM
..I do have to say that I have to step in for Withano here and all he's trying to say because he isn't saying that discrimination by the airline didn't take place any I don't see any 'ouch' here...with the Christian baker story, there was no 'spinning' that took place, the headlines ware factual...Christian baker being sued over refusal to make Bert and Ernie-themed gay marriage cake says she 'knew in her heart' she couldn't complete the order
...that was one media headline but they're all in the same vein of containing fact../no spinning at all and rightly, they we found to show discrimination in the courts because they did...with this headline in the vid and on news media sites, there isn't the same factual involved at all, it's almost totally inaccurate...the two people were Pakastani monks and they didn't 'force' anything, it wasn't in the control to do so... that was a decision made by the airline alone, all they could do was to request...but the airline chose to discriminate on gender.../that's clear cut and the lady has an option to bring legal action against the airline if she so chooses to do so.../that's her decision as the airline made theirs as the airline made theirs and discriminated against her in doing so....
...honestly some SD threads start to lose interest pretty quickly in how personal they seem to get with 'point scoring' that it's easy to wonder how much is in concern of the discrimination or story itself...so much 'concern' (by some, I will add that..)...about the respect of a female in this story and yet not the same respect for any female apparent at all when Donald Trump totally and completely disrespects females and more or less said that he practised sexual abuse of females and a defence of his age and his back in the day ways.../streuth....
Actually Ammi it seems to me that he's advocating discrimination against women as long as it is for religious purposes. It's not personal, no point scoring here. I don't 'target' people. I don't have a 'gang'. I say what I think. :shrug: Tolerence is one thing, but using it to support/comply with discrimination is another thing entirely.
Re Donald Trump, talk is talk, offensive as it might be I think that's something for his electorate/family/supporters/detractors to decide, whether he is a viable candidate for President/human being/husband/friend. If he touched anyone inappropriately that's between him, the victim and the law. It's difficult because there is no proof these things happened at this point. We can only speculate, until we actually know what happened, but I have seen plenty of condemnation from people on the forum.
Actually Ammi it seems to me that he's advocating discrimination against women as long as it is for religious purposes. It's not personal, no point scoring here. I don't 'target' people. I don't have a 'gang'. I say what I think. :shrug: Tolerence is one thing, but using it to support/comply with discrimination is another thing entirely.
Re Donald Trump, talk is talk, offensive as it might be I think that's something for his electorate/family/supporters/detractors to decide, whether he is a viable candidate for President/human being/husband/friend. If he touched anyone inappropriately that's between him, the victim and the law. It's difficult because there is no proof these things happened at this point. We can only speculate, until we actually know what happened, but I have seen plenty of condemnation from people on the forum.
..I believe that the only 'speculation' I have ever had, Jaxie..and yes a judgement of his character are from his own words that came from his own self admissions of how his 'celebrity and star' allow him to disregard females or what their wishes may be...
jaxie
29-10-2016, 01:03 PM
And this is precisely why most of the comments on this thread are ridiculous. If people looked at both sides of the story, and still sided with the woman, then fine. But as far as I can see every single person who sides wih the woman on this thread has completely ignored one half of the story, their opinion on the subject barely matters.
and to Cherie no, if you want to fight for common decency, then practice it - we all have our line, i personally dont believe anybody can really say much about gender equality when they clearly dont care for religious beliefs. Monks arent against gender equality, those who havent reached sunyata are taught that they themselves should not approach women because they are not at a high enough level yet. The outrage on this thread is simply stupid. But what would i know, i'm 5. Although maybe a 5 year old whos open to research and both sides of the story is a tad more mature than the adults here.
The cake situation would be similar if the bakers refused because their hands werent good enough for gay men. So. Thats convos done. Obviously.
Wow. I'll argue my point with anyone but really calling half the thread stupid is going a little far. Perhaps this is why I find your posts a bit offensive sometimes, arrogance.
...the law is black and white is really all there is for me to say...and so it has to be and legal/human rights have to be as well...but for most of us in our lives..?...our worlds are colour and we look at things from many perspectives and consider many things when we're giving thoughts about something...this was all for me that Withano was doing the thread right from the go, something I really admire him for.../while he never once so far as I can see denied discrimination had taken place with the airline...
jaxie
29-10-2016, 01:06 PM
..I believe that the only 'speculation' I have ever had, Jaxie..and yes a judgement of his character are from his own words that came from his own self admissions of how his 'celebrity and star' allow him to disregard females or what their wishes may be...
