Woman Kept Off American Airlines Plane For Allegedly Offensive Shirt

[Dashel]

But your point is false from the start: Supreme Court definition of profanity has nothing to do with a private company refusing service, akin to "if you want to fly on our airplane, you abide by our rules".

Soniq, you really should read back cause you just did what I specifically asked you not to do. You are better than that. I never said they didn't have the right to do it as a private organization. I just think its juvenile and unevenly enforced. One of those typical feel good, one size fits all corporate measures. All replies thusly were to the larger point expressed by Dev that profanity has no place in 'the civilized world'. ie the public square.

If anything, I'm curious why you believe that private industry shouldn't be bound to central tenants of our Bill of Rights. Aren't anti-discrimination laws really derived from such in a round-about way? Why not cut out the middleman.

[soniqstylz]

Soniq, you really should read back cause you just did what I specifically asked you not to do. You are better than that. I never said they didn't have the right to do it as a private organization. I just think its juvenile and unevenly enforced. One of those typical feel good, one size fits all corporate measures. All replies thusly were to the larger point expressed by Dev that profanity has no place in 'the civilized world'. ie the public square.

If anything, I'm curious why you believe that private industry shouldn't be bound to central tenants of our Bill of Rights. Aren't anti-discrimination laws really derived from such in a round-about way? Why not cut out the middleman.

I'll speak to the second part first -- a private organization is bound by the laws passed directly by Congress or the States with regard to private industry itself. A person who is born black/white/hispanic/gay/male/female/disabled should not have those things held against them, with regard to things like employment, housing, etc. However, technically, it is within a private organization's right not to provide a service to any member of society for any reason -- the main reason they don't, is that it's fiscally retarded to do so. BUT, it is still legal. Take Augusta National for instance, which does not allow female members. Perfectly legal, and it's perfectly legal for people to protest them. But until it's fiscally necessary, they won't make a move. Same with Curves, the all-female exercise chain.

However, the lady in question was not asked to change her skin color, remove her breasts, or submit to enjoyable penetration by a man to prove her heterosexuality, she was asked to cover up her shirt that she chose to wear, and I will go under the assumption that she had alternatives and this shirt was not sewn onto her body against her will.

Now, a company is perfectly within its rights not to be bound by central tenants of the Bill of Rights. That's why banks don't allow firearms on the premises, otherwise against the Second Amendment. It's why niteclubs, sports stadiums, and other entertainment venues search bags and do pat-downs at the door against Unreasonable Search and Seizure. It's why shopping malls and other retailers have Christmas Sales against Establishment of Religion.

The old saying still rings true: "You have the right to say what you want, you just have to be able to deal with the consequences".

And again, I personally don't normally give a **** about profanity, if my son ever starts talking again I'm screwed. But I would personally have a problem if say, someone got on a plane I was on proudly wearing a shirt that said "God Hates Fags", so I don't begrudge AA for asking the lady to cover up her shirt before she got on the next flight. She was already wearing a shawl, how much ****ing effort would it have taken?

[Growled Member]

Wow, people and airlines sure are easily offended these days.

[Growled Member]

Sorry, double post.