Woman Sues EasyJet After Being Told To Switch Seats To Accommodate Ultra-Orthodox Men

440px-Easyjet_orangeWe have previously discussed the practice on some airlines to ask women move to accommodate ultra-Orthodox Jewish men who refuse to sit next to women.  Now, Melanie Wolfson, 38, a British-Israeli woman, is suing EasyJet after she was asked her to change seats on a flight from Tel Aviv to London.

Wolfson is asking for 66,438 shekels compensation in a lawsuit filed by the Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC).  She wants the airline to bar future demands or requests for women to move. She noted that she paid extra for an aisle seat on her flight last October, but an ultra-Orthodox man and his son were sitting in the row when she arrived. According to Haaretz, she claims that the request was insulting and humiliating.

What is interesting about the lawsuit is that Wolfson was not told to switch, was offered the incentive of a free hot drink, and ultimately agreed to move.  However, two months later, she was again asked to move for the same reason.  She then refused but two other female passengers agreed to move.

I am still unsure how a request can be the basis for a legal action. Nevertheless, I do not believe that this is an appropriate basis for flight staff to ask for women to move. We have discussed cases where women feel enormous pressure to move because of a refusal of these men to take their seats. The delaying of the flights increases the tension and embarrassment for these women.  In my view, the men should be asked to leave the plane if they are delaying the flight. If they want to ensure that no women sit next to them, they can pay extra to have the entire row.

The question is whether the airline should be subject to legal penalties or public pressure.  The only reason that I do not rule out such lawsuit entirely is that there is still the element of public embarrassment.  Moreover, how would we react if EasyJet asked an African American to move because someone did not want to sit next to a person of a different race or Jewish person because someone is anti-Semitic? An important distinction can be drawn on this being an article of faith and that other religions like Islam separate people of different genders under other circumstances. Yet, these men are following religious beliefs that many women and men view as sexist and offensive.  For women to be pressured to move (as a flight is delayed) is in my view unreasonable.

93 thoughts on “Woman Sues EasyJet After Being Told To Switch Seats To Accommodate Ultra-Orthodox Men”

  1. An orthodox Jew walks into a bar with a parrot on his shoulder. The bartender looks up ans says, “Where did you get that”? The parrot says, “In Brooklyn……they’re all over the place.”

  2. Happiness is a ham sandwich. I was at an event once and I did swap my turkey sandwich with a Muslim fella that I was there with. He had received a ham sandwich. No big deal. My biggest problem is I will eat anything.

  3. So does the ultra-Orthodox religion also require that the man and his son sit together on the airplane? I must have missed that chapter and verse in the Old Testament. One or both of these men should have moved to an empty seat next to another man. This is just another example of women always being required to defer to the wishes of looney males. We have a gym in my town that is being sued by a “trans-woman” who is actually an adult man and insisted on walking around the female shower and dressing area buck naked with his dick hanging out in full view. Well surprise, surprise, most of the women were uncomfortable and stopped going to the gym, and parents wouldn’t allow their teen daughters in that environment. So the gym told him to cover his genitals with a towel and he is suing because his “rights” as a trans-“woman” are somehow being violated because others are not willing to accommodate his psychosis. To Hell with the rights and feelings of the female gym members, and the gym owners who were losing half their customers; the only thing that matters is some delusional male who wants to think of himself as a woman despite the obvious. We see this also is so-called trans-“women” athletes who are biological males and allowed to compete against teen girls and young women, taking away any sense of fair competition as well as grabbing all the scholarship opportunities. It’s time for the courts and lawmakers to say enough is enough with these nut-job men and start respecting the rights of the women that they feel entitled to roll over.

    1. Again, she was asked by the men if she would switch seats with a man a few rows away. The stewardesses intervened because she made a stink. On a subsequent flight on which she was on, other passengers volunteered to change seats with the Haredi so the two seats by her could be occupied by someone else.

      People with ordinary courtesy can finesse these problems. Obnoxiously litigious people just manufacture more conflict.

      1. Exactly!!
        (The star feature would not stop loading on your comment for some reason)

    1. Em, are you a woman? Or are you the ever-present troll using a name that is usually a shortened form of ‘Emily’?

      1. Someone wrote, “Are you the ever-present troll blah blah blah blah…”

        If by “ever-present,” you mean making a comment then going a week before making another, yes. That’s me! But you should probably look up, “ever-present,” “troll,” and names that begin with “Em.” And then maybe figure out what your point is before you say something pointless – again.

