I wonder if the "red vest guy" misheard the conversation and construed the OP to be an off duty DL pilot (the ladies husband). I do not know what the rules would be in that case, but certainly would make the quite request a lot more rational.

If Delta wants to have a consistent alcohol policy, they should post it as part of their T & C so that we can all know what it is.

I've noticed that a number of FAs will only serve one adult beverage during PDB times, even if there are significant delays. For example, a DCA=ATL flight I was on a couple of years ago got diverted to CHS, where we got stuck for about 3 hours. I was in F, and the FAs would not serve any adult beverages while we were on the ground in South Carolina. A few weeks ago, I was on a BHM-ATL flight, which ended up leaving 3 hours late. The FA would not serve a second PDB, despite the delay.

As far as the OP is concerned, I'm puzzled why he didn't avail himself of the E concourse SkyClub and enjoy his drinks in there. IMO, the Redcoat had no business speaking to him like that.

I think of all the times I warmed up for Delta flights in their lounges and enjoyed numerous libations in the process, and no one ever said a word to me. This is the type of incident that would make me stop flying on Delta.

This is it, I think. They key is the "red vest" guy said "one more than I am allowed" -- what does a passenger's consumption have to do with an employee's? I think they thought the OP was off duty Delta employee.

this is very likely the explanation.

I don't think so. OP didn't meet the pilot's wife until on board. Likewise, the red vest was not talking about his own allowance but the OP's (the OP forgot to close his quotes). If this were an on-the-fly decision such as prompted by the pilot's wife, the FA would not have said anything to the OP about the hour's warning the FA had received from the red vest. Instead, the red vest listened to the OP's convo in the smoking room, went to the gate, gave the FA a heads-up that someone was boarding who should not be served further liquor. Why he made that decision, we don't know, but "listening to your conversation" appears to be the red flag. Whatever that conversation revealed: drunkenness, unpopular religious or political opinions, something else... it's a strange one for sure.

I'm thinking that while discussing "church politics" the Delta employee heard something he didn't like and used the 2 beer excuse to impose his personality on the situation.
This is clearly wild surmise. But no more so than the post quoted.

Deltas policy is in line with the law - “appears to be intoxicated” means you cannot board the flight if it’s during boarding. In the air FAs should cut you off. By law - it is illegal to be intoxicated on a scheduled air carrier.

Delta policy also only allows two drinks (or a double) per passenger at any given time.

there are two sides to any story but if the OP appeared to be intoxicated - he should not have flown.

The scene in the galley sounds like an intervention.

There are more conspiracy theories in this thread than there are in a season of Ancient Aliens, my goodness. We've got facial recognition determining whether people are drunk, the wife of a Delta pilot trying to "get her husband's attention", and (my favorite) revenue management deciding that it'd be easier to accuse people of being too drunk so they don't need to be served.

Let's try this: I can say with relative certainty that Delta does not have any sort of hard policy around how many drinks one is allowed to have before boarding, but a GA/Red Coat saw an OP and judged them to be of concern, and they took appropriate action to ensure no expensive mistakes happened in air. This is basic risk management - Delta owes OP no alcohol if they think he's already intoxicated, and I am very happy that they erred on the side of not serving.

It is probably embarrassing for OP (I certainly would be), and if he's telling the truth, it sounds like it wasn't completely warranted. As others have said, there are two sides to every story.

It is a theory.

Far from likely. It is a far fetched (but plausible) theory.
OP's significant other could have called Delta. That is another far fetched theory.

Actually no. If OP “appears to be intoxicated” he should not have been allowed to board/fly.

Maybe for the first time in FT history, I am with Often1. For whatever reason, the OP likely appeared to have had one too many and the DL staff was trying to do their job and keep everyone safe. If the OP was definitely not intoxicated, chalk it up to "an abundance of caution" and move on. It's just a misunderstanding that erred on the side of safety. No one was injured in the making of this post.

Agreed. So long as everyone behaves themselves, who cares how many drinks someone has?

It seems the only thing the OP is guilty of is being friendly. He probably had an animated conversation with his friend in the smoking lounge and the grumpy GA didn't like that someone looked to be having a nice time. The GA's line of thought was probably "no one can be that happy sober, off he goes".

I guess the takeaway from this is just give a grunt to anything that doesn't need a specific answer, put your headphones on, and don't talk a soul. Then maybe Delta will leave you alone.

If DL felt he was appeared intoxicated, it is illegal to transport him.

Just a note - if OP was talking slightly loudly (not to insinuate any level of intoxication or lack thereof) and "made a friend" at one of the bars that allow smoking (he was not in one of the stand-alone smoking rooms, but one of these bars, based on his post), it's very likely he mentioned his destination which would have allowed the GA/Redcoat/FA/whomever to overhear and know which flight he was boarding.