# Orthodox Jews and a Question of Religious Freedom



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/u...-over-seat-assignments-and-religion.html?_r=0

I thought this might be a way of discussing the limits of religious freedom acts without the nonsensical retreads of gay marriage and wedding cakes.

It is an article about the increasing disruption caused by Orthodox Jews with who insist they be given a seat with no women next to them. So when they arrive on a public commercial flight and find that the seat is next to a woman, they refuse to sit there and hold up the flight until they are acccommodated.

Mostly it seems that they get their way as someone will agree to the change but occaisonally someone will refuse. At which I sure the other passengers get frustrated at the refusal rather than the demand.

So, assuming that it really is a religious principle, which the article mentions is not universal, does the airline accomodate the objector's refusal and put the women in an embarassing or uncomfortable situation, or should they tell the man he should have bought the seats on either side of him to avoid the problem he created and refuse to involve the woman in his difficulty?


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

where I want to said:


> , or should they tell the man he should have bought the seats on either side of him to avoid the problem he created and refuse to involve the woman in his difficulty?


Lets see if I can get this post deleted, Given this man's ancestry, I doubt very much if he would buy extra seats.  Just as a disclaimer, my ancestry includes Hebrew, so this is laughing at myself as well. People seem to be willing to accommodate Muslims lately so I see no reason they can not accommodate Ultra Orthodox Jews.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

I don't really think that a request of this nature is unreasonable when it's made ahead of time. It's very doable and doesn't deny others if the airline has made any effort to accommodate. 

I can't exactly blame the man. He doesn't want to sit beside a woman. It's not exactly likely that he'll be physically able to sit in his seat without being against the person beside him, quite a bit of contact should that person be of considerable size. (Been there, done that.) I don't care to be plastered up against anyone, man or woman. 

If the airline is not able to accommodate, it's not unreasonable to tell the customer that they cannot accommodate their needs without the threat of being sued for discrimination. If they can, they can. If they can't, they can't. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

where I want to said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/u...-over-seat-assignments-and-religion.html?_r=0
> 
> I thought this might be a way of discussing the limits of religious freedom acts without the nonsensical retreads of gay marriage and wedding cakes.
> 
> ...






Bellyman said:


> I don't really think that a request of this nature is unreasonable when it's made ahead of time. It's very doable and doesn't deny others if the airline has made any effort to accommodate.
> 
> I can't exactly blame the man. He doesn't want to sit beside a woman. It's not exactly likely that he'll be physically able to sit in his seat without being against the person beside him, quite a bit of contact should that person be of considerable size. (Been there, done that.) I don't care to be plastered up against anyone, man or woman.
> 
> ...



Interesting question, and since 9/11 there's no doubt a LOT of things have changed and an individual's freedom and/or inconvenience has a much lower priority today.

I've never had a problem exchanging or even giving up my seat for someone out of respect. I suppose I could always have considered it an inconvenience for me, but that was, after all, the whole point of doing it.:shrug:
Likewise, most of the stories within the links were the problems this caused when the woman in question got offended because of the reason for this episode of "musical chairs".
:croc:

I can understand why the women were offended, but my own reaction would be to trade seats with one of them to avoid any further delay or contention.
Imagine this scenario to give you another perspective......
Someone boards a plane, goes to their seat and refuses to sit there because......a black man is seated next to them.:shocked:
This isn't hypothetical, but it did happen many years ago when my best friend's grandmother was alive and coming to America to visit from Germany. 
I don't know who moved, but she made it here anyway.
She sure was a mean looking woman as I remember, but Mike explained it as her not having been around any black people in Germany and she wasn't interested in changing her ways.

The biggest problem cited was when it was a whole group of men, not just one or two.
In that case, I say it's up to the airline to decide. They are a private enterprise and not gov't public transit. They can tell the guys to take a hike or charter a flight or tick off the female half of their customers, it's up to them. 



BlackFeather said:


> Lets see if I can get this post deleted, Given this man's ancestry, I doubt very much if he would buy extra seats.  Just as a disclaimer, my ancestry includes Hebrew, so this is laughing at myself as well. People seem to be willing to accommodate Muslims lately so I see no reason they can not accommodate Ultra Orthodox Jews.



LOL.
I'm sure somewhere in my genes I've got some Jewish blood too, and on top of that, Scottish. A good Scot will only grin when you call him "cheap".
Aye, that be true, lad.:grin:


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Interesting question. Does someone have a right to inconvenience a hundred+ people and disrupt a business possibly ruining a few thousand peoples schedule if they hold the plane too long just due to their personal prejudices?


If they politely asked if someone would change seats with them and that person agreed - then fine. 

But to "stand on their religious beliefs" making themselves a royal pain demanding that the airline fix their personal problem, then forget it - they should be escorted off the plane by security, and told to buy the whole row next time.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

mnn2501 said:


> Interesting question. Does someone have a right to inconvenience a hundred+ people and disrupt a business possibly ruining a few thousand peoples schedule if they hold the plane too long just due to their personal prejudices?
> 
> 
> If they politely asked if someone would change seats with them and that person agreed - then fine.
> ...


I agree. Make a stink and throw a tantrum, deal with security, like anyone else would. 

There is a degree of civility that seems to become less and less seen among some people. Kinda like common sense. 

:facepalm:


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

IMO - why don't YOU move instead of asking a woman to move. Find a row that has three men sitting in it and ask one of them to move for you. And if there is no place on the plane that is female free or no female or male passenger will move for you then I suggest you get off the plane. If your religion forbids you from functioning in the modern world but you choose to insert yourself into the modern world then learn to behave in it. I detest ANY religion or form of religion which denigrates women and this is just another example.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bellyman said:


> I agree. Make a stink and throw a tantrum, deal with security, like anyone else would.
> 
> There is a degree of civility that seems to become less and less seen among some people. Kinda like common sense.
> 
> :facepalm:


I can't see that putting the man's problem onto the woman is civility. She is sitting there minding her own business and suddenly the irritating problem of the man's difficulties becomes her's to solve. Passengers and airline personnel are looking for her to solve the problem that is not her business at all. As usual in life, she will be grumbled against by people looking for a person on whom to dump their irritation at the delay should she actually refuse as is her right.
Now if the airline makes a general announcement asking for anyone to volunteer to move if they are in a position to help, that would be courteous. Then no one will be singled out for a basically unreasonable demand. But targeting the woman for daring to be a woman? No way.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

BlackFeather said:


> Lets see if I can get this post deleted, Given this man's ancestry, I doubt very much if he would buy extra seats.  Just as a disclaimer, my ancestry includes Hebrew, so this is laughing at myself as well. People seem to be willing to accommodate Muslims lately so I see no reason they can not accommodate Ultra Orthodox Jews.


Humor and esp self humor is great.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Having lived with such a sect of Jewish persons..it is a true part of their faith.

I once while outside witnessed a man of such a faith who was disabled... and he fell down unlabeled to get himself up. I touched him ....the look of terror in his eyes even angry as I helped him up..... I did not know about the touching of a man touch an unrelated female was taboo.

Much later we, talked and had lunch at his home with is mother near by.


He explained it all to me and he explained having to see a rabbi and a purification ritual he had to undergo. 

We remained friends ....I learned that for him he would rather me watch over him....cell phone were not known then. 

I promised that with that knowledge I would not interfere with his faith.

I can see that man in such a situation... getting off the plane and not complaining about it. Another might not but as he explain it was his burden to maintain his faith not mine and that his rabbi had instructed him to make amends to me and to explain.... and to Own up to his Anger to me for my act of what was misguided care.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

where I want to said:


> I can't see that putting the man's problem onto the woman is civility. She is sitting there minding her own business and suddenly the irritating problem of the man's difficulties becomes her's to solve. ...


Not sure if I said it wrong or not. I was referring to the man's lack of manners in a civilized society specifically, and somewhat generally towards much of what I see around me when I look at the spoiled brats wanting attention (pick your favorite poop stirrer.)


----------



## halfpint (Jan 24, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> IMO - why don't YOU move instead of asking a woman to move. Find a row that has three men sitting in it and ask one of them to move for you. And if there is no place on the plane that is female free or no female or male passenger will move for you then I suggest you get off the plane. If your religion forbids you from functioning in the modern world but you choose to insert yourself into the modern world then learn to behave in it. I detest ANY religion or form of religion which denigrates women and this is just another example.


I agree with this. The man should ask for another seat if one is available. The woman should not be asked to move, unless they have a first class seat for her. I used to fly several times a month (usually 4-8 trips) and frequently changed seats, but it was usually for family members to sit together or for health reasons. 
Dawn


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Very interesting article. I would switch seats if it wasn't an inconvenience but usually when my husband and I fly, he (being 6'2") books an aisle seat. We would not change seats because of this. Nor would I cover up with a burka for an offended Muslim male. Their religious freedoms should not impinge on my freedoms.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No burka needed...I used to join the aforementioned neighbor/ friendly associate..I had a dog to walk and he needed to walk for health issues.. 

I, in my short shorts puffing away on a cig. He knew many things and his cousin was a guy named Jeff who was in the news a lot cause he was a captain of a space shuttle.. we had many neat talks often.

He just had different personal standards for himself. The boldest he was was to ask that I walk down wind when I smoke.... I worn tiny summer shirts ....he did not concern himself with my choices....but when I breached his rights.


People who are very different can get along in peace once both accept that rights end when they control other's rights.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Again you have no right to something which someone else must provide.

Therefore he has the right to ask and the airline has the right to say "No". At that point its his choice to either sit where he's assigned or to leave the aircraft.

I think the company should also have legal recourse to charge him for any expenses incurred from his actions. Any "reasonable man" would know that there is a very good chance that one of the people sitting next to you on an airliner will be a woman and if it was against his religion he should have taken precautions BEFORE he boarded the aircraft.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> No burka needed...I used to join the aforementioned neighbor/ friendly associate..I had a dog to walk and he needed to walk for health issues..
> 
> .


??? I wasn't responding to you. The burka statement was an example of what i was talking about, not any reference to your post.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Muslim extremist are not at all as kind or accepting of other faiths rights to live.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Muslim extremist are not at all as kind or accepting of other faiths rights to live.


What does that have to do with this topic? I thought it was about people of religious faiths (on the "extreme side") impinging on other people's freedoms to accomodate their own beliefs.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I simply stated a difference...one asked a person change seats one demands you to donate 8 pints of blood.

Is it sexist...well yes, a orthodox Jew is only allowed to touch family of the opposite sex.. women of that sect can't touch males. So the sect is balanced that way.

I learned a lot from that man of the sect.

Women control sex as it is her right to bear children. And two she must be clean per their faith so she must be cleansed at a temple once a month.. putting it nicely.

A husband has to provide her the chance to have as many children as she wishes.

There was a lot of info I learned. Having the knowledge from him and his family... and knowing that one could mandated to those standards of regulations but that each individual voluntarily took on those burdens.

The worst that could happen was being excluded. Looked upon as dead no on was killed for leaving the sect.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> I simply stated a difference...one asked a person change seats one demands you to donate 8 pints of blood.
> 
> Is it sexist...well yes, a orthodox Jew is only allowed to touch family of the opposite sex.. women of that sect can't touch males. So the sect is balanced that way.
> 
> ...