  4. As a British Israeli, and from her name, we may surmise that Ms Wolfson is herself jewish. This is a quarrel between secular and religious Jews.
    They are fighting over who exercises a stronger command of the gentiles. Not an enviable position for the airline to have to chose who will dictate how they employ their own assets.

    1. ??? What gentiles are they trying to exercise control over and why would that be their true purpose?

  5. If ultra-orthodox men may not sit next to unrelated women, then that may be a barrier to public travel. It is their responsibility to work out how to do this, such as buying seats for the entire row, or arranging to travel with enough men that they can all sit next to each other.

    Asking a woman to leave because of someone else’s religion is inappropriate.

    The Amish also have many strict religious rules. They are very clever at getting around them, while following the letter of the law. For instance, if they need to travel, they hire an “English” driver. That’s what they call us non Amish. They still ride in the cars they are forbidden to drive. If they decide to interact with the outside world, then they make arrangements and decide, often as a community, how to go about it.

    Ultra-orthadox Jewish men should take a page from the Amish book, and figure this out for themselves in a manner that does not inconvenience everyone around them.

    There are other religious observances that also require some tact. For instance, the Muslim call to prayer. Space on a plane is limited. The logistics of observing Salat can be difficult. Other passengers cannot have the aisle to the lavatory blocked, for example. So many observant Muslims pray in their seats and try to figure out the direction of the Qiblah. Catholics saying the Rosary should do so silently or quietly on a plane so as not to disturb sleeping fellow passengers.

    It’s not that religious faith cannot be observed on a plane. Of course it can. It just means that one needs to plan ahead, and adjust accordingly.

    1. What about the emotional torture of people who have a degree of fear of flying? Should a nervous person be subjected to people praying during a flight? If you make a joke about the plane crashing, is that any different from praying that it won’t? Make a joke and you take the bus. The root problem with religion is that in order to have one it must be superior to all others. Every modern religion when forced into a corner will acknowledge the rights of others to worship as they desire. However, no religion relinquishes its position of being the ‘Chosen’, ‘Only’, ‘One’, etc. Religion will never be free and worthy of mankind until it places common sense, common decency, and common interest above itself. Extremism is the result of ignoring the everyman, the we, the all. We’re all bozos on this bus.

      1. “The root problem with religion is that in order to have one it must be superior to all others.”

        Really? That’s easily disprovable. I’m religious and I don’t see mine as superior to all others.

        Done.

        1. Sure you do.

          One can be religious one’s self without choosing a group. However, when one chooses a group, one chooses it over others. It may be ideological, inherited, or imposed in other ways, but by maintaining a group identity one places one’s self apart from other groups, ideologies, etc. To maintain this condition, one must feel that one’s place is best, better there than elsewhere. How else are the terms: Chosen, Only, One, etc applicable? A more simplistic way of putting it is, ‘We’re number one.’

          1. No, it means it’s a good fit for me. I don’t tell others what religion to pursue.

            1. C’mon Lorenzo, don’t you feel just a little bit closer to you know who? A ‘good fit’ means you prefer it. Preferring it is comparing it first and then choosing; unless you were born into it, and then it gets more complicated. Just because you don’t ‘tell’ others what religion to pursue, doesn’t mean that you don’t ‘feel’ just a little closer to the ‘answer’ than those others. It’s a primal clan structure designed for survival. The godhead will arrive when there is no further need for separation into groups. The misogynist mutt that won’t sit next to a woman is an extreme example of the perversity of religion. Your finding a good fit is far removed from this perversity. It places you closer to that very goal. The misogynist is way, way far removed from his very goal. Kind of an oxymoron.

              1. I’m not saying that I don’t have a preference for me. I’m saying I don’t have a preference for you.

                It’s no different than picking a car. My choice makes sense to me, but it might not make sense for you. I don’t hold it against you or feel superior.

                This isn’t complicated.

                1. That’s commendable Lorenzo, but counterflow to our predominant – in this country – 3 monotheistic mid-eastern religions, all of which are either strong on proselytizing non-members or consider themselves uniquely chosen by God.

                  1. That’s why it doesn’t matter – there are choices.

                    And of course I understand that for some people, only one is correct, but the earlier assertion was “The root problem with religion is that in order to have one it must be superior to all others”.

