Guy kicked off WN DAL-MDW flight for wearing shirt with 4-letter word
Apr 1, 2015, 2:52 pm
#61
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: AA EXP, DL-Plat, WN-CP | Hotels: Choice-Gld, IHG-Plt, Rad-Gld, HH-Dia, Hyatt-Glob, Marriott-LtPlt
Posts: 2,889
Carrier may refuse to transport, or remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below as may be necessary for the comfort or safety of such Passenger or other Passengers and crew members:
(i) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive.
(i) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive.
Apr 1, 2015, 6:48 pm
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicagoland, IL, USA
Programs: WN CP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,192
[QUOTE=weero;24600901 In Europe, the majority of people would not care about profane terms on t-shirts.
[/QUOTE]
If we Americans wanted to run our lives like Europeans, we would.
We don't.
[/QUOTE]
If we Americans wanted to run our lives like Europeans, we would.
We don't.
Apr 1, 2015, 7:19 pm
#64
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,813
Unless you decline to deal with a protected class which includes more Tha half the population. Poteet ed classes include blacks, Hispanics, the disabled and women. Unfortunately young white guys are not a protected class.
Apr 1, 2015, 11:07 pm
#66
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
We have a Contract of Carriage applicable to this particular instance, of which Section 6(a)(8)(i) includes:
This CoC was effective on the date he traveled; but, may not have been when it purchased the ticket. The language may have been the same on the date he purchased the ticket, I just don't happen to have a copy of the prior version handy.
This CoC was effective on the date he traveled; but, may not have been when it purchased the ticket. The language may have been the same on the date he purchased the ticket, I just don't happen to have a copy of the prior version handy.
While the First Amendment may not apply here directly, I am surprised at the wide gap between the common understanding and the actual legal principles in those circumstances where the First Amendment does actually apply. For example, consider the Los Angeles Superior Court (a building I visit regularly). A young man, wanting a make a point, wore a t-shirt which said "F_ck the draft" [he wasn't posting on Flyertalk, so it actually said the words]. He got arrested. The U.S. Supreme Court, about 35 years ago, said that anyone who thought that the shirt was inappropriate because it referred to a sexual act was clearly mistaken, because the word was being used in a manner to express his disagreement with the draft. Therefore, it was legal to wear the shirt in the courthouse. Cohen v. California.
Apr 2, 2015, 5:35 am
#67
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: AA EXP, DL-Plat, WN-CP | Hotels: Choice-Gld, IHG-Plt, Rad-Gld, HH-Dia, Hyatt-Glob, Marriott-LtPlt
Posts: 2,889
The word on his shirt is not obscene (although it may be lewd, a word you didn't bold).
While the First Amendment may not apply here directly, I am surprised at the wide gap between the common understanding and the actual legal principles in those circumstances where the First Amendment does actually apply. For example, consider the Los Angeles Superior Court (a building I visit regularly). A young man, wanting a make a point, wore a t-shirt which said "F_ck the draft" [he wasn't posting on Flyertalk, so it actually said the words]. He got arrested. The U.S. Supreme Court, about 35 years ago, said that anyone who thought that the shirt was inappropriate because it referred to a sexual act was clearly mistaken, because the word was being used in a manner to express his disagreement with the draft. Therefore, it was legal to wear the shirt in the courthouse. Cohen v. California.
You're right that the word may also be lewd.
You are conflating the principles of a ruling against a government actor's attempted restrictions of obscenity in a public forum (in the first amendment, not internet, sense) in contravention of the first amendment with the meaning of the word obscene (or lewd).
Apr 2, 2015, 7:00 am
#68
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,012
Not in a private setting. The government can't tell you what to do but private actor a can.
Unless you decline to deal with a protected class which includes more Tha half the population. Poteet ed classes include blacks, Hispanics, the disabled and women. Unfortunately young white guys are not a protected class.
Unless you decline to deal with a protected class which includes more Tha half the population. Poteet ed classes include blacks, Hispanics, the disabled and women. Unfortunately young white guys are not a protected class.
Yeah, I too was confused by that attempted distinction ("obscene" vs. "lewd"). I suppose you could also say "profane" or "vulgar."
Last edited by trouble747; Apr 2, 2015 at 7:07 am
Apr 2, 2015, 9:07 am
#69
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,813
Not every bad thing that happens to someone is a result of their race, gender or sexual orientation.
Apr 2, 2015, 9:46 am
#70
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,012
By the way: Those protected classes are, among others, "race, color, religion, national origin, sex"--not any particular minority subset of those categories. Title VII also applies to white, non-disabled males.
Apr 2, 2015, 10:06 am
#71
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,813
"Fairly common"? I would think that the VAST MAJORITY of "blacks, Hispanics, the disabled and women" do not sue or complain when they are not hired for a job, are passed over for a promotion, or experience some sort of negative circumstance in their life. I would guess what is far more common is the use of some allowable pretext to justify what is actually unlawful discrimination.
I'm also sure that some people sue when there has been no discrimination and more claim discrimination sometimes to shield themselves from the consequences of their own actions.
In this case a guy with an attitude apparently claimed he was wronged and then misrepresented the circumstances. possibly on purpose for U Tube or something. That's exactly the kind of attitude that leads to false claims.
Apr 2, 2015, 10:17 am
#72
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,012
Sometimes unlawful discrimination is suspected, but not provable. Such a feeling could be legitimate. I think sometimes individuals claim discrimination in bad faith, but I don't think it occurs nearly as much as you seemed to suggest. (I also think it's pretty indisputable that subconscious discrimination occurs all the time, which also likely isn't actionable.)
Apr 2, 2015, 12:19 pm
#73
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,813
Sometimes unlawful discrimination is suspected, but not provable. Such a feeling could be legitimate. I think sometimes individuals claim discrimination in bad faith, but I don't think it occurs nearly as much as you seemed to suggest. (I also think it's pretty indisputable that subconscious discrimination occurs all the time, which also likely isn't actionable.)
In corporate settings the HR departments are often so afraid of a discrimination claim that some people get away with all sorts of stuff. They generally know who these people are.
It's probably a small number but they have a disproportionate impact and detract from addressing real problems.
Apr 3, 2015, 10:05 am
#75
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,012
It doesn't need to happen all that often to poison the well.
In corporate settings the HR departments are often so afraid of a discrimination claim that some people get away with all sorts of stuff. They generally know who these people are.
It's probably a small number but they have a disproportionate impact and detract from addressing real problems.
In corporate settings the HR departments are often so afraid of a discrimination claim that some people get away with all sorts of stuff. They generally know who these people are.
It's probably a small number but they have a disproportionate impact and detract from addressing real problems.