It's very nice that you learned so much from your ultraorthodox friend but it still has no real bearing on the topic. 
I was unaware that Muslims demanded 8 pints of blood from their fellow airline passengers. Very interesting.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Muslim extremist are not at all as kind or accepting of other faiths rights to live.


Here is how kind and accepting some ultraorthodox Jews can be. Spitting on a child and calling her a whore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/w...nter-of-tension-over-religious-extremism.html

I dislike any religious extremists who push their beliefs on others.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

basketti said:


> Here is how kind and accepting some ultraorthodox Jews can be. Spitting on a child and calling her a whore.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/w...nter-of-tension-over-religious-extremism.html
> 
> I dislike any religious extremists who push their beliefs on others.


 OK,,, so extremist jews spit on a little girl. Bad jews,,, bad.
Extremist muslims cut off her head.
There's a comparison somewhere in there I'm sure. I just don't see it.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Marshloft said:


> OK,,, so extremist jews spit on a little girl. Bad jews,,, bad.
> Extremist muslims cut off her head.
> There's a comparison somewhere in there I'm sure. I just don't see it.


Where did they cut off her head? 
Anyway, so because some extreme Muslims are very bad, that excuses other badness?
You don't think all religious extremism that infringes on other's freedoms is bad?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

BlackFeather said:


> Lets see if I can get this post deleted, Given this man's ancestry, I doubt very much if he would buy extra seats.  Just as a disclaimer, my ancestry includes Hebrew, so this is laughing at myself as well. People seem to be willing to accommodate Muslims lately so I see no reason they can not accommodate Ultra Orthodox Jews.





basketti said:


> Here is how kind and accepting some ultraorthodox Jews can be. Spitting on a child and calling her a whore.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/w...nter-of-tension-over-religious-extremism.html
> 
> I dislike any religious extremists who push their beliefs on others.


I agree and I learned that the rabbi once he learned about would require atonement....just as the man had to do for me.... his was easy as he could make amends directly to me. The rabbi is very much involved in the members lives that person fails to follow the tenants of the faith as such behind-the-scenes the rabbi works to reform the negative behaviors of their faith. As that is their chosen faith they must freely face the rabbi or be shunned. 

They choose to accept to follow their rabbi....they can also break away and leave it all behind or or shift to less stringent sects of Judaism.

It was interesting living in a Jewish world in a house where the father was a conservative Jew the wife was of a family far less restrictive. She being the wife...the mother they as a whole lived under a less restrictive sect. ( or as the husband's mother would lament.....almost a Jewish temple)..I forget the name of the temple but Beverly sills was a member and sang there and the father privately with out drawing attention to it did maintain a standard of faith with more restrictions but the children born were to be on t h e mother's standards.

Jewish folks seem to splinter in what I define a sects just as Christians have different sects that we refer to commonly a denominations.


The more restrictive the more personally and privately they carried the responsibility for the keeping of their faith from outsiders. 


Since I had over 10 years living like this ....openly a Christian I got to have greater understanding of Judaism.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Sorry but sometimes scrolling gain and extra quote. As above sorry..I am human and mess up.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> It's very nice that you learned so much from your ultraorthodox friend but it still has no real bearing on the topic.


You'd be surprised how much the gift of knowledge bears relevance on all topics. 



basketti said:


> I was unaware that Muslims demanded 8 pints of blood from their fellow airline passengers. Very interesting.


Not all Muslims, but you may have heard about some radical elements in the news lately.
But yes, they do sometimes require 8 pints.
Maybe you heard about their inaugural blood drive they kicked off some years back.......on 9/11/2001?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

emdeengee said:


> IMO - why don't YOU move instead of asking a woman to move. Find a row that has three men sitting in it and ask one of them to move for you. And if there is no place on the plane that is female free or no female or male passenger will move for you then I suggest you get off the plane. If your religion forbids you from functioning in the modern world but you choose to insert yourself into the modern world then learn to behave in it. I detest ANY religion or form of religion which denigrates women and this is just another example.


Actually, I don't see it as denigrating women, almost the opposite. They do not believe in getting THAT chummy w/strange women. Its the sitting CLOSELY that's the problem...?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

basketti said:


> What does that have to do with this topic? I thought it was about people of religious faiths (on the "extreme side") impinging on other people's freedoms to accomodate their own beliefs.


Um, uh, well, duh.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

basketti said:


> Here is how kind and accepting some ultraorthodox Jews can be. Spitting on a child and calling her a whore.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/w...nter-of-tension-over-religious-extremism.html
> 
> I dislike any religious extremists who push their beliefs on others.


This has nothing to do w/topic. Were they on a plane?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

There are many people out there who will think Iâm crazy for saying that the wearing of a headscarf (or hijab) is a womanâs right. 

http://www.femagination.com/1009/womens-rights-the-headscarf-hijab/

Now Australia [along with many other countries like France, Belgium and the Netherlands] also requires that they must show their faces for identity checks.

http://www.quora.com/Is-it-discrimi...urqas-must-identify-themselves-to-authorities

I ask, what is a right?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

basketti said:


> Where did they cut off her head?
> Anyway, so because some extreme Muslims are very bad, that excuses other badness?
> You don't think all religious extremism that infringes on other's freedoms is bad?


You many have missed the news some weeks ago. Muslims-yes, extremists-buried children alive. CUT OFF SOME HEADS. Many, actually. Gave the body back to family. At least those were the videos. Some were crucified. And christians were murdered. Many of them. Betcha they'd take a guy who just couldn't sit next to one as a friend/neighbor instead.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Um, uh, well, duh.


Is there a reason why you need to be rude? Just curious.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Doggonedog said:


> Is there a reason why you need to be rude? Just curious.


Why are most people rude? I think at the root it is because of insecurity and bitterness. I feel sorry for people who are constantly rude.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> This has nothing to do w/topic. Were they on a plane?



The same could be said for the Muslim thread drift. 

I believe the original post related to Orthodox Jews who's beliefs prevented them from sitting beside women.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> Why are most people rude? I think at the root it is because of insecurity and bitterness. I feel sorry for people who are constantly rude.


I was hoping that it aided some to have a glimpse in to the orthodox sect of Jewish people in part because of their life style separates to them from us in socially interaction for the most and when dealing with them at work the are business like to stick to the point to avoid being personal tempted in worldly ways.

The chances of any the other than book knowledge is pretty slim and I have hear some pretty intelligent persons speak about why the orthodox Jews keep to themselves and yet my first hand knowledge with much interaction and I ask questions and listen too differ greatly from the myths and assumptions.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> I was hoping that it aided some to have a glimpse in to the orthodox sect of Jewish people in part because of their licking few style separates to them from us in socially interaction for the most and when dealing with them at work the are business like to stick to the point to avoid being personal tempted in worldly ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The chances of any the other than book knowledge is pretty slim and I have hear some pretty intelligent persons speak about why the orthodox Jews keep to themselves and yet my first hand knowledge with much interaction and I ask questions and listen too differ greatly from the myths and assumptions.



I think that's common with a lot of faiths. People read about it or gather information based on misinformation or simply make assumptions based on somebody else's misinformation.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I don't see where the airline must accommodate him. The 1st Amendment only applies to the government, not to airlines. He chose to fly on an airplane, he wasn't forced by the government to do so.

I think he should be able to make the request and have the airline confirm or deny his request prior to his ticket purchase.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So, are they sexist well yes.men and women are treated differently in their society.

Is the difference to degrade one sex....no, it is out of their need to avoid personal temptation as they are trying the difficult course of earning their place in heaven....by living under rules in the old testament. Something to me a kin to a death defining act.


I like the cover of grace that comes with faith as I know myself and my short comings.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> So, are they sexist well yes.men and women are treated differently in their society.
> 
> Is the difference to degrade one sex....no, it is out of their need to avoid personal temptation as they are trying the difficult course of earning their place in heaven....by living under rules in the old testament. Something to me a kin to a death defining act.
> .


then they should welcome the sacrifice of not being able to fly easily and take the burden of their beliefs onto themselves. Not ask others to sacrifice to accomodate them.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> I think that's common with a lot of faiths. People read about it or gather information based on misinformation or simply make assumptions based on somebody else's misinformation.


Maybe that should make people pause before rapidly dismissing a claim of religious origins as simply a disguise for illegal bigoted behavior. That is why I looked at this article as a way of refining my own ideas.
I believe that the Orthodox Jew might indeed hold not touching a strange woman even by accident as a religious held value. And, even if it is offensive for a woman for her sex to be considered a source of pollution, he has the right to guide his own life by that belief. 
Where his rights end is the point where he demands the strange woman be controlled by it. He has the right to take action to avoid contact with a woman but no right to demand the woman take action to avoid him.
Simply saying he has no right to his actions based on them is to deny the right to have those beliefs.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Read this ....the issue concerning your position is covered

If he demanded then he personal breached his faith tenants and thus sinned himself per standards of his chosen faith.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Really...is asking a favor rude.....ever ask where a rest restroom was...asking and demanding are not the same.
> 
> If he demanded then he personal breached his faith tenants and thus sinned himself per standards of his chosen faith.


Maybe you didn't read the article in the original post where it talks about OJ men standing in the airliner's aisle and refusing to move until they get what they want.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

And see above ....covered.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> And see above ....covered.


I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are saying that they are not behaving as their faith says they should, well yeah. That was in the article too:that others of their faith say they are out of line. So? So are most crazy people who say they represent a faith. Like the Westboro Baptists or jihadist muslims. 

I wouldn't accomodate their demands either. 
I'm not exactly sure why you keep quoting my threads when it's not logical to what you are saying. It seems you are more excited about sharing your own personal experience with one OJ family and that was not what I was referring to in any of my posts. I have also known several OJ's in my time and they weren't obnoxious either. But apparently, according to this article in the NYT, this is becoming more of "a thing".


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Read this ....the issue concerning your position is covered
> 
> If he demanded then he personal breached his faith tenants and thus sinned himself per standards of his chosen faith.


This should be clear .......I hope


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Ok it seems that you want a fight.... and even complain when a person agrees that the man in the story was wrong ....
Have a nice day


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Ok it seems that you want a fight.... and even complain when a person agrees that the man in the story was wrong ....
> Have a nice day


No, not looking for a fight at all. Just trying to figure out what you are talking about. Maybe I'm just dim but it's not at all apparent to me.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> Read this ....the issue concerning your position is covered
> 
> If he demanded then he personal breached his faith tenants and thus sinned himself per standards of his chosen faith.



When does someones faith trump your faith? 

If the tenants of your faith demand something, should it not be you who makes accommodation for your faith.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Others understood so do not feel I wasted my time or effort. Some seeds land on rocks.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

where I want to said:


> Maybe that should make people pause before rapidly dismissing a claim of religious origins as simply a disguise for illegal bigoted behavior. That is why I looked at this article as a way of refining my own ideas.
> 
> I believe that the Orthodox Jew might indeed hold not touching a strange woman even by accident as a religious held value. And, even if it is offensive for a woman for her sex to be considered a source of pollution, he has the right to guide his own life by that belief.
> 
> ...