                    I’m simply demonstrating that such a blanket statement is untrue. That statement is an assertion of a stereotype being the reality for all and that’s idiotic.

          2. When one chooses to be an atheist, they choose that above all others. Many atheists openly mock people who follow any religion, arrogant in their perceived superiority. Some atheist governments persecute people who observe any religion.

            Some people choose a religion because they find it the best fit for their beliefs. Others are arrogant, unkind, or even violent to people not of their faith. Just judge each on its fruits.

            Religions not only dictate how followers live their lives, but how they view death. My own family suffered a terrible, sudden loss. Someone who should be here was not. This person had so many myriad connections, from all the people whom he helped over his life, that people from all over the country were grieving. One young man was taken under his wing when he had a toxic relationship with his own father. He was a father figure to him, and saved him in so many ways. This guy’s life would have turned out far different. He was shaking every time I saw him. He felt the loss like we do. The list of people he’d been generous to, taken care of, or helped in meaningful ways is extensive. He was just middle aged, yet he accomplished so much good. The loss was like my heart was ripped out of my chest and replaced wrong.

            The only comfort we have is that he is with God. He exists. We will see him again. He has not ended. Heaven is lucky to have him, and will keep him safe for us until we see him again. It’s we who are left behind who suffer.

            Religion is a comfort, to the dying, and to the living. Everyone is going to go through that journey at some point, atheist and believer alike. In your final moments, would you want to feel like you’re going to a safe, loving place, or ceasing to exist? You have to decide what’s best for you, just like everyone else.

      2. Isaac:

        The ideas of common decency and morality evolved from religion.

        Without the concept of an all knowing God and an afterlife, the concept of right and wrong changes. If your life ends at death, then why not murder, rape, cheat, or steal, if you were sure you would not get caught? The secular punishment and disapproval of society would be the only inhibiting factors. If you thought you would not get caught, and there was no God, and no afterlife, then why not play Nero?

        Right and wrong could morph from what’s good for the soul to what’s good for society. Who would define “good” without Judeo Christian values? If “good” was defined by an all powerful government, then maybe criticizing the government is “bad”, and killing the elderly to prevent their burden on society would be “good.” Like the Eloi, or Soylent Green.

        What is good or bad is very different all around the world.

        I judge religions and sects by their fruits. Mormonism is not for me, but it regularly produces family-oriented, nice people, eager to pitch in for the community. It leads to nice men in white shirts and black ties bicycling around neighborhoods, wanting to pray for people. Do they think their religion is better? Yep. You can’t attend a Mormon wedding unless you are a member of their church in good standing.

        Likewise, atheists, Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Methodists, Unitarians, Episcopalians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs, all think their way is best, at least for them. Most people, in fact, live their lives the way they think best, and often criticize others for not doing it their way. They criticize people for having premarital sex, or not having premarital sex. It’s fine. We’re all allowed to believe what’s best for us.

        I do have a problem when various religions preach that everyone else is going to hell. Like only the Presbyterians get in and poor Mother Theresa and Ghandi are consigned to hell. It’s up to God to sort us all out. Even if someone got up on the pulpit and said all other religions are fatally flawed and doom their followers to damnation, if they lived their lives as good citizens, helping others, and raising law abiding kids who do good deeds, then they improve the civilization of society.

        As Viktor Frankl wrote in Man’s Search for Meaning, humankind needs a purpose. A motivating force. A meaning in their lives. It can’t just be get up, get drunk and party, shower, and sleep. Or get up, go to work, come home, shower, and sleep. Or get up, roll around in money and women, motor around the bay in your yacht, dive for a lobster to cook, shower, and sleep. Money, success, fame – they are goals that will improve your circumstances. They are not the meaning of life. Famous actors and musicians self destruct because they find no meaning or value of life after they achieved fame.

        1. Karen, decency and morality and God all “evolved” from humans, and God was one of the later concepts following previous attempts at controlling the natural world with supernatural inventions like animism, totemism, and voodoo. Other species have norms of behavior which are altruistic, so it even predates us.

          As a non-believer, I have no trouble trying to act morally and with consideration for the well being of others and doing what is “right”. Given that the only beings who have ever loved and supported me were human beings, and that most of my joy and pleasure in the world involves them, I act in a way I hope will benefit those I know and the future of the rest of our species, in however small a way. There is no data showing atheists or other non-believers as less moral than the religious, and we/they do it without the carrot/stick of an afterlife promise.

