UPDATE: EasyJet Settles With Passenger
A woman is suing easyJet over a pair of seat assignment incidents on flights from Tel Aviv. Her lawsuit claims she faced unlawful gender discrimination after flight attendants coaxed her to move seats to accommodate two Haredi Jewish passengers. While she does have a strong case, I do question the harm.
Woman Accuses easyJet Of Gender Discrimination In Lawsuit After She Was Asked Twice To Move Her Seat In Order To Accommodate Haredi Jewish Passengers
The first incident occurred in October 2019. Melanie Wolfson was traveling from Tel Aviv to London on easyJet and had paid extra for an aisle seat. Upon boarding, she found a Haredi Jewish father and son in the window and middle seat of the row.
The son stood up and began looking for a male passenger to switch places with Wolfson. He found a wiling participant a few rows up. But Wolfson initially refused to move. Only after being coaxed by flight attendants did Wolfson begrudgingly agree to move.
She later told Haaretz she was “insulted” and “humiliated” by the move:
“It was the first time in my adult life that I was discriminated against for being a woman. I would not have had any problem whatsoever switching seats if it were to allow members of a family or friends to sit together, but the fact that I was being asked to do this because I was a woman was why I refused.”
The lawsuit claims flight attendants later told Wolfson that these gender-related seat assignment incidents routinely occur on Tel Aviv flights. They encouraged her to write easyJet and complain.
Just two months later, a similar incident occurred onboard the same route, Tel Aviv to London.
This time, Wolfson held her ground and refused to move. Eventually, two female passengers agreed to switch with the two Haredi passengers. Wolfon’s lawsuit alleges that flight attendants refused to intervene in the matter and never defended her right to remain her seat.
An easyJet spokesperson said:
“At easyJet we take claims of this nature very seriously. Whilst it would be inappropriate to comment, as this matter is currently the subject of legal proceedings, we do not discriminate on any grounds.”
The lawsuit has been filed in Israel, where Israeli’s anti-discrimination law means Wolfson can earn up 50,000NIS (~$15,000) for unlawful discrimination without even needing to prove damages.
So, Is This Valid Discrimination?
Obviously, this is discrimination. This is also an issue that seems to run afoul of both British and Israeli law. But that’s an incomplete analysis.
I have shared about my own experience surrounding a Haredi passenger on a flight to New York many years ago. I was asked to move to a middle seat so the man could avoid sitting next to a woman.
In that case, I moved, even though it was from an aisle seat to a middle seat (there was a bit more to the story). I’d probably do it again today depending upon flight length and seat assignment.
It’s not because I want to perpetuate treating woman as second class. Goodness no. Rather, it’s because my understanding of Shomer negiah is that such behavior is actually done out of respect for woman (i.e., you only touch your own spouse or family members, no one else of the opposite sex).
Perhaps intentions should not matter. Wolfson should not have been made to feel second class because these observant passengers were too cheap to buy a third seat.
But as a religious person myself, I try to make reasonable faith-based accommodations to others, including those outside of my faith group. I struggle to view such actions as hostile to women.
Here, Wolfson was asked to move to an aisle seat two rows up the first flight and refused to move the second flight. I don’t see the harm. It’s one thing if the state treats you as second class due to your gender. But is it really so horrible if a seatmate simply wants to follow his faith in a way that does not impact you as long as you are offered an equivalent or better seat?
Rabbi Noa Sattath of the Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC) disagrees. He told Haaretz:
“The attempt to move a woman from a seat she reserved because of chauvinistic ideas, which have absolutely no connection to Judaism, is immoral, illegal and illegitimate. A direct line connects the attempt to erase women by refusing to sit next to them and the tacit consent that is given to hurt them and their bodies. We, in the Reform movement, through IRAC, will do whatever needs to be done to promote gender equality in Israel.”
Perhaps someone can explain to me how not sitting next to a woman somehow erases them?
> Read More: Would You Have Switched Seats?
CONCLUSION
I think Wolfson will ink a handsome settlement agreement with EasyJet. The flight attendants should not have pressured her to move the first time nor left her to fend for herself the second time. Israeli law seems clear to me. Even so, who wants to sit next to someone who does not want to sit next to you? Wolfson could have moved for her own comfort, not theirs. But I get the stigma of even being asked to move…
What do you make of this issue? This is a tough one for me.