It seems to me that if someone has specific requirements when traveling, it's best to make those plans in advance rather than creating a huge uproar that inconveniences many. 

Obviously, someone who travels would be aware that there is a 50% chance they may sit beside a female and if their convictions are that strong, it would be reasonable to resolve the situation when booking. 

I wouldn't be too upset if someone didn't care to sit by me because of my gender but I'm afraid of heights and hate window seats so I book accordingly and I'd be some kinda excited if I had to spend the rest of my flight nervous and uncomfortable in order to appease someone who failed to plan in advance.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Others understood so do not feel I wasted my time or effort.


I'm glad. Like I said, maybe I'm just dim.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> It seems to me that if someone has specific requirements when traveling, it's best to make those plans in advance rather than creating a huge uproar that inconveniences many.
> 
> Obviously, someone who travels would be aware that there is a 50% chance they may sit beside a female and if their convictions are that strong, it would be reasonable to resolve the situation when booking.
> 
> I wouldn't be too upset if someone didn't care to sit by me because of my gender but I'm afraid of heights and hate window seats so I book accordingly and I'd be some kinda excited if I had to spend the rest of my flight nervous and uncomfortable in order to appease someone who failed to plan in advance.


Yes, I like aisle seats and plan accordingly. I wouldn't give up my seat unless it was for a very good reason and that is not one, in my opinion.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Errors can be made in booking a seat on a flight.

Being that many orthodox Jews do fly for business regularly seems like this is not a faith issue to me.....unless the airline messed up his seating plan.

But in as much as a white person can be a rapist being white does not make one a rapists.

The man doesn't appear to be following his faith so his faith is not the problem his behaviour was. Being Jewish was not the issue he might have played the victim card of faith ....ignorant folks unknowable on just what his faith demanded ....he would have to under go a cleansing ritual before the Sabbath to partake in temple prays...if he touch a female...but he was by his faith to do all he could to avoid it and also accept his fate ....the will of God. Even if it meant the cleansing ritual.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> Yes, I like aisle seats and plan accordingly. I wouldn't give up my seat unless it was for a very good reason and that is not one, in my opinion.




And you should not be forces to....he can only ask...seek a mitzva...a blessing I slaughtered that word.

Understanding this faith aiding me in how they walked on to the trains and into gas chambers..... it was their personal faith....God's will.


You never have to sacrifice your beliefs for another...do you now see how the cake maker too had a line they could not cross.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> It seems to me that if someone has specific requirements when traveling, it's best to make those plans in advance rather than creating a huge uproar that inconveniences many.
> 
> Obviously, someone who travels would be aware that there is a 50% chance they may sit beside a female and if their convictions are that strong, it would be reasonable to resolve the situation when booking.
> 
> I wouldn't be too upset if someone didn't care to sit by me because of my gender but I'm afraid of heights and hate window seats so I book accordingly and I'd be some kinda excited if I had to spend the rest of my flight nervous and uncomfortable in order to appease someone who failed to plan in advance.


So are we agreeing at the point his rights end or disagreeing? That he has the right to not have his beliefs dismissed and can act according to them but not the right to casue others to act as if they had them too?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> And you should not be forces to....he can only ask...seek a mitzva...a blessing I slaughtered that word.
> 
> Understanding this faith aiding me in how they walked on to the trains and into gas chambers..... it was their personal faith....God's will.
> 
> ...


I thinks the beliefs that the New York Times should have followed aided them in asking you should have to help them with the article. I'm impressed with licking knowledge and aid to of teh Orthodox Jewish faith and though the NYT should have great knowledge and access to that of the faith and their tenants, I can see that you have learned far more than most from your dealings with the one family. Mazel Tov.
I do now see that the cake maker baking a cake is like walking into a train. And they had a line they could not cross or the train would hit them.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

where I want to said:


> So are we agreeing at the point his rights end or disagreeing? That he has the right to not have his beliefs dismissed and can act according to them but not the right to casue others to act as if they had them too?


I agree with that.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

coolrunnin said:


> When does someones faith trump your faith?
> 
> If the tenants of your faith demand something, should it not be you who makes accommodation for your faith.


Often times yes. His faith requires him to avoid...and requires him to bow to the will of God allowing for a rocky path. His faith has rituals for when he fails...His faiths calls for him to accept PERSONAL suffering while thanking God on finding him of strong enough to bear the suffering.

Something about those of weak faith bear little hardships as they are not as blessed by God as one of the chosen of god......Satan wants those that God loves the most to join or to separate from God.

First persons of no faith never have faith to protect
Now, I had no issues that could not be overcome due to mutual respect.
I think each person has to make that a personal decision.



Ok, I learned new foods and cooking methods.
I ate pizzas and cheeseburgers out side of my home....they owned it
They helped me make Christmases cookies ....I made the with a star of David cutter. 
The sterilizing knowledge for a kitchen makes milking and cheesing a breeze.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> I thinks the beliefs that the New York Times should have followed aided them in asking you should have to help them with the article. I'm impressed with licking knowledge and aid to of teh Orthodox Jewish faith and though the NYT should have great knowledge and access to that of the faith and their tenants, I can see that you have learned far more than most from your dealings with the one family. Mazel Tov.
> I do now see that the cake maker baking a cake is like walking into a train. And they had a line they could not cross or the train would hit them.





In over ten years there were many families and dating the son of a rabbi...well did not hurt.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> Often times yes. His faith requires him to avoid...and requires him to bow to the will of God allowing for a rocky path. His faith has rituals for when he fails...His faiths calls for him to accept PERSONAL suffering while thanking God on finding him of strong enough to bear the suffering.
> 
> Something about those of weak faith bear little hardships as they are not as blessed by God as one of the chosen of god......Satan wants those that God loves the most to join or to separate from God.
> 
> ...


Absolutely none of this answers my questions although you did intimate that indeed his faith trumps mine and that is a fail in this country at least.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No,

He has the right to ask
He has to accept a no
Both per the tenants of his faith.....acceptance of God's will...and deal with the ritual of cleansing
And because his rights end when he must force anyone to any act.
Clearly, he was not living his faith if he failed to accept God's will that the answer to his request was a No.

In as much as the rabbi...chided the man I helped by displaying anger towards me...for touching him when I was ignorant of a higher need to never touch an unrelated female... His anger to me.. was due to not accepting God's will that I happened to be there...

Trust that the airplane man privately had to face his rabbi.

He will be instructed as to his flaws per the faith in the eyes of God.

In our system of justice we expect to bare witness to punishment in some faiths it seems the rabbi is to handle such matters and others may never see public punishment or atonement.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> No,
> 
> He has the right to ask
> He has to accept a no
> ...


Very interesting as applies to this issue- that a truly held religious value may be misapplied even by the very sincere. And is subject to internal scrutiny that the public never sees.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> Is there a reason why you need to be rude? Just curious.


When someone here disparages another, it bothers me. As when others are rude to someone here.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't see where the airline must accommodate him. The 1st Amendment only applies to the government, not to airlines. He chose to fly on an airplane, he wasn't forced by the government to do so.
> 
> I think he should be able to make the request and have the airline confirm or deny his request prior to his ticket purchase.


If things get mixed up-may have been what happened in the op-then move the man, don't inconvenince the lady.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> When does someones faith trump your faith?
> 
> If the tenants of your faith demand something, should it not be you who makes accommodation for your faith.


Never. Your right to something ends where it hits mine.

But as I have stated over and over you have no right to anything which must be provided to you by someone else.

That means if you need someone to do something to accommodate your faith you have the right to ask them to do it but you have no right to force them. It doesn't matter why they do not wish to do it.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

My take is if the man didn't specify beforehand that he couldn't sit by a woman, then the airline does not have to accommodate him. Back when airlines used to provide free meals, those with special diets needed to ask for an accommodation when they purchased the ticket, not when they were already on the plane. Common sense should prevail. 

As to what I would do should I be asked to changed seats. I would ask to be moved to first class. If that isn't possible, then I'd switch seats as long as I got the same type -- I certainly wouldn't be willing to move to a center seat if I has an aisle seat.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Belfrybat said:


> My take is if the man didn't specify beforehand that he couldn't sit by a woman, then the airline does not have to accommodate him. Back when airlines used to provide free meals, those with special diets needed to ask for an accommodation when they purchased the ticket, not when they were already on the plane. Common sense should prevail.
> 
> As to what I would do should I be asked to changed seats. I would ask to be moved to first class. If that isn't possible, then I'd switch seats as long as I got the same type -- I certainly wouldn't be willing to move to a center seat if I has an aisle seat.


Exactly. My kid is allergic to peanuts and has to arrange ahead of time for accomodations. Not while she is boarding. The airline will serve other snacks than peanuts but no one prevents someone who has their own peanuts from eating them. So an accomodation is made ahead of time that doesn't infringe on other people's rights.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> When someone here disparages another, it bothers me. As when others are rude to someone here.


So two rudes make a right? I slay me.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> And you should not be forces to....he can only ask...seek a mitzva...a blessing I slaughtered that word.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can but just like the person who holds up an airline, they may be subject to fines and penalties. 

In turn, I would ask you how far you're prepared to extend those very same words? Are you equally as excepting of someone who's faith requires they dress modestly and someone who's faith requires they wear a hijab or maybe a Sikhs dagger?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

wr said:


> I can but just like the person who holds up an airline, they may be subject to fines and penalties.
> 
> In turn, I would ask you how far you're prepared to extend those very same words? Are you equally as excepting of someone who's faith requires they dress modestly and someone who's faith requires they wear a hijab or maybe a Sikhs dagger?


Exactly. I do believe that would be a vastly different thing.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

While perhaps was not noticed but the I have mentioned that the TSA ruled correctly in recognizing the right of a TSA agent to have the dagger and it was the rest guts provided by the first amendment.


As for the face coverings. The in lies an issue as to where the face covering are used.

Entering a bank.
Driver license...those might not be common due to conflicts with the faith and women driving..... but how well I perceive a person's walk with their faith is not mine to worry over as it us mine I have to deal with only
But state id.... photo has to define them....maybe the use of ginger print options... see if you want solution many minds are better if they focus on find a solution.

Also what has been missed....thought I brought it up


DID THE AIRPLANE MAN MAKE PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS THAT WENT SOUTH....DID THE AIRLINE OVERBOOK....that is an overlooked situation that have been avoided in the zealous search to condemn the man....we think we have all the information to judge
...do we?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> While perhaps was not noticed but the I have mentioned that the TSA ruled correctly in recognizing the right of a TSA agent to have the dagger and it was the rest guts provided by the first amendment.
> 
> 
> As for the face coverings. The in lies an issue as to where the face covering are used.
> ...


I think you are missing the point of the article. This is not an isolated incident.
from the article:

"It is not an entirely new issue; some ultra-Orthodox travelers have tried to avoid mixed-sex seating for years. But now the ultra-Orthodox Jewish population is growing rapidly because of high birthrates. Ultra-Orthodox men and their families now make up a larger share of airline travelers to Israel and other locations, giving them more economic clout with airlines, and they are making their views more widely known in response to what they see as the sexualization of society."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/u...-over-seat-assignments-and-religion.html?_r=0


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> While perhaps was not noticed but the I have mentioned that the TSA ruled correctly in recognizing the right of a TSA agent to have the dagger and it was the rest guts provided by the first amendment.
> 
> 
> As for the face coverings. The in lies an issue as to where the face covering are used.
> ...



