http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-730466–.html
Whatever happened to ‘when in Rome’? If these men’s religions don’t permit them to sit next to women, then they shouldn’t be traveling in the United States. The airlines should not discriminate against women in favor of those with sexist ideas.
(I’d only move if I were moved up to First).
I wouldn’t move. If I was forced to move you can bet I’d been working up the food change to the CEO’S office. I’d hire a lawyer, too.
I think they did her a favor. Who wants to sit next to the crazy idiots in orange robes?
it’s up to the men who can’t sit next to a woman to guarantee their “purity” by buying extra seats.
When I fly, I pay extra to get the seat I want. They can do the same.
Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, it should be the men who get moved. They’re the ones with the restriction. And if they can’t be moved to a place they “accept,” they have the choice of taking the next flight.
I believe this is a true story: When women were being raped after dark in early Israel, it was suggested that women have a curfew. Golda Meir said, Why? It’s the men who are doing the raping. They should have the curfew.
Here it is: https://motleynews.net/2012/07/11/the-best-statement-made-about-rape-gold-meirs-curfew-for-men/
I agree that the guys should have had to move given that they were the ones who had the restriction, but I disagree that this was a sexual discrimination issue. I think UAL just made a bad judgement call.
Yep, the men should move; it’s their problem.
I agree. I don’t know why it didn’t occur to them they should move the men. There wouldn’t be any issues legal or otherwise if they moved the men. We don’t need to pull constitution stuff.
Agree, the person that has the issue should be the one to move. That said, if they want to offer me incentive (first class, voucher for future flight, free movie or drinks…) to move I probably would do it. They really should have asked the woman if she was willing to move. Moving her without asking and putting those men’s “needs” first wasn’t cool.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-731066–.html
According to this article, it’s not just United. Many of the airlines do this often without telling the passenger being moved why she is being moved.
The FAA should just issue a regulation to all carriers operating within the United States that this will not be allowed.
We had a lengthy thread on this topic a few years ago - interesting reading: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/1765389-ny-times-when-a-plane-seat-next-to-a-woman-is-against-orthodox-faith-opinions.html
From the above article: “Dear United Airlines,” Bosche wrote, “I need to inform you that due to my cultural beliefs I cannot sit next to men."
“This includes the BusinessFirst seat across the aisle from me,” Bosche continued, “in addition to the BusinessFirst seat next to me. I expect the seat I chose to remain unchanged as it is my favorite.”
Bosche’s flight will be interesting. If United allows Bosche’s request, they discriminate against male passengers.
But if they ignore Bosche, then they treat his request about males differently than the men who wanted Campos, a female, moved.
Is this Bosche the “His Majesty” of this airline sex discrimination issue? Can anyone make up their own cultural belief and demand special consideration for whatever they want?
Regardless, moving the women so that men don’t have to be near them is very wrong.
I believe they should move the person who requests the change based on availability and willingness of other passengers to switch. I’ve seen parents and children moved and many other instances of people switching seats not sure what is different about a man who doesn’t want to sit next to a woman or vice versa. Doesn’t really matter what the religious beliefs are. Generally someone is willing to switch so the occurrences where they couldn’t accommodate one person should be pretty slim. But our nation has decided to make every little thing about affronts to women so I get why this woman is making a lawsuit out of it, I would expect nothing less these days. But I do agree that in the original scenario they should have moved the male making the request and not the female.
Obviously this guy is making a point, just like "his majesty’. The airline should not pick and choose which beliefs to respect and which not to respect.
Maybe the airlines should just all become Southwest. No assigned seating. If you have special seating requirements, you’d better be in group A and pick your own seat early.
Tatin, that doesn’t solve the problem. What if a female passenger chooses to sit next you?
this thread should go alongside the “Toxic Masculinity” thread
@Igloo Then the men who don’t want to sit next to a woman have the option of choosing a row of seats with only men. If you are two men, on a typical three by three seating situation, choose the row with one man already there.
Sigh…with my luck I wouldn’t move and the men get upgraded to first class. That would really make me mad.
If you are picky about whom you sit next to, it may be better to be in the middle part of the boarding, so that you can select an empty seat where the nearby seat(s) are already occupied by “acceptable” other passengers.
There are two issues with this, both of which I am not sure people on here are putting into the mix:
Whenever my company had to receive corporate executives from certain countries, the state department would often be the first to make sure we do everything to respect the culture of the visiting executives - and the includes conditions such as the article references. On my aircraft, the US government representative dutifully followed the segregation rules as well.
In a few cases had to use another airplane (doubling costs) because some men would not even be on the same aircraft with the women if the men would be able to see the women or hear them.
Thus, the $64,000 question is at what point does imposing one’s cultural norms on others become a case of ethnocentrism, western imperialism, or the denying of a marginalized group its religious freedom? It is not really possible to have the argument both ways - either other cultures are fully respected and the marginalized groups accepted or not. This is because once one thinks you can pick and choose what you accept from others then the argument is made that these are cases of ethnocentrism and xenophobia etc.
People do not come to the US and leave their beliefs at home. However, the real kicker is there are many naturalized american citizens who believe similar as well, as there is no cultural norm or behavioral test to become a citizen. Forcing your beliefs on them becomes even more problematic because they are protected by the Constitution.