He bragged which certainly makes him an idiot. But was it talk or did he do it? :shrug: I can't say. I certainly wouldn't vote for him but then I'm not sure I could vote for 'emails' either.
jaxie
29-10-2016, 01:10 PM
[/B]
The cake situation is exactly the same, it's just Christain beliefs aren't as trendy to uphold as other religions these days
Yup.
jaxie
29-10-2016, 01:13 PM
Excellent point maybe these monk should have said that their views were 'banta' and that would have been more socially acceptable?
In the case of the Christian bakers as I recall there was a degree of sympathy there, even though it is a similar scenario... religious beliefs, perceived bigotry. Odd.
Religious discrimination against women, or anyone else is never acceptable.
He bragged which certainly makes him an idiot. But was it talk or did he do it? :shrug: I can't say. I certainly wouldn't vote for him but then I'm not sure I could vote for 'emails' either.
...well I guess that bragging is something I personally would associate with something to be proud of../a code of behaviour to be proud of to the point of boasting about it..so it's down to our interpretation of those words when they're spoken in whether that person would feel it was something to brag about if it weren't truth...
jaxie
29-10-2016, 01:26 PM
...well I guess that bragging is something I personally would associate with something to be proud of../a code of behaviour to be proud of to the point of boasting about it..so it's down to our interpretation of those words when they're spoken in whether that person would feel it was something to brag about if it weren't truth...
I have heard men brag before though and while it's unsavory it doesn't actually make a crime, what I'm getting at is that at the moment there is no proof he physically did anything inappropriate, it's speculation until then. I'm not a Trump supporter but he hasn't actually been proved guilty of anything but disrespectful talk. While this, IMO means he isn't President material, it's not exactly a crime. See I'm fair, I'm actually standing up for someone I think is a tool!
I have heard men brag before though and while it's unsavory it doesn't actually make a crime, what I'm getting at is that at the moment there is no proof he physically did anything inappropriate, it's speculation until then. I'm not a Trump supporter but he hasn't actually been proved guilty of anything but disrespectful talk. While this, IMO means he isn't President material, it's not exactly a crime. See I'm fair, I'm actually standing up for someone I think is a tool!
..I have no idea Jaxie what points you're trying to make with regards to my original mention of Trump and the context of it..I really am failing to see a connection atm so I'm just going to leave it here as I've exhausted the thread anyway with my personal thoughts...(for today anyway..:laugh:..)...
Northern Monkey
29-10-2016, 01:59 PM
That gay cake thing.From reading the article it was'nt that they would'nt serve them because they were gay.It was because that couple wanted a gay pressure group slogan on the cake.I mean would you go into a muslim cafe and demand they make you a bacon sarnie because you're a gay meat eater?Maybe take them to court if they refuse?
Tom4784
29-10-2016, 02:07 PM
That gay cake thing.From reading the article it was'nt that they would'nt serve them because they were gay.It was because that couple wanted a gay pressure group slogan on the cake.I mean would you go into a muslim cafe and demand they make you a bacon sarnie because you're a gay meat eater?Maybe take them to court if they refuse?
Interesting choice of words there.....
Your Muslim comparison is fatally flawed. Why would you go to a 'Muslim Cafe' (Is that even a thing?) and order bacon? It would be like going to a Vegan restaurant and complaining that they didn't serve meat. Bacon would not be on the menu to begin with.
Those bakers accepted the order and went back on it because of the client. It's really nothing at all like your little comparison. Not offering a product and refusing to serve someone based on their sexuality is completely different.
Northern Monkey
29-10-2016, 02:12 PM
Interesting choice of words there.....
Your Muslim comparison is fatally flawed. Why would you go to a 'Muslim Cafe' (Is that even a thing?) and order bacon? It would be like going to a Vegan restaurant and complaining that they didn't serve meat. Bacon would not be on the menu to begin with.
Those bakers accepted the order and went back on it because of the client. It's really nothing at all like your little comparison. Not offering a product and refusing to serve someone based on their sexuality is completely different.