I'm not sure about your first statement but you are misinformed the hijab and identification since the face is not covered at all, only hair and chest. It really doesn't interfere with identification. 

I didn't overlook the idea that in this situation the airline may have messed up at all but that doesn't excuse throwing a huge, degrading someone else or holding up a flight. 

Out of curiosity, how does an Othrodox Jew function in business? There are quite a few women in business and I would think it might be complicated right form the handshake and business card exchange on.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> I'm not sure about your first statement but you are misinformed the hijab and identification since the face is not covered at all, only hair and chest. It really doesn't interfere with identification.
> 
> I didn't overlook the idea that in this situation the airline may have messed up at all but that doesn't excuse throwing a huge, degrading someone else or holding up a flight.
> 
> Out of curiosity, how does an Othrodox Jew function in business? There are quite a few women in business and I would think it might be complicated right form the handshake and business card exchange on.


Check this out: they edited out Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel from a photograph. 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...er-hamevaser-merkel-women-charlie-hebdo-rally

The editor of the Ultra Orthodox newspaper said about the picture after the Charlie Hebdoe shooting: "_&#8220;Including a picture of a woman into something so sacred, as far as we are concerned, it can desecrate the memory of the martyrs and not the other way around,&#8221; he said."_


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> I'm not sure about your first statement but you are misinformed the hijab and identification since the face is not covered at all, only hair and chest. It really doesn't interfere with identification.
> 
> I didn't overlook the idea that in this situation the airline may have messed up at all but that doesn't excuse throwing a huge, degrading someone else or holding up a flight.
> 
> Out of curiosity, how does an Othrodox Jew function in business? There are quite a few women in business and I would think it might be complicated right form the handshake and business card exchange on.


As for business.... Christians ....such as my self are hired and act on their behalf. Done effectively none of those outside of that faith ever notice actions not permitted. 

Hijab is mute burka has to be dealt with... hijab..seems no different than some nuns habits.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

basketti said:


> Check this out: they edited out Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel from a photograph.
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...er-hamevaser-merkel-women-charlie-hebdo-rally
> 
> The editor of the Ultra Orthodox newspaper said about the picture after the Charlie Hebdoe shooting: "_âIncluding a picture of a woman into something so sacred, as far as we are concerned, it can desecrate the memory of the martyrs and not the other way around,â he said."_


I wonder if even the words Golda Mier are excised from the text books of Ultraorthodox Jews. I have noted that, from the outside anyway, the treatment of women is similar between fundamentalist Jews and Muslims. Thank goodness, not my problem and I hope that it never is allowed to become my problem. 

Anyway that does fit into the limits of rights for religious tolerance, that it ends at the point that their beliefs are used as a reason to force non-members to act only in ways dictated by their beliefs. And the balance of that is tricky, can be unpleasant and tension ridden. But that is one of the prices of a pluralistic society. And one that difficult is for native born and especially can be for immigrants who have less history of society testing what works and what doesn't. It often seems to them to be all about what they want when it is mostly about limits on what they get.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> I think you are missing the point of the article. This is not an isolated incident.
> from the article:
> 
> "It is not an entirely new issue; some ultra-Orthodox travelers have tried to avoid mixed-sex seating for years. But now the ultra-Orthodox Jewish population is growing rapidly because of high birthrates. Ultra-Orthodox men and their families now make up a larger share of airline travelers to Israel and other locations, giving them more economic clout with airlines, and they are making their views more widely known in response to what they see as the sexualization of society."
> ...


The article fails to note that Israel has the preferred airline for Jews. Gun toting hidden as regular passengers security on the flight.

They fly out of new York. Trust me they know how to deal with this issue.

Who would have thought Jews in numbers would want to travel to Israel?

The writer sure wants to limit a readers to a conclusion.....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

TSA agent had a dagger as you mention cause a stir....it was returned as it was just a knee jerk reaction that infringed on the first amendment.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> The article fails to not that Israel has the preferred airline for Jews. Gun toting hidden as regular passengers security on the flight.
> 
> They fly out of new York. Trust me they know how to deal with this issue.
> 
> ...


If you were trying to say that El Al is the Israeli airline, well yes. Most everyone is aware of that. However there are many articles about this flight so I seriously doubt that this one writer is trying to lead readers to a particular conclusion.
Here you go: an article about it from the Times of Israel. 
http://www.timesofisrael.com/el-al-faces-uproar-over-ultra-orthodox-refusal-to-sit-near-women/
here's another from Haaretz. You probably already know this is Israel's oldest daily newspaper:
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.625848

Girl..you are plumb wasted up there in Alaska. I think your true calling is in the middle east or the United Nations where you can be truly recognized as the one true authority on Ultra Orthodox Judaism.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> TSA agent had a dagger as you mention cause a stir....it was returned as it was just a knee jerk reaction that infringed on the first amendment.


:shrug:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> :shrug:


Done all I can for you.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> If you were trying to say that El Al is the Israeli airline, well yes. Most everyone is aware of that. However there are many articles about this flight so I seriously doubt that this one writer is trying to lead readers to a particular conclusion.
> Here you go: an article about it from the Times of Israel.
> http://www.timesofisrael.com/el-al-faces-uproar-over-ultra-orthodox-refusal-to-sit-near-women/
> here's another from Haaretz. You probably already know this is Israel's oldest daily newspaper:
> ...



You think way too highly of me but your nice side is showing.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Back to my question on Orthodox Jews in business. Am I to understand that they simply hire someone to represent them and if so, I'm not sure how that would work. 

It has been my experience that a CEO prefers to meet another CEO in person, not a personal assistant. If someone is in sales or marketing, they are expected to meet with their clients and if they're going to simply hire someone to act on their behalf, why would a company not just hire their representative?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well, think about the fields where the choose to work in 

End end furs
Diamond and jewelry
They have developed private financial options.

The Hasidic Jews keep in family business and turn a good profit yet really never attempt to reach the level of GM, Amazon . Now, mix in that they have been operating like this for so long that it is pretty accepted with those dealing with them. So, owning a profitable business that is family maintained and not truly growing lends to fewer needs to deal with new comers ....they maintenance old fashion out a date today ways.

They make it work.

Sale and workers could be family and outsiders working together. 

We, had Hasidic Jews living near us and they stick pretty tight together. They work, temple, and are homebodies. The big social event were their walks around the neighborhood..plus they aid that separation by speaking a different languages when they are together. They do not send by social clues that interact is welcomed.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

There is at least one town in NY that is populated and managed by Orthodox Jews. I remember a picture of a Hasidic Jew dressed in a hybrid police uniform with his town squad car.
I thought of it like an Amish conclave where religious rules are guiding principles for day to day business.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

The answers to my questions, lead me to wonder why they would risk interaction with outsiders and why not form their own private airline or fly charter. 

I still don't understand how they can function in business and not meet outsiders but I'll try and find time to do some research.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> Absolutely none of this answers my questions although you did intimate that indeed his faith trumps mine and that is a fail in this country at least.


Don't understand...how is his faith trumping yours?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

They own long standing family businesses....They corner a market and if you want what they have you you have a choice to do business where the owner might be right there but it with be an employee who not living under the same restrictions who will be assisting the client in to a lovely fur coat. Most likely another sect of Jew. Or a person like my self would greet you and escort you to the office. If it was a situation where there would be opposite sexes... note normally it a man who owns the business or a mother who empowers a son or son in law to that visual.position....behind-the-scenes mom would rule.

Mary has a meeting with Sid.
I would greet Mary. Confirm that she is new to doing business with Sid.....as Mary's boss would have most often already explained that Sid doesn't shake hands and please don't feel slighted. That is basically how it is done.


Think of it as how do people who avoid germs work.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Quotes from the article:



> Rabbi Shafran noted that despite religious laws that prohibit physical contact between Jewish men and women who are not their wives, many ultra-Orthodox men follow the guidance of an eminent Orthodox scholar, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who counseled that it was acceptable for a Jewish man to sit next to a woman on a subway or bus *so long as there was no intention to seek sexual pleasure from any incidental contact.*


Are you kidding me?



> And Rabbi Ysoscher Katz, a Modern Orthodox Talmud scholar who grew up in the ultra-Orthodox Satmar sect, said, âWhen I was still part of that community, and on the more conservative side, I would make every effort I could not to sit next to a woman on the plane, because of a fear that you might touch a woman by accident.â





> âMy buddy who is Orthodox was saying this is a traditional thing â he doesnât want to be tempted when his wife wasnât there.


Seriously? Coming into close proximity to any woman is sexually tempting? It's ridiculous religious practices like this that don't help the religious movement at all. It sounds like these guys need some serious sex addiction counseling. Maybe if they struck up a conversation and actually talked to a women they would find that women are actually intelligent beings and not just sexual objects. If these guys can't accidentally touch a woman without being "tempted" there are deeper issues here besides religious freedom. Also, one of the women in the article was married so does that mean that even married women cause the man to be "tempted"?

As for accommodating them, I think they should ask if the seating arrangement can be altered and, if not, they should seek other arrangements themselves. If I was with a woman I wouldn't want a guy sitting next to her who might be turned on by accidentally bumping elbows with her anyway.

It's amazing that, with the decades of struggles for women's equality, we actually put up with the way certain cultures or religions treat women.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Truckinguy said:


> Quotes from the article:
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> ...


It is not unusual at all. That is the excuse much of the time in the most secular of circles. In any situations where sexual feelings are aroused, it seems the woman is almost always assigned the responsibility just for showing up. As if the world were just chock full off helpless, innocent males being lead astray. At least when the consequences are not good. Of course, in circles where there are brags exchanging, it's all men, all the time.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

where I want to said:


> It is not unusual at all. That is the excuse much of the time in the most secular of circles. In any situations where sexual feelings are aroused, it seems the woman is almost always assigned the responsibility just for showing up. As if the world were just chock full off helpless, innocent males being lead astray. At least when the consequences are not good. Of course, in circles where there are brags exchanging, it's all men, all the time.


I think it's a bit much when a guy can't sit beside a woman for fear of accidentally touching her and being tempted, whatever that means. Men and women need to interact on a regular basis so that we can learn how to be around each other like civilized human beings instead of dogs in heat.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I think it's a bit much when a guy can't sit beside a woman for fear of accidentally touching her and being tempted, whatever that means. Men and women need to interact on a regular basis so that we can learn how to be around each other like civilized human beings instead of dogs in heat.


Everyone who's not an orthodox Jew prolly feels that way. But MOST who believe in the 1st amendment do NOT deny them the right to their religion. And don't not mock them either. 

