So - you walk up to AIT - and refuse. That's ok. I support that.

You then are told you need to be frisked - which is standard procedure if you refuse AIT. This is the new rule. You refused - and thusly were refused access to the secure area.

Thoughts:

1. The AIT is something I will refuse whenever it is the option - I really don't care if they see my junk - I care about the radiation. So I'll support you there.

2. Refusing that screening means not the old fashioned metal detector if you alarm it you get a search - the rule is you get a pat down.

3. If you intend to bring a lawsuit that the AIT/frisk process is unconstitutional - then you shall lose. No appellate court nor the USSC will rule that the TSA bureaucrats do not have the ability to set the security rules anyhow they want so long as there is the remotest tie in to security - no one wants to be seen as 'anti-security.'

4. The only argument that might work - and it would take some heavy legal support - is that Congress lacks the power to regulate security as part of regulating interstate transportation by air since it is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. I fear that horse and buggy left the station in the 1800's when they started hiring guards for the Pony Express and the railroads.

If you KNEW the pat down rule - refused - and missed your work day and get fired - thats the choice you made that day. Good luck in another career since no airline will ever hire you.