I’m not familiar with European laws or Easyjet’s contract of carriage, but in the U.S., your ticket entitles you to transportation. It doesn’t entitle you to a specific seat and the airline reserves the right to change your seat assignment at any time for any reason. My experience tells me that seating changes are made on every single Tel Aviv flight every single day. Mostly, those seating changes are left up to the customers to figure out. I guess you can choose to call it gender discrimination or religious discrimination. Or you can just choose to think it is how a diverse world of people attempt to get along peaceably with one another while on a small metal tube in the sky. My take is that Melanie Wolfson is a horrible selfish money-grubbing person and one aisle seat is very like another.
“It doesn’t entitle you to a specific seat and the airline reserves the right to change your seat assignment at any time for any reason.”
Their CoC may say that, but courts in the US would not agree if the reason you were forced/coaxed/asked to move is because of your race/gender/other protected class.
How far away does said woman have to be? Is an empty seat between you sufficient?
If you don’t want to sit beside/next to/in close proximity of someone else. buy another seat.
My Jewish friends have said the issue is actual touching. So technically this woman could sit next to the men provided they never touched one another. But it’s just not realistic to avoid brushing against someone’s arm or bumping elbows in such close proximity. So for practical reasons, they do not want a woman sitting in the seat immediately next to them. I imagine a woman sitting in the same row with an empty middle would be kosher.
You’re correct on all accounts and you assumed correctly. It’s just about fear of touching which is pretty much unavoidable when seated right next to someone, unless you don remove the whole flight and sit on the far side of your seat.
Why didn’t the two men move? Were they joined at the hip? Why was it expected of her to accommodate their wishes? Come on now!
Is it so onerous to accommodate the religious/cultural requirements/constraints of others? Surely it’s a common courtesy. I’ve been asked to do it, and have obliged ( usually with a superior seat as FAs try to reward in that situation). The case might have a legal basis but not a moral one.
The expectations of these two men in thinking that they can fly and avoid sitting next to a woman is pretty incredible. And ridiculous. As Airfarer said, buy the seat next to you. Or, fly in business on another carrier.
With that, the woman probably made a bigger deal out of this than necessary and thus drew the attention to herself that she claimed was embarrasing. I get that she feels a point needs to be made. But the reality is that it was not a huge inconvenience (such as removing her from the flight).
It’s given me an idea, though. I am going to claim a religion that does not allow for any woman with a lap child to be within 10 feet of me.
Your religious belief should not infringe on the rights of others. What happens when someone claims to be a pastatarian, and they cannot sit on a plane next to anyone? Would the religious father and son be OK sitting next to a transgender man? Or a gender binary person? Let’s flip this the other way: What if she claims that she does not feel comfortable sitting next to two men, just because?
She reserved a seat, and should not have to move for convenience of others.
@ptahcha That’s not the point. The point is not whether the father and son would feel comfortable sitting next to a transgender man (who they would probably still view as a biological woman), but whether they would be offended if asked to move because of it.
If they were asked to move they have the choice of moving or not moving. It’s up to them. As long as they are not forcibly moved or removed from the flight, then there are no problems.
The same goes for this woman. She has every right to not move and to feel offended that they don’t want to sit next to a woman. But it seems frivolous to go to court for this, especially when it is well known that Jewish Haredi men consistently have this issue when they fly. There was no need for a lawsuit.
But I also agree that if they can afford it, Haredi men should purchase the 3rd Empty seat, if they feel that strongly about potentially touching a (woman) stranger.
Time and again I read people on Boarding Area saying “if you want to guarantee a particular seating preference, pay for it”
Do not see how this is any different.
There was always a 1 in 2 chance that a female would be in the aisle seat. By failing to pay for an extra seat they accepted the gamble, and lost.
Would you be ok if a white supremacist didn’t want to sit next to a black person? If they were polite about it? After all why would a black person want to sit next to someone who doesn’t want to sit next to them. Is it so bad if a seatmate wants to follow their beliefs as long as you are given a better or equivalent seat?
See your logic doesn’t hold up if I just change a few details. It’s ridiculous and needs to stop and airlines need to stop being complicit in it.