It is in NO way demeaning to women. If you want examples of demeaning to women, look at most of the muslim practices. Or how women are treated in India. Not sure if that's religion, tho.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I believe that people have missed a serious clue with those of the Arabic or Muslim or other religious mentality... namely, most people think that the men have the women cover themselves from head to toe so as to oppress the women. Consider the possibility that the men are trying to protect themselves from lusting after the women because they can see the physical attributes of a woman clothed in a more western garb... Maybe they are more truthful with their passions and their desire to NOT be distracted by a beautiful woman... Not saying it is right, it's just an observation...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Mostly it simply comes from the ages old idea of women being owned. If men truly wished to assign blame to their own nature, they would be stoning men for adultery rather than women. Women would not be so readily blamed for being raped as everyone would know it was in men's nature.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

you have a point there...


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> Everyone who's not an orthodox Jew prolly feels that way. But MOST who believe in the 1st amendment do NOT deny them the right to their religion. And don't not mock them either.
> 
> It is in NO way demeaning to women. If you want examples of demeaning to women, look at most of the muslim practices. Or how women are treated in India. Not sure if that's religion, tho.


I don't deny anyone the right to their religion but the 1st amendment also gives people the right to express their criticism of those religions. When people's religions start interacting negatively with others then people have the right to speak up.

I don't see where I said it was demeaning to women. This situation is all on the guy. If he can't accidentally touch a woman without being tempted then there are deeper issues here. Blaming the woman for a guy being attracted to her is wrong.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Truckinguy said:


> I don't deny anyone the right to their religion but the 1st amendment also gives people the right to express their criticism of those religions. When people's religions start interacting negatively with others then people have the right to speak up.
> 
> I don't see where I said it was demeaning to women. This situation is all on the guy. If he can't accidentally touch a woman without being tempted then there are deeper issues here. Blaming the woman for a guy being attracted to her is wrong.



It's impossible to view another faith based culture by our values. 

It's certainly not a lifestyle that would work for me but if it works for someone else, that's fine by me as long as nobody is forced in any way. 

I kinda look at it the same way I do polygamy. As long as everybody involved is legally old enough to make that choice, it's not up to me to impose my values on their lives. 

The only thing I would like clarified in this case would be if the airline made a booking mistake or if the passenger failed to make any special requirements known when they booked.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Beside which I think they would not particularly care what the wider world thinks as long as they believe it is at God's direction. Which is why they must be allowed some protection. There is no virtue in protecting people doing what pretty much everyone else is doing.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

wr said:


> *It's impossible to view another faith based culture by our values. *
> 
> It's certainly not a lifestyle that would work for me but if it works for someone else, that's fine by me as long as nobody is forced in any way.
> 
> ...


Yes, it's difficult when two different sets of values collide. Women in western culture have made great strides in a tremendously difficult struggle for their rights and there is still a long way to go. I have difficulty comparing that to a culture where men can't even have a simple interaction with a woman without seeing her as a sexual object. The same way that we have to respect their views, they have to respect ours in that we allow men and women to sit beside each other. One woman in the article chose to move and one woman didn't, that is each woman's personal decision. However, neither one of them should have HAD to accommodate him at all.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I don't deny anyone the right to their religion but the 1st amendment also gives people the right to express their criticism of those religions. When people's religions start interacting negatively with others then people have the right to speak up.
> 
> I don't see where I said it was demeaning to women. This situation is all on the guy. If he can't accidentally touch a woman without being tempted then there are deeper issues here. Blaming the woman for a guy being attracted to her is wrong.


Two things. In most religions you thinking about committing a sin is almost or just as 'bad' as actually doing it. That means you'd want to make it as difficult a possible to even think about sinning.

Second think about it this way. Is it the drug's fault that someone uses it? Of course not. But would you leave a bottle of booze or pills sitting around if a recovering addict is coming over? Why not isn't blaming he drug for the addict being attracted to it wrong?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> Yes, it's difficult when two different sets of values collide. Women in western culture have made great strides in a tremendously difficult struggle for their rights and there is still a long way to go. I have difficulty comparing that to a culture where men can't even have a simple interaction with a woman without seeing her as a sexual object. The same way that we have to respect their views, they have to respect ours in that we allow men and women to sit beside each other. One woman in the article chose to move and one woman didn't, that is each woman's personal decision. However, neither one of them should have HAD to accommodate him at all.


Your final statement is correct and sums it up. Each of them had their rights (both women and the Jew) and none of them should expect their right to be violated to accommodate the other. 

I do have to say I find it strange you saying this here seeing as how in the other thread you had the exact opposite view point.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> Two things. In most religions you thinking about committing a sin is almost or just as 'bad' as actually doing it. That means you'd want to make it as difficult a possible to even think about sinning.
> 
> Second think about it this way. Is it the drug's fault that someone uses it? Of course not. But would you leave a bottle of booze or pills sitting around if a recovering addict is coming over? Why not isn't blaming he drug for the addict being attracted to it wrong?


Uh oh, Watcher found me, now I"m in trouble.. 

I realize that but most people are able to control themselves. These people are creating their own problem by making it difficult to interact with women. If the guy has been born and brought up in this religion than it would be very difficult to change his thinking at this point but if they actually interacted with women on a regular basis they would learn how to deal with their feelings like an adult.

If the drug in your analogy is the woman in the story then, yes, blaming the drug/woman for the addict/Jewish fella's issues is wrong. However, it's not really a comparable situation, we are not all on drugs and dealing with it well, men and women should be able to get along in society as equals. Some people aren't able to handle that.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If you could see that in that faith ....where to think it is the same same having done it ....and that they follow the old testament which which is a whole set on different rules to follow than what most faith have. 

They are really trying to earn a place in heaven with out a pass...or victim card..

It is on them to get by with out Grace.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Your final statement is correct and sums it up. Each of them had their rights (both women and the Jew) and none of them should expect their right to be violated to accommodate the other.
> 
> I do have to say I find it strange you saying this here seeing as how in the other thread you had the exact opposite view point.


His stance seems very consistent to me. He's not asking the airline to interject their religious views to mediate the situation. They are a neutral party trying to accommodate disparate needs and still maintain the contract they had with each of these people. The airline sells seats on a plane. They sell with the understanding that the purchasers use them for the purpose of occupying them from a specified point a to specified point b. That's really the only obligation the airline has. To treat each person buying, or wishing to buy, such a seat in the same manner and ensure that they arrive safely at point b. Their spiritual safety is up to the individual to handle. Don't wish to have contact with a woman on a plane, plan accordingly. Maybe even take advantage of the need for such acommodations and open your own airline catering to observant Jews.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

As for the food...I traveled a lot with them now, air lines never had a food issue as by pre ordering a meal that was kosher was a breeze.

A plain salad
Or vegetarian 
Or kosher
Meal met the guidelines

Plus..back then it was my job to pack their extra food just in case.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Truckinguy said:


> Uh oh, Watcher found me, now I"m in trouble..
> 
> I realize that but most people are able to control themselves. These people are creating their own problem by making it difficult to interact with women. If the guy has been born and brought up in this religion than it would be very difficult to change his thinking at this point but if they actually interacted with women on a regular basis they would learn how to deal with their feelings like an adult.
> 
> If the drug in your analogy is the woman in the story then, yes, blaming the drug/woman for the addict/Jewish fella's issues is wrong. However, it's not really a comparable situation, we are not all on drugs and dealing with it well, men and women should be able to get along in society as equals. Some people aren't able to handle that.


The point of this thread is, now that you have decided that they have the wrong end of the stick, what are you going to do about it? It is not likely that you will persuade them to abandon their faith because you believe differently. 
And that is where religious rights are made or destroyed. What happens to your belief in equality of the sexes if the tide of popular opinion goes against it?
The best protection I can have for my beliefs is to protect other's beliefs as far as is reasonable. Even if, but especially because, their beliefs are not popular.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Would a full body condum similar to footie pajamas with gloves seen in solve the problem. ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ok my religion tells me not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers , I bet there are others on my flight that feel the same way. How will the airline sort us ALL into the proper order ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> The point of this thread is, now that you have decided that they have the wrong end of the stick, what are you going to do about it? It is not likely that you will persuade them to abandon their faith because you believe differently.
> And that is where religious rights are made or destroyed. What happens to your belief in equality of the sexes if the tide of popular opinion goes against it?
> The best protection I can have for my beliefs is to protect other's beliefs as far as is reasonable. Even if, but especially because, their beliefs are not popular.


Nothing has to change about his beliefs. He can believe as he wishes. Some actions may affected by law but he is free to follow or not follow such laws as his conscience allows and suffer the consequences of doing so. Just as we all are.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Nothing has to change about his beliefs. He can believe as he wishes. Some actions may affected by law but he is free to follow or not follow such laws as his conscience allows and suffer the consequences of doing so. Just as we all are.


That "living with the consequences" thing is one dead pony. Of course everyone always lives with the consequences. Just as they breath or eat or drink. That is a given. 
The issue is how much the government makes up consequences in the first place or protects against them in the second.
Like in the Duke bell tower/muslim call to pray thing. Consequences abounded.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> That "living with the consequences" thing is one dead pony. Of course everyone always lives with the consequences. Just as they breath or eat or drink. That is a given.
> The issue is how much the government makes up consequences in the first place or protects against them in the second.
> Like in the Duke bell tower/muslim call to pray thing. Consequences abounded.


The only consideration should be whether the consequences are equal, regardless of why one breaks the law. There should be no greater or lesser penalty if I am breaking the speed limit on my way to work or on my way to worship. There should be no greater or lesser consequence whether the unlawful act is done secularly or religiously. A law shouldn't single out a religion nor give it a pass.

The government played no role that I know of in the Duke case. The righteousness of whatever motivated the decision to first allow the prayer announcements from the tower and then revoke said decision is between them and their god.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> The only consideration should be whether the consequences are equal, regardless of why one breaks the law. There should be no greater or lesser penalty if I am breaking the speed limit on my way to work or on my way to worship. There should be no greater or lesser consequence whether the unlawful act is done secularly or religiously. A law shouldn't single out a religion nor give it a pass.
> 
> The government played no role that I know of in the Duke case. The righteousness of whatever motivated the decision to first allow the prayer announcements from the tower and then revoke said decision is between them and their god.


Nonsense. The difference comes because the law is set up for the majority. For instance, the Amish who drives a buggy can not meet certain safety reqirements (are there buggy seat belts) or environmental laws or whatever. So does that mean the law should be applied to prevent their religious based buggy driving or are they just asked for what is a reasonable compromise. 
A person's arguments are defective if they oppose legal "consequenses" for favored groups while wanting them for "disliked" groups. Then it clearly comes down to getting the ones who are disliked and protecting the liked. In other words, law by mob rule.
An anti-religion prejudice is still a prejudice. But even that would be more acceptable that a certain religion prejudice only.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> Uh oh, Watcher found me, now I"m in trouble..
> 
> I realize that but most people are able to control themselves. These people are creating their own problem by making it difficult to interact with women. If the guy has been born and brought up in this religion than it would be very difficult to change his thinking at this point but if they actually interacted with women on a regular basis they would learn how to deal with their feelings like an adult.
> 
> If the drug in your analogy is the woman in the story then, yes, blaming the drug/woman for the addict/Jewish fella's issues is wrong. However, it's not really a comparable situation, we are not all on drugs and dealing with it well, men and women should be able to get along in society as equals. Some people aren't able to handle that.