It was because of a slogan on the cake that was against the cake makers religion though.I'm pretty sure gay slogans were'nt on the cake shop menu just as bacon is'nt on a muslim food establishments menu.
Oh and veganism isn't a religion(although many of them treat it like one)so bad comparison.
Johnnyuk123
29-10-2016, 02:13 PM
It was because of a slogan on the cake that was against the cake makers religion though.I'm pretty sure gay slogans were'nt on the cake shop menu just as bacon is'nt on a muslim food establishments menu
I never thought of it like that. You make a great point!
Tom4784
29-10-2016, 02:30 PM
It was because of a slogan on the cake that was against the cake makers religion though.I'm pretty sure gay slogans were'nt on the cake shop menu just as bacon is'nt on a muslim food establishments menu.
Oh and veganism isn't a religion(although many of them treat it like one)so bad comparison.
Again, it's a poor comparison.
They made custom cakes that didn't come with terms and conditions or exceptions. They accepted the order and then took it back. That's completely different from your example of a Muslim Cafe where a Bacon sandwich wouldn't be on the menu to begin with. The Vegan example is a good one because it's exactly the same as what you are saying. You wouldn't go to a Muslim cafe expecting to have bacon, nor would you go to a Vegan establishment and expect meat to be on the menu.
That's completely different to a Bakery refusing custom on the grounds of sexuality. the bakery itself isn't associated with Christianity, only the owners so it's not like anyone would see it in the Yellow Pages and think 'Not gonna go there for my Gay Marriage cake, they are obviously Christians!'
Withano
29-10-2016, 02:36 PM
Wow. I'll argue my point with anyone but really calling half the thread stupid is going a little far. Perhaps this is why I find your posts a bit offensive sometimes, arrogance.
I called the outrage on the thread stupid. And it is.
If a person is mad that a woman was asked to move seats whilst refusing half of the story, then their outrage is childish. Theres a simple explanation which would minimise their outrage and if they refuse this information, then their outrage is at best, simply unfounded.
If you accept both perspectives but still side entirely with the woman, i dont believe you can cry for social justice. Im a fan of practice what you preach.
jaxie
29-10-2016, 02:42 PM
..I have no idea Jaxie what points you're trying to make with regards to my original mention of Trump and the context of it..I really am failing to see a connection atm so I'm just going to leave it here as I've exhausted the thread anyway with my personal thoughts...(for today anyway..:laugh:..)...
Oh I wasn't making a point, I thought we were just having a conversation of our thoughts on the issue. :shrug: Have a good day!
jaxie
29-10-2016, 02:46 PM
I called the outrage on the thread stupid. And it is.
If a person is mad that a woman was asked to move seats whilst refusing half of the story, then their outrage is childish. Theres a simple explanation which would minimise their outrage and if you refuse this information, then their outrage is at best, simply unfounded.
The point you don't seem to be getting is that there is no explanation that excuses refusing to sit next to someone because she is a woman. But I think I'm flogging a dead horse trying to get that across to you.
jaxie
29-10-2016, 02:48 PM
Again, it's a poor comparison.
They made custom cakes that didn't come with terms and conditions or exceptions. They accepted the order and then took it back. That's completely different from your example of a Muslim Cafe where a Bacon sandwich wouldn't be on the menu to begin with. The Vegan example is a good one because it's exactly the same as what you are saying. You wouldn't go to a Muslim cafe expecting to have bacon, nor would you go to a Vegan establishment and expect meat to be on the menu.
That's completely different to a Bakery refusing custom on the grounds of sexuality. the bakery itself isn't associated with Christianity, only the owners so it's not like anyone would see it in the Yellow Pages and think 'Not gonna go there for my Gay Marriage cake, they are obviously Christians!'
The cake shop accepted an order and changed their minds based on religious hoohar.
The airline accepted payment for the seat then moved the woman based on someone else religious hoohar. Where is the difference? :shrug:
Northern Monkey
29-10-2016, 02:48 PM
Again, it's a poor comparison.
They made custom cakes that didn't come with terms and conditions or exceptions. They accepted the order and then took it back. That's completely different from your example of a Muslim Cafe where a Bacon sandwich wouldn't be on the menu to begin with. The Vegan example is a good one because it's exactly the same as what you are saying. You wouldn't go to a Muslim cafe expecting to have bacon, nor would you go to a Vegan establishment and expect meat to be on the menu.
