Women and Jews on a plane

[Michael Hardner]

People are inconvenienced/insulted in this example, and it's based on a different premise from the customer.

[msj]

I think for a religious person to tell a woman (implicitly or explicitly) "I can't sit next to you due to your gender because, God " is inherently insulting so your entire premise is wrong.

Edited July 11, 2015 by msj

[Smallc]

People are inconvenienced/insulted in this example

In both examples.

[Michael Hardner]

No, you could plan around this without inconveniencing people

[Smallc]

No, you could plan around this without inconveniencing people

Not really as has been demonstrated. No more so than the theoretical scenario. Certainly not without insult.

[Bryan]

So, then, if you were running a store, say, and had a gay guy at the counter, and lots of people were saying they were going to stop coming to your shop because of the gay guy, you would accommodate them by moving him to the back of the shop? Assuming the other job is just as good and pays the same, of course.

That's different because you're making decisions based on how you run your business, not on how you treat your customers. You'd have to judge the balance between how many customers do or do not like the guy at a counter.

It really doesn't matter why they don't like him -- If you really were going to lose a lot of business, you would try to find a way around it. Ethnic restaurants have to deal with this all the time. The Chinese restaurant can have an anglo/causasian chef in the back, but the wait staff better be at least asian in appearance or their business will suffer. You can't advertise that you won't hire whites, but you can make a decision on where they'll work based on appearances.

Also, it would also be time to have a talk with the guy at the counter to find out what kinds of conversations is he having with the customers that they even know what his sexual preferences are.

[kimmy]

After a quick read through this thread (it's late for me and I may have missed a post; I even saw the name of Argus and Kimmy in a few posts), everyone seemed to miss the key point. Jews and Women did not hijack and fly planes into big buildings killing ordinary people like me.

No, I'm pretty sure that everybody else got the key point and that you're the one wandering around in deep left field without a clue what's going on. You're so far away from the key point that I'm not even sure you're still on this planet, August. You're just wayyy out there.

While I may think they're parochial, Orthodox Jews or Buddhist monks cause me no more discomfort while boarding a plane than fat women with short legs in mini-skirts. Indeed, I tend to feel safe beside such people. They're obviously honest.

August, my hapless friend, did you miss the link in the opening post?

It references repeated incidents where dumb-ass Haredi caused extensive delays to airplane flights because they refused to sit down and buckle in.

This has nothing to do with people flying planes into skyscrapers, and has nothing to do with people feeling uncomfortable sitting next to Jews. It is about ultra-orthodox Jews making life miserable for everybody else by delaying the entire flight.

They certainly were causing discomfort to the other passengers on the flight, because they were making everybody late while having a temper-tantrum and refusing to sit down until their demands were met.

Perhaps they are honest, but they are also entitled and inconsiderate.

-k

[Big Guy]

I agree with Bryan that when you run a business, you do many things to accommodate YOUR CUSTOMERS. Your choice of employees will dictate the success of your business and if you want to change the world by sticking to politically correct priorities then you will not be in business very long.

Try hiring a guy who insists in wearing his Palestinian scarf to clerk your kosher butcher shop. Or a man to work the front desk at a battered woman's shelter.

In this case, would the airline lose more customers or create future problems if they accommodated or refused the request.

Its business.

[Argus]

No but this is an entirely different case. Plus it has nothing to do with what I would do.

But they would simply be accommodating the prejudices of their customers without harming the employee. What's the big deal?

[Michael Hardner]

But they would simply be accommodating the prejudices of their customers without harming the employee. What's the big deal?

Well, the displacement of the employee sort of assumes that the employee isn't upset by it, so not much to say there. Then there's the motivation for the prejudice, which I spoke to above.

[Argus]

Well, the displacement of the employee sort of assumes that the employee isn't upset by it, so not much to say there. Then there's the motivation for the prejudice, which I spoke to above.

The motivation is largely the same as that of Jews who don't want to sit next to women, and if we are to not concern ourselves with women being upset by being told to move (to the back of the plane perhaps?) then why be worried about the gay guy?

[Michael Hardner]

The motivation is largely the same...

No, it's not. Behavior based on prejudiced views, standing alone, isn't protected by the constitution. Only when it's religious-based do we put up with it.