I disagree somewhat. I have dealt with a lot of addicts and several men who have cheated. One thing most of them said, in effect, is "I didn't think it could ever happen to me." What that mostly means is when the temptation was placed before them again and again their resistance was slowly eroded. 

They also say things like 'I never thought/intended for it to go this far.' Meaning they thought they could go up to a line and no farther. Yeah some can but some can't and a person can never really tell which they are until faced with that line. Therefore its better to just not even start approaching that line.

But again this is not a question of if this man thought he could or could not control himself. Its a question of rights. He has the right to ask that his personal and religious preferences be accommodated but he does not have the right to FORCE those rights to be accommodated if doing so requires something from another. That something can be as small as changing seats on an aircraft or as large as relinquish control of their private property.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> As for the food...I traveled a lot with them now, air lines never had a food issue as by pre ordering a meal that was kosher was a breeze.
> 
> A plain salad
> Or vegetarian
> ...


I don't know about today but years ago you always asked for the kosher meal because it was a much better quality meal. Don't know why but I always assumed because there were so few of them they made them fresh (i.e. closer to departure time) rather than prepackaging them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Would a full body condum similar to footie pajamas with gloves seen in solve the problem. ?


Don't some of the Mormons/LDS wear something like this under their clothing? Its been decades but I seem to remember reading about it.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

watcher said:


> Don't some of the Mormons/LDS wear something like this under their clothing? Its been decades but I seem to remember reading about it.


Yes, temple garments...also referred to by non LDS as sacred underwear, except they have short sleeves or are sleeveless and short legged so they can't be seen under clothes.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Nonsense. The difference comes because the law is set up for the majority. For instance, the Amish who drives a buggy can not meet certain safety reqirements (are there buggy seat belts) or environmental laws or whatever. So does that mean the law should be applied to prevent their religious based buggy driving or are they just asked for what is a reasonable compromise.
> A person's arguments are defective if they oppose legal "consequenses" for favored groups while wanting them for "disliked" groups. Then it clearly comes down to getting the ones who are disliked and protecting the liked. In other words, law by mob rule.
> An anti-religion prejudice is still a prejudice. But even that would be more acceptable that a certain religion prejudice only.


Constitutionally laws apply to everyone. A law requiring Amish buggies to meet certain safety standards would not meet constitutional muster. A law such as this Wisconsin statute http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/wisconsin/wi-laws/wisconsin_laws_347-245 which applies to all horse drawn vehicles does. Some Amish in Wisconsin did work to have the slow moving sign requirement modified to include strips of white reflective tape to better allow them to comply with their religious tenets. They're not exempt from the law, they just get to comply in the most nonintrusive manner possible. There's another law in Wisconsin that requires hunters to wear blaze orange during gun deer season. Three Amish men were cited for not doing so on their own land. The judge ruled the citations and law valid as the law performed a safety function that couldn't be achieved any other way and the Amish were under no compunction to have to hunt at that time. The choice to do so was theirs and if they made that choice they had to comply with all relevant laws.

Applying this to the gentleman on the plane is relatively easy. He can ask the woman to move and he can even ask the airline to help in moving people to accommodate him. They can move, not move or try or not try as hard as they wish. At a certain point it either happens and the plane takes off or it doesn't and he continues to hold things up. At this point the airline would be perfectly justified in telling him to sit in his assigned seat or leave the plane. If he still refuses to comply he could, and probably, should be arrested for failure to comply with the orders of the flight crew. Exactly as you or I would be if we held up a flight because the flight attendant wouldn't give us free peanuts before takeoff. No religious bias or persecution. Just not following a law that applies to all because he feared the consequences of his god for violating his religious tenets. 

You seem to imply that I wouldn't support legal consequences for groups I favor if they violated the same laws as people I disagree with. You'd be wrong.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Constitutionally laws apply to everyone. A law requiring Amish buggies to meet certain safety standards would not meet constitutional muster. A law such as this Wisconsin statute http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/wisconsin/wi-laws/wisconsin_laws_347-245 which applies to all horse drawn vehicles does. Some Amish in Wisconsin did work to have the slow moving sign requirement modified to include strips of white reflective tape to better allow them to comply with their religious tenets. They're not exempt from the law, they just get to comply in the most nonintrusive manner possible. There's another law in Wisconsin that requires hunters to wear blaze orange during gun deer season. Three Amish men were cited for not doing so on their own land. The judge ruled the citations and law valid as the law performed a safety function that couldn't be achieved any other way and the Amish were under no compunction to have to hunt at that time. The choice to do so was theirs and if they made that choice they had to comply with all relevant laws.
> 
> Applying this to the gentleman on the plane is relatively easy. He can ask the woman to move and he can even ask the airline to help in moving people to accommodate him. They can move, not move or try or not try as hard as they wish. At a certain point it either happens and the plane takes off or it doesn't and he continues to hold things up. At this point the airline would be perfectly justified in telling him to sit in his assigned seat or leave the plane. If he still refuses to comply he could, and probably, should be arrested for failure to comply with the orders of the flight crew. Exactly as you or I would be if we held up a flight because the flight attendant wouldn't give us free peanuts before takeoff. No religious bias or persecution. Just not following a law that applies to all because he feared the consequences of his god for violating his religious tenets.
> 
> You seem to imply that I wouldn't support legal consequences for groups I favor if they violated the same laws as people I disagree with. You'd be wrong.


So ALL laws are just and right? No one should ever question authority?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Constitutionally laws apply to everyone. A law requiring Amish buggies to meet certain safety standards would not meet constitutional muster. A law such as this Wisconsin statute http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/wisconsin/wi-laws/wisconsin_laws_347-245 which applies to all horse drawn vehicles does. Some Amish in Wisconsin did work to have the slow moving sign requirement modified to include strips of white reflective tape to better allow them to comply with their religious tenets. They're not exempt from the law, they just get to comply in the most nonintrusive manner possible. There's another law in Wisconsin that requires hunters to wear blaze orange during gun deer season. Three Amish men were cited for not doing so on their own land. The judge ruled the citations and law valid as the law performed a safety function that couldn't be achieved any other way and the Amish were under no compunction to have to hunt at that time. The choice to do so was theirs and if they made that choice they had to comply with all relevant laws.
> 
> 
> You seem to imply that I wouldn't support legal consequences for groups I favor if they violated the same laws as people I disagree with. You'd be wrong.


Congratulations on having arrived at the point having been argued by others for some time. That the Constitution requires that the laws must not infringe on the practice of religion and in fact has an obligation to accommodate religious values and expression as unless it has an overwhelming need and there are no less restrictive ways of doing so. If federal, state or local laws do not meet these requirements, the laws or applicable sections are unconstitutional and thus void. 
Somehow you kept insisting that having a religious value meant nothing as to applying laws. That all laws must be obeyed no matter what. But there is a long legal testing that has drawn limits on government action in the face of religious objections. In fact I suppose that some government laws have been so egregiously intrusive that the whole law was declared unconstitutional but most of the time a religious exception is created. I suspect that part of the First Amendment is actually the most tested part of the Constitution. So ministers in the practice of the religious duties, for example, may pay into Social Security but are not required to. And the Amish drive those buggies and try to stay as far away from intrusive laws as possible. 
Isn't it wonderful to have a Constitution that at least offers some protection from the forces political correctness?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Congratulations on having arrived at the point having been argued by others for some time. That the Constitution requires that the laws must not infringe on the practice of religion and in fact has an obligation to accommodate religious values and expression as unless it has an overwhelming need and there are no less restrictive ways of doing so. If federal, state or local laws do not meet these requirements, the laws or applicable sections are unconstitutional and thus void.
> Somehow you kept insisting that having a religious value meant nothing as to applying laws. That all laws must be obeyed no matter what. But there is a long legal testing that has drawn limits on government action in the face of religious objections. In fact I suppose that some government laws have been so egregiously intrusive that the whole law was declared unconstitutional but most of the time a religious exception is created. I suspect that part of the First Amendment is actually the most tested part of the Constitution. So ministers in the practice of the religious duties, for example, may pay into Social Security but are not required to. And the Amish drive those buggies and try to stay as far away from intrusive laws as possible.
> Isn't it wonderful to have a Constitution that at least offers some protection from the forces political correctness?


No congratulations necessary. It's the same thing I've been saying all along. Just as the hunters had no religious compunction to hunt, the florist and bakers in the other cases had no religious compunction to bake cakes or sell flowers. The choice to do so or not was soley theirs. Just as the hunters have to obey the blaze orange law to legally hunt, the baker and florist have to comply with all relevant laws to ply their trades. Religious beliefs don't abrogate the need to follow the law. The government does have a compelling interest to ensure that all customers of a business are granted equal accomodations.

I don't believe all laws are just and should be accepted. I'll fight against the ones I disapprove with the understanding that I may not prevail. That's life.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Here's a use of the Texas religious freedom law I can get behind. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7066860


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> No congratulations necessary. It's the same thing I've been saying all along. Just as the hunters had no religious compunction to hunt, the florist and bakers in the other cases had no religious compunction to bake cakes or sell flowers. The choice to do so or not was soley theirs. Just as the hunters have to obey the blaze orange law to legally hunt, the baker and florist have to comply with all relevant laws to ply their trades. Religious beliefs don't abrogate the need to follow the law. The government does have a compelling interest to ensure that all customers of a business are granted equal accomodations.
> 
> I don't believe all laws are just and should be accepted. I'll fight against the ones I disapprove with the understanding that I may not prevail. That's life.


We all agree that no right is absolute but there's a flaw in your logic. The hunters are not being forced to provide something to someone else as a baker is with a cake. To make it equal the government would be forcing them to allow others to hunt on their land even if they didn't want them there.

A quick question: Do you have the right to a specific seat on an airliner or a cake before you have bought it; the same way as you have the right to express your political opinion, aka free speech?

If you say yes we'll discuss that but if you say no tell me the flaw in the following statement.

You have no right to a seat or a cake before you buy it therefore your rights can not violate by someone not selling it to you.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Many people seem to think they have a right to the money I worked hard to earn. How offended should I be at that?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> We all agree that no right is absolute but there's a flaw in your logic. The hunters are not being forced to provide something to someone else as a baker is with a cake. To make it equal the government would be forcing them to allow others to hunt on their land even if they didn't want them there.
> 
> A quick question: Do you have the right to a specific seat on an airliner or a cake before you have bought it; the same way as you have the right to express your political opinion, aka free speech?
> 
> ...


As I've said before the answer is no. But I do have the same right to attempt the purchase. There are many legal reasons I can be turned down but race, sex, religion, national origin, and, in some places, sexual orientation can't be the sole reason. 

Making and selling cakes or arranging and selling flowers aren't essential acts to religous practice just as hunting deer isn't. It isn't the interaction with others that defines the act but the act itself. The reason I support the food distribution in Texas using the same law is that the making and giving away of food is central to how this woman practices her faith. In other words her faith comes first and foremost to drive her actions. In the disputed case faith is brought in only to drive the action of discrimination, not baking or flower arranging.