That's completely different to a Bakery refusing custom on the grounds of sexuality. the bakery itself isn't associated with Christianity, only the owners so it's not like anyone would see it in the Yellow Pages and think 'Not gonna go there for my Gay Marriage cake, they are obviously Christians!'However this was in Northern Ireland.The cake makers probably did'nt think they would be asked for a gay wedding cake.Wedding in Northern Ireland does or did mean a man and a woman.A gay wedding cake would be exceptional circumstances over there and would not come under the usual 'wedding' banner.So gay marriage slogans on wedding cakes were also not on their menu.Just as bacon sarnies are not on a muslim cafe menu.
Withano
29-10-2016, 02:50 PM
The point you don't seem to be getting is that there is no explanation that excuses refusing to sit next to someone because she is a woman. But I think I'm flogging a dead horse trying to get that across to you.
I mean, there is. Youre still refusing the information available to you.
Jamie89
29-10-2016, 04:10 PM
That gay cake thing.From reading the article it was'nt that they would'nt serve them because they were gay.It was because that couple wanted a gay pressure group slogan on the cake.I mean would you go into a muslim cafe and demand they make you a bacon sarnie because you're a gay meat eater?Maybe take them to court if they refuse?
However this was in Northern Ireland.The cake makers probably did'nt think they would be asked for a gay wedding cake.Wedding in Northern Ireland does or did mean a man and a woman.A gay wedding cake would be exceptional circumstances over there and would not come under the usual 'wedding' banner.So gay marriage slogans on wedding cakes were also not on their menu.Just as bacon sarnies are not on a muslim cafe menu.
Discrimination against people based on their sexuality (which is what the bakery were found guilty of) is against the law, discrimination against people who have a preference for bacon isn't :/
The comparison only works if they normally sell bacon but refuse to sell it to a gay person (or they normally write slogans on their bacon but refuse to write a gay marriage slogan on one). It would only really work beyond that if bacon and bacon-eaters were a protected group with equal rights to lamb chops, but alas :laugh:
The whole, 'they sell slogans but gay marriage slogans weren't on the menu' thing... the product they sell is customized slogans. So does the customer have a reasonable expectation to be served regardless of whether or not their slogan references gay marriage? Based on the law, yes they do. And as business owners it's the law they have to follow, their personal experiences of encountering gay people is irrelevant. Same as their personal views, or geography etc... the law doesn't stop applying to someone because they're not used to it or don't believe in it. They have every right to be surprised at the request, or to feel personally/morally/religiously against it, but none of those things change the law/what is reasonable for their customers to expect/their responsibilities as business owners.
(edit: sorry I know that's all completely off topic)
jaxie
29-10-2016, 04:26 PM
I mean, there is. Youre still refusing the information available to you.
Why do I need more information when religion does not validate gender nor race discrimination? Nothing I am told about their religion will validate discrimination. It doesn't matter what their belief is, be it negative or positive it's still discrimination against a woman.
I might believe it's going to rain tomorrow, that doesn't mean I should refuse to sit next to a black guy on a bus.
Northern Monkey
29-10-2016, 04:27 PM
Discrimination against people based on their sexuality (which is what the bakery were found guilty of) is against the law, discrimination against people who have a preference for bacon isn't :/
The comparison only works if they normally sell bacon but refuse to sell it to a gay person (or they normally write slogans on their bacon but refuse to write a gay marriage slogan on one). It would only really work beyond that if bacon and bacon-eaters were a protected group with equal rights to lamb chops, but alas :laugh:
The whole, 'they sell slogans but gay marriage slogans weren't on the menu' thing... the product they sell is customized slogans. So does the customer have a reasonable expectation to be served regardless of whether or not their slogan references gay marriage? Based on the law, yes they do. And as business owners it's the law they have to follow, their personal experiences of encountering gay people is irrelevant. Same as their personal views, or geography etc... the law doesn't stop applying to someone because they're not used to it or don't believe in it. They have every right to be surprised at the request, or to feel personally/morally/religiously against it, but none of those things change the law/what is reasonable for their customers to expect/their responsibilities as business owners.