Why do we have to revisit such basic ideas over and over again ? Do you believe that by getting me to restate this over and over again, I might make a mistake ? I think it's a tiresome exercise. If I did make a mistake, then it wouldn't matter to the overall argument.

[Argus]

No, it's not. Behavior based on prejudiced views, standing alone, isn't protected by the constitution.

The constitution doesn't protect people acting in public. There is no constitutional right for people who don't want to come into contact with women to demand all male airplanes, for example, nor that no women be seated near them. So bringing the constitution into this is rather pointless. The airline is doing this stuff out of a customer relations and PR viewpoint, not because they are required by any sort of law to protect these people's innate prejudice. Your earlier statements on this seemed to be more on the lines of (to parapharse) well, why not accommodate them since nobody gets hurt by that.

[Michael Hardner]

So bringing the constitution into this is rather pointless.

I don't think so. If we're going to accommodate prejudices, then we need to ask firstly if there are religious reasons for it, right ? Beyond that, there is the question whether the individual can/should be legally accommodated, or - if not - whether they can/should be accommodated out of tolerance.

The airline is doing this stuff out of a customer relations and PR viewpoint, not because they are required by any sort of law to protect these people's innate prejudice.

Right, but as I said the source of the prejudice does matter.

[Michael Hardner]

Isn't everything I'm saying here very very basic and understandable ? Surely I'm not educating you with my answers here.

[Argus]

I don't think so. If we're going to accommodate prejudices, then we need to ask firstly if there are religious reasons for it, right ?

Why? We don't accommodate religious prejudice, generally, where it affects non-religious people. I mean we'll accept that churches don't have to do things which goes against their beliefs, since, why not? You don't go to that church if you don't share their beliefs anyway, right? Likewise, how many gay people are going to want to go to Trinity Western? That's an institution specifically catering to very religious Christians, after all. So we'll accept them having their own rules. But at the same time we don't accept that prejudiced views, whether from religion or not, can govern commercial entities. You can't refuse to serve gay, female or Jewish clients, for example. We're willing to offer up kosher meals to cater to religious people, but not where it affects the non-religious.

I'm not opposed to a sort of 'invisible' accommodation of people behind the scenes, whatever their quirks and prejudices are, so long as other people are not noticeably affected by it. But this business of refusing to sit down in a plane? Boot their asses off and permaban them, as far as I'm concerned.

[Michael Hardner]

Why? We don't accommodate religious prejudice, generally, where it affects non-religious people.

Depending on what you mean by 'affects'... We allow religious institutions to discriminate against people not of their religion, for example.

But at the same time we don't accept that prejudiced views, whether from religion or not, can govern commercial entities.

I guess you're right. At least, I can't think of a counter-example. Are you looking for a reason why businesses might not accommodate non-religious-based prejudice as in your example ?

It's their choice, but I imagine the backlash to allowing non-religious prejudice by clients would be remarkable.

I'm not opposed to a sort of 'invisible' accommodation of people behind the scenes, whatever their quirks and prejudices are, so long as other people are not noticeably affected by it. But this business of refusing to sit down in a plane? Boot their asses off and permaban them, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think they should be allowed to make a scene or delay the plane. If their religion is important in this regard, and the airline can do 'invisible' accommodation then why not ?

[Smallc]

Because it's wrong. Doesn't that mean anything.

[Michael Hardner]

Because it's wrong. Doesn't that mean anything.

Moralizing isn't a great business to be in.

[Bryan]

Because it's wrong. Doesn't that mean anything.

Why is it wrong to accommodate a customer if you can do it in a way that other customers are oblivious?

[Smallc]

It's a ridiculous demand that requires the fostering of beliefs that are not compatible with equality guarantees.

[Smallc]

Moralizing isn't a great business to be in.

Neither is the fistering of bigotry.

[Bryan]

It's a ridiculous demand that requires the fostering of beliefs that are not compatible with equality guarantees.

Welcome to the real world, not everyone acts how you'd like them to. Their money is still good.

[Smallc]

Welcome to the real world, not everyone acts how you'd like them to. Their money is still good.

There are more women than men who don't want to sit by women. Their money is pretty good too, I think.

[Michael Hardner]

There are more women than men who don't want to sit by women.

So ... you would disallow that prejudice then ?