Featured Post

Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!

(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...

Jul 29, 2018

Abu Kayak wants but reverses modest rafting

According to a report on Ynet, Abu Kayak, a popular "white water" rafting site by the Jordan river, publicized a list of days in which they would enforce a modest dress code for entry. After being attacked for this, they explained that during this part of the summer 95% of their customers are religious and Haredi and out of consideration for their needs they have put this policy in place, and have even already implemented it on the first day, telling some men and women that they could not enter dressed as they were (they were refunded their money).


After threat of a lawsuit, according to Kipa, Abu Kayak has reversed this decision and is now open to the public as usual, with each person being allowed in without any modesty police stationed at the entrance. The interesting argument presented by the Secular Forum spokesperson is that if this is allowed to happen, the country will need to operate separate tourist sites for religious tourists and for secular tourists as the two communities will not want or be able to travel Israel together.

It is a shame that a solution cannot be found for Haredi/Dati customers, even if just for a limited amount of days over the summer. The overwhelming majority of Israeli tourists during these three weeks from 9 Av until 1 Elul are Dati/Haredi and having such just regular mixed rafting with no dress limitations make sit difficult for them, even if until many of them went anyway.

I understand that whatever the policy, and they can go another day or to another rafting site or other options, it is difficult when you have planned your trip and show up and see you can't go in - even if you can go somewhere else or a different day. Maybe the other day isnt available according to your schedule or you dont want to drive the 10 or 15 kilometers to the other site or you took a hasaa or bus and now it will cost more. Whatever. I get that it is difficult for some if such a policy is in place, but is there really no way to find a solution to make the site more amenable to the overwhelming majority of customers during this short period of time?

Anyways, according to the recent psak of Rav Mutzafi, the religious tourists shouldnt be going there anyway, even if a policy of modest swimwear is enforced, as there is definitely still a problem of mixed swimming and mixed gender frolicking in and around the water, even in modest swimwear...






------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------

7 comments:

  1. The interesting argument presented by the Secular Forum spokesperson is that if this is allowed to happen, the country will need to operate separate tourist sites for religious tourists and for secular tourists as the two communities will not want or be able to travel Israel together.

    The lack of self-awareness here is astounding. If their policy is implemented, religious people (at least those who are God fearing) cannot patronize these businesses. So, basically, it's no religious allowed.

    BY this logic, operating kosher restaurants should be illegal, since those who want to eat treif cannot socialize with those who want to keep kosher.

    (Not to mention that this is a private business. If they want to accmmodate what they say is 95% of their customers during a two to three week period in the summer, why should the State have anything to say about it?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. perhaps they look back at previous years and say that just as in the past many many many religious people (including many haredi families) patronized these businesses during the vacation period, so why now do they suddenly make these demands as if they cannot enjoy rafting without this new rule

    2. if this is called a discriminatory policy, and I dont know that it is, are private businesses allowed to discriminate?

    3. it is possible that if Abu Kayak stuck to the policy and let them sue Abu Kayak might win, as they are providing a service their customers want and they are a private business, but you never know how court will turn out. they decided not to risk it, so we'll never know

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is nothing "discriminatory" about it. They are setting a dress code for their business. Anyone who complies can come in.

    As for past years, it is the business which set the policy. Maybe they want to make the place more attractive to Haredim for a three week period and get more business.

    The real problem, as you indicate in Point 3, is that Israeli courts are lawless and unpredictable.

    What should happen now (but will not) is that the Haredim (and any DLs who are sensitive to this) should boycott the business. Kayaking is not a necessity of life the way shopping in a supermarket is. If it is such a problem to accommodate Haredi sensibilities for three weeks, then let them rely on their secular customers. From what they say, that would mean a 95% drop in business. But at least we have upheld secular values.

    ReplyDelete
  4. though that in turn might result in a boycott the rest of the year from the other customers. the 95% frum customer is only for 3 weeks of the summer. the rest of the time is predominantly secular. if they get upset over such a policy and decide to take the business elsewhere, that could be an even greater loss

    ReplyDelete
  5. A dress code has to have a rational relation to the sale or use of the service. A casino's dress code for employees and an accounting firm's dress code would not be weighed with the same test, and a restaurant's dress code for customers might be upheld if it relates to elegance or style. If the dress code has no purpose other than excluding religious or irreligious people, or making them feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, then it would certainly be viewed as unfair discrimination against a protected class. I would argue that excluding girls in shorts in the summer might be included in that rubric. It would at least be fun to argue the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that is a compelling argument, especially when you can easily show that girls in shorts is perfectly acceptable at other locations in the industry, and even at this location the other 49 weeks of the year (whatever the number really is, as it is presumably only open during the summer months)

      Delete
  6. Abu Kayak can only impose rules on their own grounds. Once the haredim are floating down the Yarden they will see all kinds of people dressed in all kinds of clothes (or lack of) enjoying themselves in nature... That's life in the real world. How about they get used to it and stop trying to control what everyone else around them does....?

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...