I'll give another example if how the government can force a sale by holding a business to an implied contract. If I walk into my grocery store and pick up a bag of potatoes cleary marked to be $2.00 and take it to the checkout and it scans at $3.00 what price do I pay. Can the store say oops, we forgot to reset the price and you can take it at $3.00 or leave it, or must they honor their price. You haven't paid yet so you have no right to the potatoes, correct?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> Your final statement is correct and sums it up. Each of them had their rights (both women and the Jew) and none of them should expect their right to be violated to accommodate the other.
> 
> I do have to say I find it strange you saying this here seeing as how in the other thread you had the exact opposite view point.


Apparently my earlier reply to this post got lost somewhere in the mists of the web. Which thread are you referring to?

I think I've been pretty consistent. Everyone can have whatever religious views they want until they start negatively affecting themselves or others.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

The potato thing is in no way like the florist forced to cater a gay wedding.
Think of the HL rule. 
Think of ...make no law concerning religion or the free practice thereof...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> The potato thing is in no way like the florist forced to cater a gay wedding.
> Think of the HL rule.
> Think of ...make no law concerning religion or the free practice thereof...


The question asked was whether one has a right to something before the transaction is completed. Do you have a right to purchase the potatoes at $2.00 or not? If you can prove that baking a cake or arranging flowers is central to your religious practice I'll agree that it is a protected act and beyond regulation. If your business is baking cakes or arranging flowers you can't add religious context just to allow you to break the law else it would be the defense in every criminal prosecution.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> No congratulations necessary. It's the same thing I've been saying all along. Just as the hunters had no religious compunction to hunt, the florist and bakers in the other cases had no religious compunction to bake cakes or sell flowers. The choice to do so or not was soley theirs. Just as the hunters have to obey the blaze orange law to legally hunt, the baker and florist have to comply with all relevant laws to ply their trades. Religious beliefs don't abrogate the need to follow the law. The government does have a compelling interest to ensure that all customers of a business are granted equal accomodations.
> 
> I don't believe all laws are just and should be accepted. I'll fight against the ones I disapprove with the understanding that I may not prevail. That's life.


I know this is an incredibly difficult concept for some to keep a grasp on but no, it is the law that must accommodate the religious objection and not the religious objection must accommodate the law. The items you keep touting as proof of your repeated statement about all must obey the law equally is in actuality simply the law testing for the existence of religious objection. For instance the government's case for "orange vests" would fail if it found there was a religious reguirement to hunt. Which sooner or later may proved to be an issue for the Supreme Court.
As to the "compelling interest" in assuring the equal access to all customers of a business, I doubt it as there would be a chance of ever achieving it as the government would be required to see everyone could afford it for one thing and two, there would have been no need for specific equalities such as the equal housing requirements. You just make stuff up but it doesn't make it real.
Much as it seems to rub you the wrong way, despite your evolving remembrances of what you insisted was the requirement that religion is not allowed to effect who obeys what in the law, it clearly does and always has. Thus ministers are not required to participate in Social Security, Hobby Lobby does not have to buy health insurance containing abortion coverage, and the Amish children can not be forced into compulsory education beyond the 8th grade.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> I know this is an incredibly difficult concept for some to keep a grasp on but no, it is the law that must accommodate the religious objection and not the religious objection must accommodate the law. The items you keep touting as proof of your repeated statement about all must obey the law equally is in actuality simply the law testing for the existence of religious objection. For instance the government's case for "orange vests" would fail if it found there was a religious reguirement to hunt. Which sooner or later may proved to be an issue for the Supreme Court.
> As to the "compelling interest" in assuring the equal access to all customers of a business, I doubt it as there would be a chance of ever achieving it as the government would be required to see everyone could afford it for one thing and two, there would have been no need for specific equalities such as the equal housing requirements. You just make stuff up but it doesn't make it real.
> Much as it seems to rub you the wrong way, despite your evolving remembrances of what you insisted was the requirement that religion is not allowed to effect who obeys what in the law, it clear does and always has. Thus ministers are not required to participate in Social Security, Hobby Lobby does not have to buy health insurance containing abortion coverage, and the Amish children can not be forced into compulsory education beyond the 8th grade.


Now show me the religious requirement to bake and sell cakes or arrange and sell flowers. I must have missed those passages. There are many religious traditions of the devout needing to help and nurture the poor, thus my support for the woman making and giving away food.

Ensuring access is different than guaranteeing provision of something. Everyone should have access to purchase a Mercedes S class, not everyone has the wherewithal to do so. Providing one is a government function, providing the other other is a personal one.

The Hobby Lobby case centered around the government not being able to force a business to do something it generally doesn't. Neither the florist nor baker are being required to operate outside their business model, thus no religious exemption and no real parallel to Hobby Lobby. I do think that decision is flawed but it really has no bearing on these cases. The government can prove no compelling interest to make the Amish continue their education. I've got no objection to that ruling. I've made nothing up. I've provided examples of how laws are used in theses cases and the legal rationales behind that use. You disagree. It's what makes the world go round.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> The question asked was whether one has a right to something before the transaction is completed. Do you have a right to purchase the potatoes at $2.00 or not? If you can prove that baking a cake or arranging flowers is central to your religious practice I'll agree that it is a protected act and beyond regulation. If your business is baking cakes or arranging flowers you can't add religious context just to allow you to break the law else it would be the defense in every criminal prosecution.


*Best post of the thread!*


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> *Best post of the thread!*


Well, at least the one you find most congenial. However nonsensical.
If the now famous cake controversy makes it to the Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see what the resolution would be. The court tends to favor non discrimation for individuals but also has a prohibition against interefering with religious practice. So the Court can not force a religious organization to perform an action against its religious tenets, even if racially discriminatory, as in the case of the Nation of Islam or Mormons, if they still bar church hierarchy participation based on race.
But does that right to discriminate extend to following religious tenets in commercial activities? It in truth does not really cause a gay couple significant damage to have a cake order refused at one shop. There are plenty of other shops around to accommodate them. No one is in danger of being made cakeless. It is clear an emotional response to the implicit criticism to file suit. It will not lead to an increase in other discriminatory behavior to allow this narrow interpretation, as was the reasoning in the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case.
But in turn, is decorating a cake (mind you NOT simply baking, calling it that is an attempt to make it look silly only) with symbolism in opposition to religious beliefs a violation of religious freedom protections under the Constitution? And if it is not protected, what would be that effect to the livelihood of the baker? Would it deprive him of his ability to earn a living because he will not violate a truly held religious belief? 
I read a story about a Jewish jeweler who refused to sell a wedding ring to a Christian couple because the inscription on it referred to something he considered sacredly exclusive to Judaism. So should he have been put out of business because of that? 
If both sides of this would take the view points of others into account, rather than strictly their own, these debate would not reach such silly, illogical depths. It might even expand the understanding of the people considering the issue. But I expect that will be too much tolerance for both sides to ever happen. No, I expect both will continue to feel the vicarious victory of belittling. Tolerance of course being what you expect for yourself as opposed to what you give others.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Well, at least the one you find most congenial. However nonsensical.
> If the now famous cake controversy makes it to the Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see what the resolution would be. The court tends to favor non discrimation for individuals but also has a prohibition against interefering with religious practice. So the Court can not force a religious organization to perform an action against its religious tenets, even if racially discriminatory, as in the case of the Nation of Islam or Mormons, if they still bar church hierarchy participation based on race.
> But does that right to discriminate extend to following religious tenets in commercial activities? It in truth does not really cause a gay couple significant damage to have a cake order refused at one shop. There are plenty of other shops around to accommodate them. No one is in danger of being made cakeless. It is clear an emotional response to the implicit criticism to file suit. It will not lead to an increase in other discriminatory behavior to allow this narrow interpretation, as was the reasoning in the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case.
> But in turn, is decorating a cake (mind you NOT simply baking, calling it that is an attempt to make it look silly only) with symbolism in opposition to religious beliefs a violation of religious freedom protections under the Constitution? And if it is not protected, what would be that effect to the livelihood of the baker? Would it deprive him of his ability to earn a living because he will not violate a truly held religious belief?
> ...


Well said about the need for tolerance. Now I'll point out the obvious difference, once again, between a case like jeweler and that of the baker or florist. Absent a link to the story I will deal with the facts you've given. The jeweler didn't refuse to sell a wedding ring to the Christian couple. He refused to sell them a ring with a specific inscription he held dear to his religion. He didn't refuse the sale because the couple was Christian, but because he was asked to sell a ring with that particular inscription to a non believer was in conflict with his beliefs. He presumably would have been just fine selling them a ring. He did sell the couple a ring with a different inscription. He didn't deny them a wedding ring because they were Christian. In the case of the florist and baker no discussion of design was involved. The requests were denied for only one stated purpose, that the purchasers were gay. The couple wishing a cake may have only wanted a plain white sheet cake the likes of which the bakery likely makes and sells everyday. The couple seeking flowers may well have only wanted a simple bouquet of daisies. But we'll never really know because the conversation never got that far. 

ETA. I misread your post about the circumstance surrounding the jeweler. I've edited my post to reflect my error and the facts I found on line.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Well, at least the one you find most congenial. However nonsensical.
> If the now famous cake controversy makes it to the Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see what the resolution would be. The court tends to favor non discrimation for individuals but also has a prohibition against interefering with religious practice. So the Court can not force a religious organization to perform an action against its religious tenets, even if racially discriminatory, as in the case of the Nation of Islam or Mormons, if they still bar church hierarchy participation based on race.
> But does that right to discriminate extend to following religious tenets in commercial activities? It in truth does not really cause a gay couple significant damage to have a cake order refused at one shop. There are plenty of other shops around to accommodate them. No one is in danger of being made cakeless. It is clear an emotional response to the implicit criticism to file suit. It will not lead to an increase in other discriminatory behavior to allow this narrow interpretation, as was the reasoning in the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case.
> But in turn, is decorating a cake (mind you NOT simply baking, calling it that is an attempt to make it look silly only) with symbolism in opposition to religious beliefs a violation of religious freedom protections under the Constitution? And if it is not protected, what would be that effect to the livelihood of the baker? Would it deprive him of his ability to earn a living because he will not violate a truly held religious belief?
> ...


If the baker was asked to write something on the cake that went against his religious views I would agree with you. However just being asked to decorate a wedding cake in the same way you have been asked and have done many, many times before does not rise to act of being asked to do something against your religious views. You are baking and decorating cake and that in this instance is not a religious act.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/religious...can-tradition-worth-preserving-123005389.html

Here's an interesting, at least to me, piece on current law and how things have and are changing. Both sides will take from it what they will but in heartened that a state with as much religious presence as Utah seems to be figuring things out.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Saw a sign once: We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Let that sink in.

Let's remove the Religion variable from the equation... 

Can I refuse to do business with you solely on the premise that I don't like you? Can you sue me for that?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> https://ca.news.yahoo.com/religious...can-tradition-worth-preserving-123005389.html
> 
> Here's an interesting, at least to me, piece on current law and how things have and are changing. Both sides will take from it what they will but in heartened that a state with as much religious presence as Utah seems to be figuring things out.