The difference is three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax.
Mitch, agreed.
So three thousand years of “beautiful tradition” makes discrimination more legitimate? uff, wow, cool attitude Mr Klimt. Tell that the women in Saudi Arabia, such a long time of wonderful repression…
Have you ever been to KSA or spoken to Saudi women? I have. The situation is a bit more complicated…
No and yes – and I hope your advertising partners will not be irritated by your pro-repression attitude.
Marco, you’re out of your element!
So 3000 years of sexism makes it OK? Society has moved on, evolved and quite frankly started to grow up (yes, I fully accept that we have further to go).
If someone wants to belive the world is flat then fine, so long as they don’t start demanding that a pilot flies in a “straight line” as the great circle flight paths are a lie and an affront to their beliefs.
@Cy Do you even know why a Haredi man doesn’t want to touch an unrelated female? Did you even read what Matthew wrote?
Matthew says the reason they hold to this tradition is to respect women and I would guess to protect their own purity as well.
I’m sure that the wives and mothers of Haredi men appreciate what they do.
It’s very different from your example of a racist white supremacist who doesn’t want to sit next to a black man because he Thinks he is superior to black people and/or disdains them.
Everyone thinks their beliefs are correct and just. It’s dangerous to start picking whose beliefs you cater to. If you want to believe in a make believe thing that says you can’t sit next to women (out of respect sure), have at it.
When you then ask a women to move (so you inconvenience some one because your respect them?), you’ve made it my problem and I don’t appreciate that.
Not that it came up, but obviously I’m not equating religion to bigotry, just taking “beleifs” to an extreme.
@Cy Fair point about it being dangerous to pick and choose.
As some commenters have said, if the men felt so strongly, then they should either buy the 3rd seat or ask to be moved themselves. However it is probably easier to move 2 people vs. 4, so I don’t think it’s wrong to ask if a person is willing to move.
If the person is not willing, then the Haredi men should ask to be moved if possible.
But I agree that the flight attendant shouldn’t be pressuring a person to move because of their preferences or even beliefs.
Destroy Religion. No Gods No Masters.
@ACAB Wow what blatant bigotry and hatred. Why are you not ashamed of yourself?
Why aren’t more people calling you out for this comment?
Why didn’t the two men move? The man in the middle seat could have changed with another male. There were more options other than asking the female to move.
Exactly. I don’t understand why the default remedy is that the woman moves.
Thank you, Scott, this is the only acceptable way to handle it if they feel that they absolutely cannot sit next to a woman.
Cy, racism is illegal, religion is protected (as it should be) Do you see the difference?
Lisa, you are incorrect. It’s not illegal
to be a racist, sadly too many people are. It’s illegal to engage in racist practices as a company. The example I gave was not the company engaging in racist practices.
I also wonder how the crowd would react if a Muslim man asked to not sit next to a western women (separate issue)
@Cy Interesting question. I think it depends on why the Muslim man doesn’t want to sit next to a western woman.
If the reason is because they are inferior in any way, then that’s unacceptable. But if it’s because he is not comfortable sitting in so close proximity with any women he is not related to, then that’s a different issue.
Same goes for the Haredi men. If they look down on women or despise them and that’s why Bd hey don’t want to sit next to them, then that’s wrong. But that doesn’t seem to be the reason.
Yes, it is discrimination in order to accommodate the religious beliefs of another; it incumbent on the one with the belief to do the accommodating to their beliefs. And there was a similar situation on El Al and the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the airline should have relocated the haredi passenger not the female. Seems like since there is precedent, EasyJet should have done the same thing; it was the male passengers who didn’t want to sit next to a woman, why on earth should she be moved?
This is wrong. The man should have bought an extra seat or been the one to move. Or learn to control his thoughts. I am sick of women being moved to accomodate men like this or obese passengers or familes that bought basic economy. The behavior is also not fair to the 99 percent of men who politely sit in their assigned seat. These guys do this because they know the airlines will give in
BDAGuy wrote: “it is discrimination in order to accommodate the religious beliefs of another; it incumbent on the one with the belief to do the accommodating to their beliefs.”
THIS!!!
