Woman forced to move seats on a flight.
 

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.

She had a lucky escape if you ask me.

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.

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.

Incredible

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...

They were sexist

Well as we know that's not a crime.. yet :hee:

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...

Who's excusing anything? Everyone thinks the airline was wrong :conf:

Isn't it discrimation based on religious beliefs whether the airline accepted it or not?

we should end respect for religious belief

just as we do for belief in the Moomins

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.

:unsure:

...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/wo...-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...

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:...

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.

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: )

Exactly:clap1:

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.

:joker: sorry I know this isn't a laughing matter

And we do, nobody is defending their right to discriminate are they?

Oh you mean they weren't muslims?


Oh that's ok then.They can be as sexist as they like.

Carry on

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...

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

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

..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?

...(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 ....

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..)...