Women and Jews on a plane

[Michael Hardner]

Well you are just being vindictive I think. If they can accommodate without impacting you then who cares? It's not their job to stamp out religion.

[Smallc]

Well you are just being vindictive I think. If they can accommodate without impacting you then who cares? It's not their job to stamp out religion.

It's not their job to stamp out equality either, I don't think. This is a case of people being so politically correct that they jump the shark.

[Big Guy]

I see the difference of opinion here as one poster feels that accommodating an "outrageous" request is reinforcing it. He/she also feels that this kind of request is a matter of principle and should be refused and the confrontation be a "learning experience" for the racist.

I agree with Michael - sometimes you resolve a problem by making sure the situation does not escalate especially if no one is inconvenienced in the process.

To me, a guy walking naked in a dessert, waving an axe and 100 miles from anybody else should be allowed to do his own thing.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not their job to stamp out equality either, I don't think. This is a case of people being so politically correct that they jump the shark.

It's about business

[Smallc]

I see the difference of opinion here as one poster feels that accommodating an "outrageous" request is reinforcing it. He/she also feels that this kind of request is a matter of principle and should be refused and the confrontation be a "learning experience" for the racist.

I agree with Michael - sometimes you resolve a problem by making sure the situation does not escalate especially if no one is inconvenienced in the process.

I think women are probably inconvenienced in the process. It's funny how the same people that can underhandedly accuse me of being a racist, bigoted, and sexist, can in the next breath excuse the bigotry of any minority, no matter how egregious.

[Smallc]

It's about business

It's a bad business move to enable the oppression of women.

[Michael Hardner]

We already discussed how accommodation can happen without impacting others. It sounds like you want to legislate against bad ideas.

[Smallc]

We already discussed how accommodation can happen without impacting others. It sounds like you want to legislate against bad ideas.

We've already legislated against these ideas. I think you're trying to defend this against all reason. I'm not sure why.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

We've already legislated against these ideas. I think you're trying to defend this against all reason. I'm not sure why.

What legislation makes it illegal to provide reasonable accommodation?

[Michael Hardner]

We've already legislated against these ideas. I think you're trying to defend this against all reason. I'm not sure why.

We've legislated against some applications of these ideas, but not against holding these values. It's still legal to be a sexist pig.

Again, if the airlines see a good reason to accommodate these folks without impacting others (which is how it would have to be) then I don't see why we should care. They're more likely to lose customers from the religious (pro-God) set than the religious (pro-Humanist) set, I think. Most humanists don't care about peoples' wacky metaphysical beliefs, as long as it doesn't impact them personally. The only ones who would be upset are those who can't stand the idea of a sexist mindset existing.

[Smallc]

What legislation makes it illegal to provide reasonable accommodation?

How is it reasonable to accommodate this type of behaviour?

[cybercoma]

How is it reasonable to accommodate this type of behaviour?

It's not, but what legislation makes it illegal to provide reasonable accommodation? Say an airline chose to seat him next to a man because they were easily able to do so. What law are you charging the airline under?

Edited July 7, 2015 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

It's not, but what legislation makes it illegal to provide reasonable accommodation? Say an airline chose to seat him next to a man because they were easily able to do so. What law are you charging the airline under?

I'm not saying the airline should be charged. I'm saying that the behaviour itself goes against many provincial hate statutes (as much as I disagree with them).

[cybercoma]

If it's illegal, then the airline could be charged. What's the wording in the hate legislation that makes you think the airline could be brought before a tribunal for accommodating a passenger with a stupid request?

[Smallc]

If it's illegal, then the airline could be charged. What's the wording in the hate legislation that makes you think the airline could be brought before a tribunal for accommodating a passenger with a stupid request?

You're probably right. I don't actually think it should be illegal, just, strongly discouraged and denounced. I see this as an issue of women's equality.

[cybercoma]

You're probably right. I don't actually think it should be illegal, just, strongly discouraged and denounced. I see this as an issue of women's equality.

I agree that his idiotic views should be denounced, but I also don't see a problem with the airline just accommodating the request when it's not going make a damn bit of difference to any of the passengers on the flight. Intentionally inciting people over their stupid beliefs is not the airline's role, nor should it be.

Edited July 7, 2015 by cybercoma

[Wilber]

It's not, but what legislation makes it illegal to provide reasonable accommodation? Say an airline chose to seat him next to a man because they were easily able to do so. What law are you charging the airline under?

It's reasonable if no one else is incovenienced. The airline blocking off seats so that women can't select them is discrimination, pure and simple. If it is so damned important to them, they can pay for the additional seat and leave it vacant.

[cybercoma]

It's reasonable if no one else is incovenienced. The airline blocking off seats so that women can't select them is discrimination, pure and simple. If it is so damned important to them, they can pay for the additional seat and leave it vacant.

I agree with you 100% here.

[Smallc]

So do I.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree that it's reasonable if others aren't inconvenienced. What a pain for the airline though.

[Argus]

Well you are just being vindictive I think. If they can accommodate without impacting you then who cares? It's not their job to stamp out religion.

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.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Argus

[TimG]

I agree that it's reasonable if others aren't inconvenienced. What a pain for the airline though.

There is a simple solution: require the people making such demands to buy all of the seats around them. If they are too cheap to do that then why should the airline spend money accommodating them?

[Michael Hardner]

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.

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

[Michael Hardner]

There is a simple solution: require the people making such demands to buy all of the seats around them. If they are too cheap to do that then why should the airline spend money accommodating them?

That is their decision

[Smallc]

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

How is it entirely different?