They are forcing their beliefs and diminishing women.. so if that is the case.. buy an extra seat ( frugality/cheap… ) and respect all genders and teach your son how to avoid this situation by not putting it on the backs of others and corporate!
Businesses should treat all customers equally. A male passenger would not have been asked to move, so it is discrimination based on sex. That is not equal treatment.
These men, and any flight attendants who participated, attempted to impose religious beliefs on another. That is discrimination based on religion.
The only reason someone should be asked to move is if another passenger has a physical issue. The only person who should ask someone to move is a flight attendant. Passengers should mind their own business.
Thank you for the very clear explanation why this (moving a women to ‘accommodate’ someone’s religious beliefs) constitutes a non-disputable case of discrimination!
Seconded!
Religion should NEVER trump human rights! I would have refused to move.
I bet if it was discrimination against males rather than females we would see a lot more hoo-ha.
Just out of curiosity I am wondering how do haredi practices handle the new gender fluidity where the state recognizes a genetically-born man as a society-created woman (Jenner) or a genetically-born woman as a society-created man (Bono)? As for ACAB and the “Destroy Religion. No Gods No Masters” comment that is pure hate and intolerance speaking and goes completely against American values.
Couldn’t agree more – feel free to condemn this person then: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history
Good thing Mike Pence flies private, or we’d be hearing about more of this in the US too 😉
Gotta love the intolerance of the “tolerant” and “diverse” Left.
If the men had the problem then they should have either paid for the extra seat or tried to see about other arrangements while checking in, not amid boarding. Attempts to justify discrimination based on a long history of prior discrimination are wrong.
Those Jews are complete idiots. If they want to be next to a men or empty seat, they should pay for it. What a ridiculous religion. Complete bullsh*t.
Good on the woman standing her ground.
Your religion is no one else’s problem
If two women, who practiced a religion that did not allow them to sit next to men, asked me to move to an identical aisle seat in order for them to feel comfortable and more secure; would I do it?
Of course I would, I try not to be an a-hole for no good reason.
I think it’s difficult to fully comprehend–unless you’ve been in their shoes, and have somehow been made to feel ‘second-class’ at some point in your life, be it because of your gender, race, or religion.
While I do respect religious freedoms, I don’t think religion should ever ‘win out’ when there’s a conflict with other rights. To be very fair, if a passenger had such strong concerns about being seated next to someone else–for whatever reason, gender, colour, anything–then that passenger should either do everything in their power to prevent themselves being in that situation in the first place, such as buying an additional seat (less extreme), or just avoiding flying. If one were so orthodox, and so unable to accept ‘modern’ norms, then surely, they should just live their own lives away from others, and not expect other people to accommodate them.
COI, I am a POC. But fortunately, I haven’t faced anything really bad so far. But my mother, a female POC, has, and as a witness to that incident, I can tell you that being called out to move seats, to accommodate others, when they’re the ones having a problem with you, and not you having a problem with them, can be really humiliating.
I agree with the above posters – if you have an issue with women cooties, buy the extra seat to make sure you don’t catch them.
This is wrong. The man should have bought an extra seat or been the one to move. Or learn to control his thoughts. I am sick of women being moved to accomodate men like this or obese passengers or familes that bought basic economy. The behavior is also not fair to the 99 percent of men who politely sit in their assigned seat. These guys do this because they know the airlines will give in
This is a big problem all over the world.
Religious organisations and religious practices are afforded massive protections in law and socially via the idea that questioning concepts justified by faith is somehow unacceptable.
There is zero evidence to support the existence of any deity, however making such a statement is considered offensive or vilifying even though it’s demonstrably true. Until there is actual evidence to support a deity existing (personal experience, religious texts, and appeals to mystery are not evidence), someone’s faith has no place in impacting the lives of anyone else.
@UA Where have you seen this happen in the Western world (the Muslim world is different)? Where do you see people being vilified and attacked for stating that they believe God doesn’t exist and/or there is no evidence for the existence of God?
As far as I can tell, it’s totally fine in mainstream news, movies, and among the elite and socially influential to be an atheist and to declare that there is no God.
In fact, people are allowed to attack and vilify and verbally abuse Christians as racists, idiots, and uneducated backward hicks. If you did that about any other religious group (Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu), you would be quickly censured and maybe even lose your job.
