Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9034216)

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:

Originally Posted by Ammi (Post 9034220)

..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...

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey (Post 9034217)

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.

Originally Posted by Ammi (Post 9034202)

..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....

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9034231)

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.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9034216)

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:

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9034251)

[/B]


The cake situation is exactly the same, it's just Christain beliefs aren't as trendy to uphold as other religions these days

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9034253)

Why are you beginning to worry he's 5... He has offered by far the most rational and plausible reasoning behind the whole debacle?

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey (Post 9034218)

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:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9034253)

Why are you beginning to worry he's 5... He has offered by far the most rational and plausible reasoning behind the whole debacle?

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9034219)

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

Originally Posted by kirklancaster (Post 9034259)

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:

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9034251)

[/B]


The cake situation is exactly the same, it's just Christain beliefs aren't as trendy to uphold as other religions these days

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9034191)

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:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9034257)

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.

:/

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey (Post 9034299)

'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.

Originally Posted by Ammi (Post 9034202)

..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....

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 9034308)

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.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9034231)

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.

Originally Posted by Ammi (Post 9034326)

..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...