Back in the day when cash was a thing I remember a rather carefully phrased sign to customers in a shop, which said: 'change may neither be insisted upon, nor unreasonably withheld'. What does that have to do with this incident? I believe the interaction between the parties was the problem not the intractability of the procedures. It seems to me on listening to the exchange between LH and ATC, that the controller objected to the pilot's sense of entitlement, most probably at the point that LH talks about the sequence getting messed up, using less than ideal phraseology. The controller seems to have decided at that point not to cooperate and invites the pilot to name his alternate and to let him know when he wants clearance there. The issue seems to be much less about whether ATC could have fitted them in the sequence or whether LH are right with their SOPs, but much more about the human interaction. I remain unconvinced that the controller's behaviour was in the best interests of flight safety. But I think there is a learning point for us pilots how we communicate.