This does indeed happen in the Western world – people have been dismissed for not believing in the Christian god, publicly-funded institutions refuse to hire non-believers, religious freedom is brandished about as a means of discriminating against classes of people and to attempt to impose control on the bodies of women with absolutely zero evidence to support the beliefs cited when justification is requested.
Regarding your last paragraph, this style of argument is often used by Christians to claim that they’re being persecuted and need more protection. Grouping all Christians into a single group isn’t reasonable and helps no one – there are racist, pridefully ignorant and bigoted persons of all faiths (or lack thereof), however if someone (or an organisation) does use their particular faith to justify such behaviour, that deserves to be highlighted with respect to that particular person or organisation.
Regardless of which particular variety is involved, all theistic faiths have one thing in common – there is zero evidence to support the existence of the deity involved or the validity of the religious texts cited. This becomes a problem when the irrational demands of such texts and beliefs are protected by law (businesses being closed on religiously significant days, religious organisations being excluded from discrimination and soliciting laws, etc), considered beyond question when justifying hateful and exclusionary conduct (Pence’s actions regarding the RFRA come to mind) and inflicting harm on the young (indoctrination of children, exclusion of family based on a change in faith…).
To demand that faith be used as a justification for impacting other people’s lives with zero evidence requires a surrender of critical thinking.
Those who observe a religion and have self imposed restrictions should bear the cost of their choice. Buy an extra seat or find a new seat for yourself. That woman had nothing to do with your religion of choice..
I agree completely.
The right to swing one’s fist ends as soon as another person’s body is within the range of that swing.
If faith is important to someone, good for them. Until the requirement of blind acceptance with zero evidence (and often in contradiction to available data and evidence) is not required, no one has any right to demand that their particular choice of myth be accommodated by others in the real world, regardless of their particular choice of faith system.
Great post UA, thank you.
Thanks – I just like facts and data.
@UA You make fair points about forcing someone’s beliefs onto others.
However, it is untrue and unfair to say that only religious people do this. Religious people are the most open and honest about basing their beliefs on something that can’t be proved through the scientific method and wanting others to abide and hold onto those beliefs.
But religious people such as Muslims or Christians or Orthodox Jews, don’t hold a monopoly on this type of belief and behavior control.
Just look at the LGBTQ movement and everything that they espouse. For example, there is absolutely no conclusive, empirical evidence that says sexual attraction is based solely on genetic factors and that who a person is attracted to is not influenced by other factors or could change over a person’s lifetime.
Even more so for transgender persons. There is no empirical evidence supporting the claim that there are myriad genders and that a person’s gender (not biological sex) is solely based on their genetic make-up.
With this said, would you @UA also call out the LGBTQ movement for espousing ideas and ideologies that are clearly not based in science but require belief in their ideology? Especially because they are aggressive in forcing their ideology and policies in people through public schools, popular media, and boycotts? Especially in Los Angeles where I’m from.
If you agree then I respect that you are being Intellectually honest and sincere in trying to base your beliefs on only what can be empirically proved through the scientific method.
@Ben, taking each of your points in turn:
Nowhere did I say that religious people have a monopoly on forcing their beliefs on anyone.
Regarding the LGBTQ “movement”, I applaud the demands of equality, respect and protection from discrimination for those who don’t happen to be heterosexual and cisgendered. I do not accept that all persons advocating for these positive outcomes are attempting to force their ideology onto anyone, but if there are specific persons or organisations attempting to force their ideology onto anyone (regardless of what that organisation is) without evidence, I of course object.
However, the level of evidence available in this particular case is not something comparable to the demand of acceptance with absolutely zero supporting evidence that is required for theistic belief. Transgender, non-binary, non-heterosexual people actually exist and have for all of recorded human history – who someone loves and why is irrelevant when talking about relationships between consenting adults.
Given that we do see homosexuality in species other than humans and that there are observed evolutionary benefits to some portion of some animal populations not being heterosexual, we do have evidence of genetic basis for sexual orientation.
In the interest of intellectual honesty, stating that a lack of understanding of the mechanism of action equates to the action being baseless is a false equivalency. For example, we know what the effect of gravity is, however we cannot currently confirm what the mechanism of action is – that is not grounds for claiming that physicists are aggressively pushing their ideology onto the world.