          Life is hard at times, and maybe most of the time, and I sympathize with your experience and facing that loss. I have lost those close, but luckily no one young and tragically. I understand the comfort of believing in an afterlife for that reason, but it is certainly not a proof of one, or one that should by itself cause that belief. For those I have lost I try to think of that person’s spirit living on through me and those who remain by their inspiration and way of life, and by a hope for the future of new life filling in that hole. As a species I think we are an impressive lot and our many accomplishments not the end of it, but along a continuum toward a future. Music not sung, babies not born, subsets not seen, and tales not told are all worthwhile and the highest forms of beauty we know or will know. No matter how hard life is, we almost all want to stay in it. That’s enough for me.

          1. Bythebook:

            Animals can form symbiotic relationships. For instance, coyotes and badgers hunt cooperatively on the prairie. They can use kin selection, in which an auntie cares for her sister’s pups instead of having her own. They can form friendships. They can grieve.

            Morality, however, is different. It is a code of right and wrong. An animal does what pleases them, as well as act on instinct. Kill a rival, take the pride, and kill all the cubs to bring the lionesses back into heat. Chimpanzees invade neighboring troops, kill, and eat, the infants. Play with live food. Begin eating a zebra before it’s even horizontal, let alone dead. Male cheetahs will sometimes capture a female and prevent her from returning to her cubs until she goes back into heat, which will dry her milk up and doom her cubs.

            A dog has a pack instinct. He will bond closely to his owner (especially if he is a Cling-On Cattle Dog.) He will defend his special person, just like a wolf will defend his pack. He will mourn his owner’s loss.

            He understands the concept of your claiming property, like your shoes, not the concept of right and wrong. A dog is not concerned about his actions being judged in an afterlife. My dog jumps up on the couch every time I walk out of the room, and then I hear him quickly leap off when he hears me return. He knows I do not want him on the couch, and obeys my wishes. But when I’m not there, it’s not wrong.

            The reason why you, an atheist, act morally, is because you learned Judeo-Christian morality, whether or not you knew this was it’s source. You might choose as your purpose in life to act responsibly. That is a conscious choice you made. But without that choice, why would you care about society’s right or wrong if you were absolutely, positively sure you were not going to get caught, and that when you died, you ended? If there is no afterlife, and no consequences in life if you are not caught, why not steal, or worse? What’s the downside?

            People become conditioned as children to not break the law (parent’s law, school rules, civic law, etc), because they do not want to be caught and punished, or see disappointment in loved ones. If someone was sure they would not get caught, and punished, in life, and there were no consequences after death without an afterlife, what is the impetus for someone to avoid a wrong when no one is looking? Personal guilt isn’t enough. After all, why would they feel guilty? Without God, morality is a social construct, and there is no punishment if you’re not caught. What is an atheist’s perspective on this? If an atheist was in power in a dictatorship, and therefor above secular punishment, why not play Nero?

            An atheist society could consider itself progressive, but its ideals would eventually no longer align with Judeo-Christian values. For instance, consider the genocide against Downs Syndrome people in Iceland, a largely atheist society. Sure, Icelanders have great karaoke, but the idea of what’s the right thing to do will eventually start to evolve. Give it 500 years, and perhaps euthanasia of those with disabilities, and the elderly as soon as they begin to get creaky, for their own good, of course, may become the norm.

            1. Karen S wrote: “For instance, consider the genocide against Downs Syndrome people in Iceland, a largely atheist society.”

              Back it up, Karen S.

              1. Nearly 100% of Downs pregnancies in Iceland are aborted.

                “Now, before Iceland becomes snippy about the description of what it is doing, let us all try to think calmly about genocide, without getting judgmental about it. It is simply the deliberate, systematic attempt to erase a category of people. So, what one thinks about a genocide depends on what one thinks about the category involved. In Iceland’s case, the category is people with Down syndrome.”