A really great article and a big step in the right direction for Utah.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> Saw a sign once: We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
> 
> Let that sink in.
> 
> ...


You can post any sign you want but it is not actual legal to follow through on that statement in it's entirety. You may be able to refuse service on certain things that can effect the quality of you or you customers experience on the business premises. You can follow through if you are discriminating on who the person is and not be free from being sued.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> Saw a sign once: We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
> 
> Let that sink in.
> 
> ...


There are many legal and resonable reasons for refusing service. Not liking me is one of them. Because my skin color is not to your liking, my parents came from the wrong country, my private parts don't meet your approval, or I attend the wrong place of worship aren't among them. In 22 states the fact I love and cavort with another who shares the same arrangement of private parts isn't either.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> There are many legal and resonable reasons for refusing service. Not liking me is one of them. Because my skin color is not to your liking, my parents came from the wrong country, my private parts don't meet your approval, or I attend the wrong place of worship aren't among them. In 22 states the fact I love and cavort with another who shares the same arrangement of private parts isn't either.


Who gets to say why I refused to provide the service to you? What if I just say "I don't want to do business with you."?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> Who gets to say why I refused to provide the service to you? What if I just say "I don't want to do business with you."?


I'd walk away. It's when you add that "because ..." that the law can come into play. Or when it becomes obvious that you seem to dislike only Methodists.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I'd walk away. It's when you add that "because ..." that the law can come into play. Or when it becomes obvious that you seem to dislike only Methodists.


This is my whole point. It seems that many people want to add that "Because..." when it is not necessary. Once they add the "because..." then it becomes an active effort to vilify this or that.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> There are many legal and resonable reasons for refusing service. Not liking me is one of them. Because my skin color is not to your liking, my parents came from the wrong country, my private parts don't meet your approval, or I attend the wrong place of worship aren't among them. In 22 states the fact I love and cavort with another who shares the same arrangement of private parts isn't either.


If I read that right, it is legitimate, legal and reasonable to refuse service to someone who makes a "rectum" out of themselves. (Am I correct?)

Would that stretch so far as to mean that if someone makes a "rectum" out of themselves over color of skin, private body parts, or something they classify as religious, it's still legitimate, legal and reasonable to refuse service, not because of the skin color, private body parts or something they classify as religious, but because they're making a "rectum" out of themselves over one or more of those things?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> As I've said before the answer is no. But I do have the same right to attempt the purchase.


That's correct. But logic tells us if you have no RIGHT to buy a cake (which you admit) I can not violate your right by refusing to sell it to you. Can you not see the logic? 

What you are saying is you don't have the right to a cake unless I refuse to sell it to you for some non-PC reason then suddenly the right to buy a cake pops into existence. Does that make any sense at all? 

Lets use a classic example. You do not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded area. You will agree with that. But using your logic if I prevent you from yelling "fire" in a crowd I have just violated your right to yell 'fire' in a crowded area. 




mmoetc said:


> There are many legal reasons I can be turned down but race, sex, religion, national origin, and, in some places, sexual orientation can't be the sole reason.


We are not talking something being legal we are talking rights. There have been and IMO are many things which are legal but take away rights. If tomorrow a law was passed saying the government could search your house any time for any reason no warrant necessary would that mean your right to privacy no longer exist? Or has it just been trampled by the legal system? 




mmoetc said:


> Making and selling cakes or arranging and selling flowers aren't essential acts to religous practice just as hunting deer isn't.


Take the religion out of it. I don't care if you don't want to sell a cake to someone because doing so would violate one of your religious tenets or its because years ago someone that looked like the prospective buyer cut you off in traffic. 

We are talking about the right and freedom to control your personal property. One more time. You have every right to ask me to sell you a cake but you do not have the right to force me to sell you one IF I DON'T WANT TO. Because its MY CAKE. It belongs to me not to you. Me a private citizen not to the city government, not the state government not the federal government.




mmoetc said:


> I'll give another example if how the government can force a sale by holding a business to an implied contract. If I walk into my grocery store and pick up a bag of potatoes cleary marked to be $2.00 and take it to the checkout and it scans at $3.00 what price do I pay. Can the store say oops, we forgot to reset the price and you can take it at $3.00 or leave it, or must they honor their price. You haven't paid yet so you have no right to the potatoes, correct?


Unless there was an intent to deceive then that's correct. You have no right to the product and just because the seller wants to charge you more than the posted price you have no right to demand he sell them to you. 

Again we are not talking about legalities we are talking about rights. Passing a law does not make a right vanish. It merely means that right is being taken away. 

IMO, its bad law to say there was an implied contract. Think about it. You have a true contract to buy potatoes from George but when the time comes to buy them you refuse. Well George can force you, via the court system, to honor your contract and buy them or pay him damages. 

Now lets look at this potato "contract" between you and the grocer. You say he is contractually obliged to sell you potatoes. Well would you not be contractually obliged to buy them and if you left the store w/o buying them should he not be able to sue you for breaching this "contract"? Wouldn't using this "implied contract" between you and the grocer logic mean you would be contractually obliged to buy EVERYTHING in the store whenever you went in? Seems stupid when you apply this "implied contract" to both sides doesn't it?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> The potato thing is in no way like the florist forced to cater a gay wedding.
> Think of the HL rule.
> Think of ...make no law concerning religion or the free practice thereof...


If you read my reply you will see it is the same thing. Its a matter of who has the right to control private property. As I have pointed out until ownership of something (cake, potato or bubble gum) is transferred the buyer has no rights at all concerning it. Property belongs to the owner and he has the right to keep it or sell it as he wishes.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The question asked was whether one has a right to something before the transaction is completed. Do you have a right to purchase the potatoes at $2.00 or not? If you can prove that baking a cake or arranging flowers is central to your religious practice I'll agree that it is a protected act and beyond regulation. If your business is baking cakes or arranging flowers you can't add religious context just to allow you to break the law else it would be the defense in every criminal prosecution.


Again why are people looking at the religion issue here? This really has very little to do with freedom of religion. It has to do with freedom to be secure in your private property. Religious or any other freedom means nothing if the government has the power to control your private property.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I'd walk away. It's when you add that "because ..." that the law can come into play. Or when it becomes obvious that you seem to dislike only Methodists.


That "because" is where the freedom and rights lie (lay?). Removing someone's right to say "because" you have taken all kinds of rights from them. If they can not say I won't serve "because" you have taken their right of free speech. If doing it goes against their religion/beliefs then taking away the "because" has taking away their freedom to practice their beliefs/religion the way they think it should be practiced. If you take away they refuse to sell "because" you have taken their right to private property.

So you can see that "because" is something we should fight to allow people to have. Not pass laws forbidding it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> I know this is an incredibly difficult concept for some to keep a grasp on but no, it is the law that must accommodate the religious objection and not the religious objection must accommodate the law. The items you keep touting as proof of your repeated statement about all must obey the law equally is in actuality simply the law testing for the existence of religious objection. For instance the government's case for "orange vests" would fail if it found there was a religious reguirement to hunt. Which sooner or later may proved to be an issue for the Supreme Court.
> As to the "compelling interest" in assuring the equal access to all customers of a business, I doubt it as there would be a chance of ever achieving it as the government would be required to see everyone could afford it for one thing and two, there would have been no need for specific equalities such as the equal housing requirements. You just make stuff up but it doesn't make it real.
> Much as it seems to rub you the wrong way, despite your evolving remembrances of what you insisted was the requirement that religion is not allowed to effect who obeys what in the law, it clearly does and always has. Thus ministers are not required to participate in Social Security, Hobby Lobby does not have to buy health insurance containing abortion coverage, and the Amish children can not be forced into compulsory education beyond the 8th grade.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Well, at least the one you find most congenial. However nonsensical.
> If the now famous cake controversy makes it to the Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see what the resolution would be. The court tends to favor non discrimation for individuals but also has a prohibition against interefering with religious practice. So the Court can not force a religious organization to perform an action against its religious tenets, even if racially discriminatory, as in the case of the Nation of Islam or Mormons, if they still bar church hierarchy participation based on race.
> But does that right to discriminate extend to following religious tenets in commercial activities? It in truth does not really cause a gay couple significant damage to have a cake order refused at one shop. There are plenty of other shops around to accommodate them. No one is in danger of being made cakeless. It is clear an emotional response to the implicit criticism to file suit. It will not lead to an increase in other discriminatory behavior to allow this narrow interpretation, as was the reasoning in the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case.
> But in turn, is decorating a cake (mind you NOT simply baking, calling it that is an attempt to make it look silly only) with symbolism in opposition to religious beliefs a violation of religious freedom protections under the Constitution? And if it is not protected, what would be that effect to the livelihood of the baker? Would it deprive him of his ability to earn a living because he will not violate a truly held religious belief?
> ...


Post of the day award.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

I think its time for a little humor.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1_gqbQcI60[/ame]


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> Who gets to say why I refused to provide the service to you? What if I just say "I don't want to do business with you."?





watcher said:


> That's correct. But logic tells us if you have no RIGHT to buy a cake (which you admit) I can not violate your right by refusing to sell it to you. Can you not see the logic?
> 
> What you are saying is you don't have the right to a cake unless I refuse to sell it to you for some non-PC reason then suddenly the right to buy a cake pops into existence. Does that make any sense at all?
> 
> ...


Let's start with the implied contract. I'll let you research your own definition but I've always understood it to mean that both parties understand the actions involved and those actions are based on actions that have been historically done under that set of circumstances. In this case the implication is that the grocer will offer items for sale at clearly marked prices and the shopper will pay those prices for items he wishes to buy. There has never been an expectation that a shopper will buy every item. 

I'll agree that right and constitutional don't always line up. But laws, by default, must be considered constitutional by those charged with enforcing them until legal challenges prove otherwise. Without this standard there could be no enforcement of new law. If the default were that all laws were unconstitutional until ruled on we would live in quite a different world. So while it may be your opinion that some of these laws aren't constitutional that is only your opinion. Just as it is only my opinion that other laws don't meet constitutional muster. I have no problem with people challenging laws. I'll support those I agree with and oppose those I don't. If it were as straightforward as we all would like there wouldn't be 200+ years of split decisions.

Now I'll ask why deception by the grocer changes your steadfast rule about such an exchange. I have no right not to be lied to so what does it matter why the price was raised? If the rule is absolute that no one can be forced into such a transaction then it is absolute. If there is room for one exception then there is room for others. You may disagree with the reasons but if you open that door you can't control all that walks through it. If you close it tightly you then take all government regulation of commerce off the table. Absent a written contract commerce would be quite the free for all.

Now you keep referring to the right of the people to be secure in their possessions. You're right. The government cannot seize property without due process. And the government cannot take from one citizen and give to another ( except for that pesky eminent domain thing). But the government isn't seizing a cake, flowers or even milk duds and transferring them to another. It is acting as it should to regulate commerce. Something it does with legal, constitutionally valid (until proven otherwise) laws. Even the fines you claim to be unlawful seizures are no different than the fines one pays for breaking a traffic law. Government can, should and does regulate commerce. Requiring businesses to not discriminate is just another form of regulation.


----------