TL;DR – equating the requirement to accept a deity as existing in the absence of evidence is *not* equivalent to questioning the sexuality and gender of any segment of the population simply due to not having a complete scientific explanation for any particular orientation or gender.
I have a feeling most in the comments would be taking a very different and much more irked stance if the incident we’re about Muslim men rather than Jewish men. I also think the onus is on the person who needs to be accommodated for a non disability, non safety reason to figure out how and where to move. Neither time should the woman be asked to relocate because men don’t prefer her presence (gross).
The idea that belief that has zero evidence should be treated differently based on the particular variety of belief is indeed terrible.
There is absolutely no evidence for any deity existing – all demands based on theistic faith should be dismissed equally when they impact another person.
And how do you define “free exercise”?
I’m not advocating restriction on worship or holding beliefs via government intervention.
If someone’s particular faith system requires certain accommodations, then they should organise those accommodations. Should those extend to impacting others, then those accommodations are unreasonable.
Codifying religious edicts in law (such as Pence’s “work” RFRA), predicating prisoner reentry on their church attendance (as has been seen in Florida), affording religious organisations preferential tax treatment with a lack of transparency, using public funds for proselytisation (this has happened in multiple western countries) and the normalisation of the disgusting practice of indoctrinating children (and the associated infernal afterlife in some faiths) are all examples of activities that negatively impact those outside of a particular faith system that have no place in our society.
No restrictions? How about neutrally applicable restrictions on worship, such as indefinite shutdowns of worship during COVID-19?
Do you not appreciate that in order to keep a wall of separation between church and state, it is best that the government is not involved in all areas…not just the sort of positive intrusion that you dislike, but also in who a church hires, what kind of science it teaches, or a whole litany of value judgements exercised within an ecclesiological sphere that the greater society may find repugnant? Does taxing religious entities create a 1A establishment issue for you?
Isn’t your greater issue that religion enjoys heightened protection precisely because the Constitution guarantees such heightened protection?
To: JR- You wrote that these seat exchanges regularly occur on El Al. However, as another person wrote, the Israeli Supreme Court, in a similar case, ruled that a woman cannot be forced to change her seat, at the request of a male passenger. Therefore, I think that EasyJet used very bad judgment in both instances, to force Ms. Wolfson out of her seat. EasyJet could have avoided this problem by reserving specific seats for men, and for woman. Incidentally, y9ur despicable comment that “Melanie Wolfson is just another selfish, horrible, money grubbing person”, was your subtle attempt to inject anti-semitism, into this discussion. If her name was not Melanie Wolfson, but Colleen O’Flaherty, you never would have stated that! Correct?
@Matthew Klint – it seems there’s a restriction on reply depth levels.
The neutrally-applicable restrictions you’ve cited are on gatherings, not on worship – someone can still worship in private without restriction. This is also covered by my statement regarding accommodations of faith impacting others.
The wall of separation that you cite between church and state is, unfortunately, broken in many parts of the world with the US being one such example:
– Religious organisations are afforded preferential tax treatment without transparency requirements, giving such organisations an advantage that is able to be exploited for financial gain.
– Corporations cite religious grounds for restricting access to contraception to women and have had these statements endorsed by government representatives, even though access to contraception is demonstrably beneficial for socioeconomic outcomes.
– Messages of proselytisation for a specific deity are present on government-issued currency, required in many schools and one state has introduced a requirement for such a message to be present on their upcoming state flag.
The intrusions I have cited are demonstrably harmful to multiple parties – there is no “like” or “dislike” involved. Regarding your other points to support the idea of separation between church and state requiring a lack of intervention from government:
Who a church hires is indeed an issue when a complete lack of transparency is present. The typical arguments of religious organisations deserving preferential tax treatment without transparency and protection from anti-discrimination laws due to the good work they do not apply to other charitable organisations – what makes religious organisations special in this regard?
