[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Withano

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.

[Northern Monkey]

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'

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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'

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.

:/

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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!'

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]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

'Monk doesn't want to sit next to female... WHAT?! BIGOTRY! DISCRIMINATION!'

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.

[Northern Monkey]

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]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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!'

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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. :/

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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'

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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]

No one should have to move seats for anyone. It's that simple.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

No one should have to move seats for anyone. It's that simple.

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by Cherie

She paid good money for her seat in advance, That was her seat that SHE paid for. She should sit in it. Simples.

[Johnnyuk123]

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.

[Ammi]

...'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...

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...'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.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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

[Ammi]

...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]

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

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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 ....)...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...