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-real-down-syndrome-problem-the-genocide/2018/03/14/3c4f8ab8-26ee-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html

            2. Karen, putting aside that lacking any other realistic explanation – meaning provable under standards we use everyday and scientists have perfected – God is also a human construct – you are contradicting yourself. By your definition and emphasis. a person who does right because they fear an afterlife of eternal fire or covet and afterlife of eternity with family and other loved ones in heaven, is not motivated by the pure sense of right and wrong you elsewhere say differentiates us from other species, and only since Judaism, which is a very short time period in our long history..Do you imagine that we prospered and spread for several hundred thousand years until then without morals? Did families not love one another, individuals not sacrifice for the tribe or perform charitable acts for those in need? What in Judaism was different, other than being monotheistic? The Old Testament and it’s god are wrathful, petty, and tyrannical. The messiah of the New Testament is with certain readings a new age hippie who emphasizes altruism, but the history of the Christian world since then demonstrates no particular higher morality than that which preceded.

              I have described for you the essence of my morality and it is based on realism and has nothing to do with Jesus, Moses, or the 10 commandments (half of which defend an ego trip by “God”, imagined as a Donald Trump character of infinite insecurity). Further, I think my morality is felt by most if not all humans on some level, religious or not and therefore not my invention, but an expression of what we all carry as humans without any intervention by an imaginary supernatural being. We are social animals and raised by other humans who mostly love us and sacrifice for us. The learning is in the experience of living.

              Lastly, and as a side note, your bringing up our chimpanzee past is for me a reminder of what should be a hope for the future and also attainable. I read that among chimps, fully 1/3 of infant deaths are due to adult males killing them in an effort to gain group primacy (so to speak). That’s where we came from. On one hand that should scare us and help explain the horrible behavior we are capable of still, after thousands of years of “civilization”. On the other hand, since nothing like this practice still survives among humans – except among social outcasts we throw in jail and usually execute – we are capable of changing for the better and this continues up to the present day as our odds of being killed by another human – in war, in tribal boundary skirmishes, and as crime victims – is still dropping and at it’s lowest ever, worldwide. Could this change? Sure, we came from chimps. Can we continue this trend? Sure, because we have done so. We can reasonably hope that life will be longer, healthier, and more fulfilling for those who come after, but God will have nothing to do with that. We are conscious and responsible. Only we can do that – or not. That’s a more than worthy cause whether you have kids or not.

        2. While in the west our social mores have been heavily influenced by religion, I don’t buy the argument that without religion our society would have no moral code that supports common decency.

          Humans survive better when they cooperate with each other and we don’t need the promise of an afterlife to regulate our earthly behavior because it’s usually in our best interest to follow the golden rule. In other words, I’m not plotting against my neighbor because of a belief in God, but because I understand that it’s better to live in a society with a rule of law that protects people and their property.

        3. Karen

          It all started with a cave and a group of humans that had prospered long enough to achieve some down time. There were the stars, nature, and with time, the questions. There were two types of dominant members of the clan. One type was above average strong and daring, perhaps by nature. The other type had a prodigious memory that allowed him or her to organize history. When needed, due to attack or hunting, the strong sort drew the loyalty of the clan. During times when thought, precedent, logic, rational, etc were deemed necessary the one with the capacity to organize all these events grabbed the attention of the clan. Predicting a celestial event can gain a lot of attention as does fending off interlopers bey they human or otherwise.

          Fast forward t the Middle Ages and witness the struggles of the church over the warriors. The kings were kings originally when they were the strongest. Eventually they needed to be confirmed by the church. The better the job done in protecting the people, the more time for the religious types to answer all those pesky questions. So, back and forth and centuries later the age of reason where common ideal, common sense, common interest, and common justice usurped the selectivity of kings and popes. The transition is still in process. However, the world has never been so globally and integrally ordered as it is now. This latest phase that may be coming to an end, the religion of commerce and theft, is underway. It is not religion or god that tells us that war is no longer viable, but science. More and more humans are understanding that heaven and hell are what awaits us here on earth. If you do good, your life will end in a heavenly manner. If you don’t do well, life ends hellishly. This rational is perverted but no more and probably less so than when it was sourced from religion.

          The difference between living by religious dictums and living by reason is that in both cases man is the measure of all things. ‘Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not.’–Protagoras of Abdera 2,500 years ago. Man created god, the religions, and is being pulled towards itself, the measure of all things. Gods to God to Man. Goodness and Evil are and have been everywhere. Perhaps, if there is a god, its greatest goal will be for its creation, man, to realize it has no need of it.