(edit: sorry I know that's all completely off topic)However if gay marriage is against the law in that country then making a cake with a gay marriage slogan is endorsing crime.
Withano
29-10-2016, 04:51 PM
Why do I need more information when religion does not validate gender nor race discrimination? Nothing I am told about their religion will validate discrimination.
Precisely why i was saying the outrage on this thread is stupid, thanks for eloquetly proving my point.
There was no discrimination here (at least from the male monks' side) and researching this or reading through the thread would have told you this. It was quite the opposite to discrimination and we know this because of the buddhist teachings of sunyata.
I completely understand why you would be upset if you only take information from one side of the story, but ignoring the other half and still being outraged is childish.
jaxie
29-10-2016, 05:00 PM
Precisely why i was saying the outrage on this thread is stupid, thanks for eloquetly proving my point.
There was no discrimination here (at least from the male monks' side) and researching this or reading through the thread would have told you this. It was quite the opposite to discrimination and we know this because of the buddhist teachings of sunyata.
I completely understand why you would be upset if you only take information from one side of the story, but ignoring the other half and still being outraged is childish.
It doesn't matter what the monks intention was or was not, (for the last time) what they did by refusing to sit next to a woman is sexual discrimination. Calling people who don't share you opinions stupid is childish.
Jamie89
29-10-2016, 05:02 PM
However if gay marriage is against the law in that country then making a cake with a gay marriage slogan is endorsing crime.
It's not endorsing a crime... even though gay marriage itself wasn't legalised, campaigning for it was perfectly legal. So the bakery weren't being asked to do anything that would contradict with any law; they weren't being asked to conduct a marriage ceremony, or endorse a marriage that was due to take place illegally, they were being asked to produce a slogan that was associated with a campaign (which again, is completely legal).
And there was no implication that by producing the slogan they would even be endorsing the cause, just as the case would have been for any other political/social etc slogan, they'd have produced it because it's what the customer wanted and it's the service they were offering - everything from the customers side was in line with the law as well as being what they'd reasonably expect from the business (which includes expecting that the business owners wouldn't consider themselves above the law because of their personal/religious beliefs and free to discriminate at will because of them, which is essentially how they acted and what their defense was).
Withano
29-10-2016, 05:23 PM
It doesn't matter what the monks intention was or was not, (for the last time) what they did by refusing to sit next to a woman is sexual discrimination. Calling people who don't share you opinions stupid is childish.
Firstly, Ive never called anybody here stupid. Ive labelled their outrage stupid because it is. I also think its stupid to call excessive respect for somebody 'discriminatory'. Theyre obviously two different things.
Your opinion sort if contradicts itself.. Like shouting at somebody for not holding the door open for you and then shouting at them for opening the next one for you because youre capable of doing it yourself!
But if thats the conclusion you came to after understanding their perspective, then fine. Youve done more than most in this thread by at least acknowledging two sides.. but i just dont think you can cry for gender equality when youre ignoring social and cultural equality.
Northern Monkey
29-10-2016, 05:38 PM
It's not endorsing a crime... even though gay marriage itself wasn't legalised, campaigning for it was perfectly legal. So the bakery weren't being asked to do anything that would contradict with any law; they weren't being asked to conduct a marriage ceremony, or endorse a marriage that was due to take place illegally, they were being asked to produce a slogan that was associated with a campaign (which again, is completely legal).
And there was no implication that by producing the slogan they would even be endorsing the cause, just as the case would have been for any other political/social etc slogan, they'd have produced it because it's what the customer wanted and it's the service they were offering - everything from the customers side was in line with the law as well as being what they'd reasonably expect from the business (which includes expecting that the business owners wouldn't consider themselves above the law because of their personal/religious beliefs and free to discriminate at will because of them, which is essentially how they acted and what their defense was).I know i'm just joking around now.:laugh:
Jamie89
29-10-2016, 05:53 PM
I know i'm just joking around now.:laugh:
:fist:
Kizzy
29-10-2016, 06:03 PM
It was because of a slogan on the cake that was against the cake makers religion though.I'm pretty sure gay slogans were'nt on the cake shop menu just as bacon is'nt on a muslim food establishments menu.
