[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...

[Cherry Christmas]

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...

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...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...

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

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.....)...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 ....