      1. It’s Israel. There are a lot of Haredi around. People adjust.

  6. Let’s all agree that, under the circumstances, this is an unreasonable request. That makes this the perfect opportunity to find the organizing principle that distinguishes that which is merely unreasonable from that which is also unlawful. Tell us, Professor Turley, what that organizing principle is and you will have really truly made law – and you will also necessarily also, in that movement, told us something basic about the human condition. Don’t punt. Go for the goal.

  7. Kick them off because they didn’t pay for the extra seat next to them. To accommodate them is a slippery slope to accommodating racism and other prejudices.

    1. Oy vey, Dv, of course they did not pay! The chutzpah for suggesting it!

      Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog! Sanhedrin 59

  8. Kick all of them off, easy solution. of course then they would have 2 lawsuits instead of one.

    in a situation like this, the attendants are basically picking which lawsuit the business will have to manage.
    if she wasn’t asked to move, these men would have kicked up a big stink.

    it was a no win for the airline either way

    readers who criticize the business, really don’t get the fix that these people put them in.
    and they also don’t get how “civil rights laws” imposed on private business dictating who and how they can serve, generate a lot of social conflict and don’t really solve the deep human differences they presume to address.

  9. Moreover, how would be react if Easyjet asked an African American to move because someone did not want to sit next to a person of a different race or Jewish person because someone is anti-Semitic?

    Why not ask how we would react to law professors who gin up the most jejune false analogies? These sorts of mores (and you find them in other countries, Malaysia being one) are aspects of an attempt to build salutary habits which regulate the relations between men and women. You’ve spent your adult life living in social ruins, and this does not occur to you.

    We used to have caste regulations which separated blacks and whites. There were a number of reasons for this. Some of them were not valid in a normative sense but informed by actual social data. Now, lots of people do not like social mores which are inspired by the notion that blacks are dangerous or that relations on the color bar should be on a patron-client basis, full stop. That’s disagreeable. (OTOH, liberals would like a set of social norms where blacks are a squire class relieved of the obligation to compete on the same playing field with others and the obligation to respect society’s rules; the latest round of squire privileges liberals and black chauvinists want written into the law is the principle that police officers cannot arrest black men who don’t feel like being arrested).

    There are all kinds of ways to ruin the world. You’re pushing 60 and you should know that.

    1. Absurd, ‘what’ did you actually write here?? It looks like some convoluted attempt to paint Jim Crow laws as somehow ‘more acceptable’ than they were.

      One suspects you’re one of those ‘smart’ guys who tends to out-smart himself while trying to showcase his ‘undeniably brilliant’ mind.

      1. You know the drill, Peter. Any one of us can explain something to you. We cannot comprehend it for you.

  10. She’s an awful person, and her lawyers are worse. A dose of humiliation she’s earned.

  11. I am still unsure how a request can be the basis for a legal action. Nevertheless, I do not believe that this is an appropriate basis for flight staff to ask for women to move.

    You don’t like Israel’s mores (which include some accommodation for the Haredi)? STAY OUT OF ISRAEL. Works for me.

    This woman is an obnoxious piece of work willing to be used as a straw plaintiff for people in Israel who despise the Haredi and wish to make everyday life disagreeable for them via court decree.

  12. It’s often a matter of the practice not being posted or made available prior to purchase of the ticket. Airlines are well known for their insulting ways such as treating the customers as cattle by using the word process. The Boarding Process is akin to the slaughter of animals in the Chicago stock yards. Bad enough we have to put up with being treated as criminals for crimes not committed (9/11 and we’re still having to put up with the TSA Gestapo but the regular treatment also includes overselling tickets and then not accepting them in the order of purchase. At one poinit I openly asked if there was an attorney in the group of passengers and paid a $5 dollar binder as they had jumped twenty or so ahead of me while my ticket was dated a month previous. And no the 30 minute rule had not gone into effect. The airline immediately put me on the plane along with anyone else who had reserved seating bought before the others and then magically came up with a second aircraft. The lawyer kept the fiver as his fee as he was one of the passengers being screwed over.

    On the other side of the coin why do airlines not accept cash. No requirement to do so. Cash is valid legal tender for once the ‘contract’ has been made and not until. Same with rental cars. But with the rentals you can reserve with a Credit Card and then at the end at turn in pay with a debit card.

    1. I understand why airlines oversell tickets, but I have never understood how it is legal. They are literally selling something and collecting the money for a product they cannot deliver.

