Originally Posted by
dd992emo
Dude, if you show up at an airport and demand your rights (if they exist, I'm not a lawyer but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) and they decide you're a fruitcake and hassle you, well, you ain't nothing but someone making my travel day difficult by being in the wrong place and the wrong time and behaving foolishly.
Showing ID at IAD isn't exactly the same thing as refusing to sit in the back of the bus in Selma.
Well said! ^
Although...stand by for the folks that a) think they are indeed some kind of civil rights martyr, and b) want to criticize you for saying Selma instead of Montgomery....
There is a difference, but not for the reasons stated. Ms. Parks was standing up for her basic civil rights for which there was a ordinance that prohibited otherwise by requiring her to sit in the back of the bus (this and the subsequent bus boycott occurred in Montgomery, not Selma). So in essence she was violating an ordinance for which she was arrested. Of course the ordinance was improper (as many here view the nature of the implied consent searches being conducted).
But here we have had the federal government say in court that no ID is required to travel. So all the OP is asking is that the government follow the laws it has enacted. Why should he be hassled for that?
OP: Was this you in this NPR report:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6657697