Oh and veganism isn't a religion(although many of them treat it like one)so bad comparison.
You are making things up now in an attempt to justify their discrimination. :/
jaxie
29-10-2016, 06:56 PM
Firstly, Ive never called anybody here stupid. Ive labelled their outrage stupid because it is. I also think its stupid to call excessive respect for somebody 'discriminatory'. Theyre obviously two different things.
Your opinion sort if contradicts itself.. Like shouting at somebody for not holding the door open for you and then shouting at them for opening the next one for you because youre capable of doing it yourself!
But if thats the conclusion you came to after understanding their perspective, then fine. Youve done more than most in this thread by at least acknowledging two sides.. but i just dont think you can cry for gender equality when youre ignoring social and cultural equality.
You can hardly flash the equality card either since you've argued for most the day in support of religious sexism. :shrug:
Withano
29-10-2016, 07:14 PM
You can hardly flash the equality card either since you've argued for most the day in support of religious sexism. :shrug:
Im all for equality and completely against sexism. If there was any "religious sexism" id be against it, its been well-established that there was not any sexism from these monks in this example though. Only incorrectly-perceived-sexism from several tibb members (and indeed, the angry woman in the misleadingly titled video), which im also against.
jaxie
29-10-2016, 08:43 PM
Im all for equality and completely against sexism. If there was any "religious sexism" id be against it, its been well-established that there was not any sexism from these monks in this example though. Only incorrectly-perceived-sexism from several tibb members (and indeed, the angry woman in the misleadingly titled video), which im also against.
How convenient that you deem it not to be sexism. Well established it is not. You aren't against sexism, sorry to disillusion you, your stance is compliant.
Withano
29-10-2016, 08:47 PM
How convenient that you deem it not to be sexism. Well established it is not. You aren't against sexism, sorry to disillusion you, your stance is compliant.
Good lord, excessive repect for women is not discriminatory. It just isnt.
Johnnyuk123
29-10-2016, 08:49 PM
No one should have to move seats for anyone. It's that simple.
Cherie
29-10-2016, 08:56 PM
No one should have to move seats for anyone. It's that simple.
:hehe:
Cherie
29-10-2016, 08:58 PM
Good lord, excessive repect for women is not discriminatory. It just isnt.
As a woman I don't demand excessive respect, Just the right amount will do nicely thank you
jaxie
29-10-2016, 09:01 PM
Good lord, excessive repect for women is not discriminatory. It just isnt.
Yeah yeah, keep telling yourself that. Kid yourself that making a paid up female passenger move was respectful.
It's not an isolated incident either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/world/middleeast/woman-81-to-sue-israeli-airline-over-seat-switch.html?_r=0
“For me this is not personal,” Ms. Rabinowitz added. “It is intellectual, ideological and legal. I think to myself, here I am, an older woman, educated, I’ve been around the world, and some guy can decide that I shouldn’t sit next to him. Why?”
Go get em' girl! :hehe:
Johnnyuk123
29-10-2016, 09:03 PM
:hehe:
She paid good money for her seat in advance, That was her seat that SHE paid for. She should sit in it. Simples.
Johnnyuk123
29-10-2016, 09:09 PM
If anything after hearing that they wanted her to move seats to appease these fools she should have said ok move me into first class then cos i do not want to sit next to people who think like this in the year 2016 for a 4 hour flight or however long it is ffs.
Withano
29-10-2016, 09:10 PM
As a woman I don't demand excessive respect, Just the right amount will do nicely thank you
Right. And thats fine on an entirely different point too.
Withano
29-10-2016, 09:11 PM
Yeah yeah, keep telling yourself that. Kid yourself that making a paid up female passenger move was respectful.
It's not an isolated incident either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/world/middleeast/woman-81-to-sue-israeli-airline-over-seat-switch.html?_r=0
“For me this is not personal,” Ms. Rabinowitz added. “It is intellectual, ideological and legal. I think to myself, here I am, an older woman, educated, I’ve been around the world, and some guy can decide that I shouldn’t sit next to him. Why?”
Go get em' girl! :hehe:
Keep telling yourself you havent ignored half the story, kid.
Johnnyuk123
29-10-2016, 09:12 PM
Keep telling yourself you havent ignored half the story, kid.