If churches started teaching science, that would require critical thinking to be a key piece of material – this runs counter to accepting something as true in the complete absence of evidence. I’m happy to be corrected if there are examples of religious organisations including the scientific method as part of what they preach in a correct fashion. Choosing to teach certain scientific subjects and not others is akin to deciding on a curriculum, however teaching fallacies or blindly-held beliefs as scientific is fraud and there are some organisations that do that, causing harm – if a non-religious organisation engages in such behaviour they are generally held accountable. Again, what makes a religious organisation special in this regard?
Regarding value judgements, we live in a society of laws in many countries. There are scientifically- and socially-demonstrable benefits to altruism that can be taught universally without the mental gymnastics, cognitive dissonance and cherry picking that many faith systems require.
Note that I did not state that religious entities should be taxed – my objection is with regard to the lack of transparency.
Regarding my “greater issue”, you’re seemingly assuming that I’m only focused on the US and that there are legal protections in the US constitution. If this is the case, you’re wrong on both counts.
I don’t have an issue with the First Amendment protecting someone’s right to hold a set of religious beliefs or establish a religion without government interference. The issue I have are with regard to the special treatment religious organisations enjoy that enable negative outcomes for those who either are without faith or of a faith different to those with the ability to impact their lives – those protections extend far beyond the provisions of the First Amendment and are justified entirely by someone citing their particular deity as somehow endorsing those protections with no evidence to support said deity existing.
Similar attempts to codify protection in law for religious organisations and the faith-motivated bigotry of some groups are occuring in countries outside of the US. For example, the current government of Australia have attempted to introduce laws to enable people to discriminate against non-heterosexual, non-cisgendered persons in response to marriage equality finally becoming a thing there and has framed this as “protecting religious freedom”.
If religious organisations are unable to meet some basic requirements that are placed on other organisations, that speaks volumes about their relevance in society. The unjustifiable practices of state-endorsed slavery, racism, misogyny and bigotry have been significantly reduced throughout much of the world – the special treatment that religion receives is starting to be more critically examined in a similar way.
If someone’s set of beliefs demand that someone of a particular heritage, sex, gender, citizenship or faith make accommodations for them at the expense of that person, why exactly should society accommodate those beliefs? If I were to cite that all men entering my suburb demonstrate that their scrotum has been injected with botox recently citing a message I heard whilst having a drink with Thor and Osiris, I’d quite rightfully be considered mad (or an disruptive start-up founder perhaps).
The fact that there is any debate regarding whether or not it is reasonable for a woman to move due to another person’s beliefs whilst supported by precisely the same amount of evidence as my example above speaks to the social protections that extant faith systems are afforded for no rational reason.
This is not an attack on someone privately holding their beliefs, rather is it a demand that rational, critical thought be applied to a subject that enjoys many social protections. It is broadly accepted that children are told that the particular beliefs of their parents are absolutely true (giving rise to terms such as “Muslim child”, “Catholic child” and so on) religious belief is an indicator of someone’s likelihood to engage in moral conduct (it isn’t) and questioning these practices and others justified by belief are still considered a social taboo.
I’ll respond in full as time permits, but I did think you were basing your discussion on U.S. jurisprudence and law based upon your “UA” name. Western Europe…where faith is largely dead but Germany still has mandatory church taxes and Sunday closing laws presents an interesting case study…
I appreciate your focused questioning in this discussion – thank you.
Happy to change forums if you’d like to keep this off your most excellent travel-focused site.
And, as I should have said, you’re completely correct with regard to the situation in Germany being an interesting case study, as well as the German government’s assessment of Scientology in contrast to the assessments of other governments.
The same could be said for changes in Greece with regard to no longer considering Orthodox Priests as civil servants, Australia specifically targeting the Jehovah’s Witnesses given their response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse and Saudi Arabia classing atheists as terrorists (even though atheism is the default state of any newborn human).
Are you still wanting to have a discussion on this issue?
@UA: I need to respond. I totally forgot. I will.
There are those who feel the ‘gentlemens” “request” to have the plaintiff removed from their presence was a gesture of respect.
Clearly, there is no merit to such an argument …for a sincere showing of ‘respect for a woman’ would have been to take whatever steps necessary to not disturb the person who so offends these gentlemen. Real respect for others is not in asking their accommodation for your needs. NO sir, True respect for others is to take personal responsibility for ones’ own dogmatic beliefs and find other seating or failing that …get off the plane. JEEZ,