Originally Posted by
medic51vrf
Excluding specific cases where there are other factors (the law, religious reasons, etc.) I don't think that an airline should have the right to dictate what a customer wears, unless it's published in the Ts & Cs.
Originally Posted by
serioustraveler
Wait, so now businesses don't have the right to deny service to anyone as long as they're not breaking the law?
The day the law says businesses can't discriminate against people for what they're wearing(except in the case of religions) is the day this country has officially become batshit insane.
I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion from what I said, but if you reread it, particularly the points I bolded, you will see that I expressed MY opinion about what I feel SHOULD be the case. Which was either tell people what they can/can't wear or allow them to wear what they want. I never said that a business couldn't deny service to anyone (regardless of whether they were breaking the law or not).
I do think that there has to be some thought put into these rules, though. For example, I can't wear a motorcycle helmet (with the visor up) into a bank due to the fact that it "obscures my face and creates a secuity risk" in spite of the fact that the a large portion of my face is visible. However, a person (whether they be Muslim or not) can wear a burqa (which totaly covers the face) or a niquab (which does the same thing except exposes the eyes) and this is not deemed a security risk. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a Muslim woman's religious values should be ignored, I'm just pointing out an inconsistancy....
From a business point of view airlines are within their rights to deny boarding to anyone that they want to and for almost "any" reason.
But at the end of the day I stand by my skepticism of the original story, I'm willing to bet cash that her attitude is what got her denied boarding, not her cleavage.
My guess is she could have easily flown and them complained afterwards but that she decided to fight them at the terminal.
I tend to agree with you on this, but so far no evidence has been shown to show that this is the case.
Not sure if peachfront was directing their comments toward me, but yes, I did see the shirt and I do feel it was not a good idea to wear it in that situation (as does the manufacturer) but it goes back to a heated debate that was held in another thread where it was pointed out that many people feel it would NOT be inappropriate to bring a manual on "how to build a bomb and sneak it onto an airplane" onto an airplane, as books don't kill people. Using that logic, neither does clothing (except suicide bomb vests....). When I said that the TSA, etc would view the book as a threat (not that it shouldn't be allowed) I was severely flamed by several people. So, why would the book be ok but not the shirt? What is the difference between putting words on paper and putting them on cloth? Where do we draw the line between freedom of expression, personal freedoms, religious freedoms, etc and public safety?