Link please to prove that Jaxie has only read half of the story? Thanks.
Northern Monkey
29-10-2016, 09:13 PM
You are making things up now in an attempt to justify their discrimination. :/
'Ashers Baking Company published a statement on its website defending its decision to refuse to bake the cake as the slogan above the puppets was in support of gay marriage'
Withano
29-10-2016, 09:15 PM
Link please to prove that Jaxie has only read half of the story? Thanks.
Would the link she used which groups two entirely different religions together count., you know, as she links two different stories from two different perspective for two different reasons and makes out that theyre the same exact thing not be enough evidence to suggest that shes thought too little about this entire situation?
jaxie
29-10-2016, 09:16 PM
Keep telling yourself you havent ignored half the story, kid.
I obvious look younger in my profile image than I realised.
Are you trying to be personal again? Sneer away, Cyril. Not once have I done that to you. I wonder which of us that makes the most mature.
Johnnyuk123
29-10-2016, 09:17 PM
Would the link she used which groups two entirely different religions together count., you know, as she links two different stories from two different perspective for two different reasons and makes out that theyre the same exact thing not be enough evidence to suggest that shes thought too little about this entire situation?
So no link then?
jaxie
29-10-2016, 09:18 PM
Would the link she used which groups two entirely different religions together count., you know, as she links two different stories from two different perspective for two different reasons and makes out that theyre the same exact thing not be enough evidence to suggest that shes thought too little about this entire situation?
:nono: It doesn't matter what religion it is, I told you that. It's the demeaning of the woman in both cases that counts.
Withano
29-10-2016, 09:19 PM
So no link then?
Yes there's a link, she posted it a few posts up from this
jaxie
29-10-2016, 09:20 PM
Yes there's a link, she posted it a few posts up from this
You have no argument, you have no point, you are simply arguing for the sake of the last word now.
Johnnyuk123
29-10-2016, 09:21 PM
Yes there's a link, she posted it a few posts up from this
I am asking for your link to prove that Jaxie has only read half of the story as you claim.
Withano
29-10-2016, 09:21 PM
:nono: It doesn't matter what religion it is, I told you that. It's the demeaning of the woman in both cases that counts.
And thats where the difference is. Youre acting insulted for the sake of acting insulted because in your mind being excessively polite is just as discrimantory as discriminating is. Whereas i take each case for what they are.
Tom4784
29-10-2016, 09:22 PM
It was because of a slogan on the cake that was against the cake makers religion though.I'm pretty sure gay slogans were'nt on the cake shop menu just as bacon is'nt on a muslim food establishments menu.
Oh and veganism isn't a religion(although many of them treat it like one)so bad comparison.
That's quite a reach.
You said 'Muslim Cafe' I took that to be a cafe that caters to Muslim needs so it's not a bad comparison by bringing Vegan places into it because they too cater to that certain demographic. Either way you wouldn't expect to find Bacon at these places.
Neither of them compare to a bakery that doesn't seemingly cater to specific audiences like those examples do.
Johnnyuk123
29-10-2016, 09:22 PM
And thats where the difference is. Youre acting insulted for the sake of acting insulted because in your mind being excessively polite is just as discrimantory as discriminating is. Whereas i take each case for what they are.
I honestly don't believe you do.
Withano
29-10-2016, 09:23 PM
I am asking for your link to prove that Jaxie has only read half of the story as you claim.
Her saying that these examples are the same is evidence
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/wo...itch.html?_r=0
Dont fully understand why i had to fetch that for you.
Johnnyuk123
29-10-2016, 09:25 PM
Her saying that these examples are the same is evidence
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/wo...itch.html?_r=0
Dont fully understand why i had to fetch that for you.
I am asking for examples of Jaxie having said that he had only read half of the story as you claim.
Link Please.
jaxie
29-10-2016, 09:26 PM
And thats where the difference is. Youre acting insulted for the sake of acting insulted because in your mind being excessively polite is just as discrimantory as discriminating is. Whereas i take each case for what they are.
I'm telling you plainly, simply and rather patiently, that you can't pick and choose who can be discriminated against based on your wish to pander to a certain religion.