  13. If we want to tie this into what is happening in American society, I can easily see how a SJW who is a ‘person of color’ refusing to sit next to a white person because, by definition according to their ideological creed of critical race theory, all white people are inherently racist.

  14. I agree with JT’s comments, and most here. Give the men the option to leave the plane.

    1. Very reasonable, Book: sit down or go back to the terminal. Like any other right, your (not you, Book, personally; just the generic ‘you’) religious preferences end where mine begin. If you can’t do x, y, or z, it’s up to you to figure out how that works in society. Society may oblige you, but is not obligated to do so. Although, I can only imagine the world wide outrage and gnashing of teeth if the requestor was an adherent of The Religion of Peace ™.

      Of course, the obverse is that society does not necessarily have the right to force one to do something that runs counter to their principles and beliefs-and especially so without substantial rationale and societal benefit (see also: cake decorators, et al.).

      I shall have to pleasantly amend any future descriptions of you, Book, to say that you are a very frequent poster yet you have only ever once agreed with the blog’s author. Keep it up, and we may even be able to restore normal diplomatic relations! 🙂

  15. If a man cannot for whatever reason sit next to a woman on a plane, he should hire a private plane. The airline should not access to such demands.

  16. If anything represents a backward society it is this misogynistic practice of religious fanatics being accommodated. The man is a threat to society and should not be allowed on airplanes or anywhere he can offend. Easyjet should have had him escorted off of the plane. Irrespective of type of religion, all religion must conform to universal human rights. Asking a woman to move because she is deemed unfit to sit next to by some idiot is, without argument, moving in the wrong direction. If suing the airline will convince them that this misogynistic attitude should not be tolerated, then go for it. Money, the one true religion.

    1. Escort him off? Why not just politely refuse his request? Why the need for all the drama?

      1. It has been established through many, many, many previous altercations that when extremely religious people don’t get what they want they kick up a fuss, in the narrow aisle, of a crowded airplane, until they get what they want. These people inhabit a world where, in further extremes, honor killings take place. They hold hostage the boarding and seating of an airplane until they get what they want, presenting themselves as persecuted. It is not an issue of some perverse iteration of a religion but of the common goal, to comfortably, without stress, and class for class in all equanimity, go from one place to another, thousands of feet above the earth. My opinion is that religion should be restricted to the individual and those that form a community, freely, without imposition, focused on that particular religion. Religion should have no place in society outside of the church, synagogue, mosque, or other temple, family, and individual. Basic social human rights and freedoms should take precedence over all religion in every venue, including the family. The primary and fundamentally necessary reason for the freedom to worship, is the freedom from having worship imposed. This person imposed his religion. If I was asked to move for some religious extremist, I would refuse. That right is worthy of holding up boarding and seating. There is absolutely no religious right that justifies this hostage taking. Escort, with physical persuasion if necessary, the *##H@le off the plane.

        1. “The primary and fundamentally necessary reason for the freedom to worship, is the freedom from having worship imposed.”

          In the US, the 1st amendment protects individuals from having a religion imposed upon them by the state. It also protects freedom of speech.

          Having some preach or pray next to you is a freedom of speech issue, not a “freedom from religion” one.

          I continue to be astounded by the false premises you use to come up with your opinions.

        2. Just to be clear, if the person making the request is unreasonable then I agree with kicking them off. But I think the first step is to politely decline the request.

          1. Something that comes along with a comment is not necessarily a premise. The scenario of a person nervous about flying sitting next to someone praying has nothing to do with anything but an extension of the comment regarding praying by one of the contributors. Americans, as most advanced peoples, are free from having religion control their lives, at least in theory. Religion determines the quality of life to some degree in many so called advanced nations. In some, it solidly determines one’s life. The practice of allowing religious extremism intrude into the secular life is the issue here. One can reference it to the Constitution or basic human rights. Perhaps on El Al one would have to get up and move but on EasyJet, no.

            1. Yes, they have the freedom of having religion not control their lives. They exercise that freedom by ignoring those who are publicly praying.

              Moreover, it’s an act of common human decency to recognize that for some, air travel is a terrifying experience, and to give them a few moments to deal with it in their own way.

  17. If American Airlines can kick you off for not wearing a mask, surely these men can be kicked off for holding up the flight.

Comments are closed.