The answer is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41470523
Boeing has stranded these astronauts on the ISS because it has no (acceptable) means of bringing them down, and the astronauts themselves have no personal means for doing so. If they want to become un-stranded then somebody will need to arrange the means for them to come down.
That doesn't mean that it's impossible for somebody else to provide those means, or that the means simply don't exist in any capacity. But they meet both the dictionary and common colloquial definition of stranded.
So even though everyone fits in the existing modules there is no spare if they let these two go home.
If you are stranded on an island, it implies you have no means of return. They have a means, to return on the same capsule. They also could return on another capsule. NASA decided to not take the risk, as there are other less risky options available.
If there were no other options, NASA would send the back on Starliner, and it would still likely be much safer than something like the space shuttle
Sorry to hear your privileged existence never had to rent a car last minute and drive 13 hours, Steve Martin and John Candy style. Because I certainly have.
That's like saying that after 9/11 when all flights were grounded and you, as a New Yorker, weren't "stranded" in London because, hey, you could always row a boat back. It's such a weird and meaningless semantic defense.
Why are you defending Boeing here?