And go on, prove I don't read. :shrug:
Withano
29-10-2016, 09:30 PM
I'm telling you plainly, simply and rather patiently, that you can't pick and choose who can be discriminated against based on your wish to pander to a certain religion.
Yeh but bare in mind your view is "i dont care which religion they are" so you clearly couldnt see differences even if there were any (there are some). I dont think its worth discussing it further, this is simply how you have evaluated, i understand your perspective and i think its very closed-minded.
Tom4784
29-10-2016, 09:31 PM
You have no argument, you have no point, you are simply arguing for the sake of the last word now.
He has a very good argument, He researched the religion of the monks to get a better understanding of the situation and he understood that there's two sides to every story.
He's not the one in the Serous Debates section refuting researched arguments and well balanced points simply because it doesn't match his world view despite the factual nature of the argument in question..
jaxie
29-10-2016, 09:33 PM
Yeh but bare in mind your view is "i dont care which religion they are" so you clearly couldnt see differences even if there were any (there are some). I dont think its worth discussing it further, this is simply how you have evaluated, i understand your perspective and i think its very closed-minded.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/09/29/only-on-2-o-c-woman-says-airline-gave-her-pre-booked-seat-away-because-2-men-didnt-want-to-sit-next-to-female/
Listen to her speaking about it, her discomfort doesn't count then? Only the happy religious guys who got their way have a point of view that matters?
I can't see differences because there are no differences. You just can't see the obvious.
Tom4784
29-10-2016, 09:53 PM
You have the evidence. Please provide it.
Such a lazy response.
Withano researched and explained things like Sunyata, the concept that explains why these monks made these demands which is far more than anyone else has done in this thread.
Cherie
29-10-2016, 09:56 PM
Such a lazy response.
Withano researched and explained things like Sunyata, the concept that explains why these monks made these demands which is far more than anyone else has done in this thread.
but Christians are not allowed to make demands based on their beliefs.. in fact they are taken to court and you were delighted...explain the difference
jaxie
29-10-2016, 09:57 PM
but Christians are not allowed to make demands based on their beliefs.. in fact they are taken to court and you were delighted...explain the difference
Selective leftism. That sounds like a disease.
Tom4784
29-10-2016, 10:07 PM
but Christians are not allowed to make demands based on their beliefs.. in fact they are taken to court and you were delighted...explain the difference
It's not difficult to understand.
The monks didn't make this woman switch seats, the airline did because they handled the situation poorly. They should have simply moved the monks to seats that would have been more suitable for their needs.
It's not really comparable to the bakers for reasons I've said before. The bakers chose to actively discriminate against the customer even though their business isn't really aimed at a christian audience. Monkey mentioned 'Muslim Cafes' not serving pork products as a comparison and I said it's no different to going to a vegan place and expecting meat. You wouldn't do it because both of those places would be designed around a muslim and vegan audience specifically.
The Bakery had no such distinction thus you can't use the same defense. If they were called 'Ashers' Christian Bakery' then you'd be foolish to expect them to make a cake for gay marriage just like you wouldn't expect a church to host a gay wedding.
Withano
29-10-2016, 11:11 PM
but Christians are not allowed to make demands based on their beliefs.. in fact they are taken to court and you were delighted...explain the difference
It's not difficult to understand.
The monks didn't make this woman switch seats, the airline did because they handled the situation poorly. They should have simply moved the monks to seats that would have been more suitable for their needs.
It's not really comparable to the bakers for reasons I've said before. The bakers chose to actively discriminate against the customer even though their business isn't really aimed at a christian audience. Monkey mentioned 'Muslim Cafes' not serving pork products as a comparison and I said it's no different to going to a vegan place and expecting meat. You wouldn't do it because both of those places would be designed around a muslim and vegan audience specifically.
The Bakery had no such distinction thus you can't use the same defense. If they were called 'Ashers' Christian Bakery' then you'd be foolish to expect them to make a cake for gay marriage just like you wouldn't expect a church to host a gay wedding.
Yep this, and it also entirely different situations because unlike the monks, the christians didnt claim that they did not want to bake the cake because they felt unworthy to do so for gay people.
The monks didnt want to sit next to a woman out of respect for her, the christians didnt want to bake the cake out of disrepect to them. Its entirely different and it has been explained to personally you, cherie before.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.