As it is, if you say something that Limbough didn’t say first, you’re branded as a leftist, commie pinko, arab loving asswipe. Once you’re seen as a woman, you’re not even an asswipe anymore, just a feminazi, a form of life beneath notice.

You’ve sure got plenty of assumptions.

In looking at the Statute it has nothing to do with being allowed on the train nor with a person’s behaviour.

It appears that the railroad wouldn’t serve a black person in the restaurant car.

Calling an apple a banana doesn’t make it one.

My beef is that she stole it from The Daily Show, I hope Jon Stewart is getting his cut.

Awwww… somebody made fun of poor ol’ Rush Limbaugh… *world’s smallest violin plays world’s saddest song…*

During his long reign over the airwaves, Limbaugh has called abortion rights activists “feminazis“, told an African-American caller to “take that bone out of your nose,” referred to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib as “blow[ing] some steam off, ” and declared that “what’s good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party.”

Rob:

I’ve actually spent quite a lot of time in airplanes and have never had a problem reading the t-shirts of people walking by me in the aisle.

Rob your original post said she was asleep in her seat when she was told to leave. She was not in the aisle, so it had to be an immediate seatmate or someone standing in the aisle next to her who was creating the disturbance.

…Southwest Airlines deemed the shirt a disturbance to their flight then it was a disturbance and they had every right to eject her.

Obviously someone who is sleeping in an airline seat is not creating a disturbance, barring loud snoring perhaps ;-}

You stated that the shirt she wore would have been acceptable in any court house in this country. I’d submit that you’re right (except in the court room itself where most judges would probably ask her to change, as they routinely do with anyone wearing obscene clothing) but would also point out that while free expression statements are almost always acceptable on public property you’re talking about a whole ‘nother ball game when you’re on private property.

No I didn’t. Twice I’ve said it was legal in every state, but as you say her free speech would be protected just as well in courthouses, police precincts and of course, common carriers.

I refuse to quote it again, even you’ve quoted the statute. The private property argument is bogus, the making a disturbance argument is bogus. The only question subject to debate here is whether they were specifically discriminating against her, or if they consistently excluded anyone wearing shirts with obscene or political content. Now if they could prove that the week before they threw of someone wearing this shirt, then they might have an argument. “>http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/Political-t-shirts/shirtpages/FUCK-LIBERALS-T-shirt-Political-T-shirts.htm

sorry, bailout was probably the wrong word, but it’s more likely than not that they’ve been on the receiving end of federal funds distributed to local authorities. I have no source for this, though, just presumption.

It amuses me that you are arguing about her right to wear the shirt on a plane…In my opinion should she have worn it in public…no…but not for the reasons that you are arguing…what about the fact that there may have been children on the plane that are not being exposed to the word FUCK… how bout the fact that changing her shirt for a couple of hours would have helped to avoid this entire situation… maybe it’s because I live in a country where shooting your neighbour is not an acceptable way of resolving your differences…or suing the convienience store because they don’t carry my brand of chips would cause the nation to ridicule me instead of applauding me… but I think that she should have changed her shirt (in the lavatory hehe)and shut up…or complained later…

P.S. no matter what anyone says…I am not Michael Moore’s Bitch…

well back to my free healthcare, igloo, and inferior economy…
Later

Looks like Ryan is back to grace us with his ugly presence.

Thanks for proving my point Ryan.

Why are you so full of hate, likwidshoe? I don’t call you ugly, do I?

Private enterprise saves the day!

Recently a woman was kicked off of a Southwest Airlines flight in Reno after she refused to cover up a T-shirt some considered to be in poor taste. We believe her only crime was purchasing a t-shirt from somewhere other than tshirthell.com

At T-Shirt Hell we are dedicated to protecting the rights and civil liberties of our customers. One of these liberties is freedom of expression, and another equally important one is freedom of travel.

We have decided to make the following offer: if any T-Shirt Hell customer is kicked off of any commercial airline flight simply for wearing one of our shirts, we will provide you with alternate transportation to get you to your original destination. This transportation includes, but is not limited to, the T-Shirt Hell corporate jet.

LOL Dave! I was going to get all huffy and bored about 7-11s not being subject to the common carrier regulations. But I love the image of an interstate flying 7-11.

Humor always works better than rage.

Rob:

They do not, however, have the right to protest in the aisles of Southwest Airlines flights.
The flight attendants felt this woman’s shirt was causing a disturbance among the passengers. They asked her to cover it. She didn’t fully comply, she was ejected. There was no discrimination here.

Interesting that you made the point about protesting in the aisles of the airline. According to the story, she was in her seat. Perhaps there was some wingnut foaming at the mouth in the aisle?

I’ve not been able to find a more detailed description of this event but I have to wonder what precipitated the problem.

Were other passengers offended by the shirt? did they make a fuss, forcing the issue to the steward?

Was she seated next to someone who couldn’t keep his eyes to himself?

Was this a decision made by a single fussy old steward, acting on her own volition?

If a mob, or even an individual, loudly take offense with someone who’s quietly sleeping in her seat, while dressed in fashion legal in every state of the union, who exactly is failing to conform to a standard of behavior?

The thing that makes this especially absurd is that it would be almost impossible for most of the passengers to even see this logo unless they stopped by her chair and peered at her breasts. I’ll admit than men mostly can’t help this behavior, but there are lots of times I would have liked to have something like “Fuck off and take the dick you rode in on with you!” written across my breasts, in hopes it would have more impact than my wedding ring and disgusted attitude.

Dave, I usually notice when I’m talking to a woman on the net, but an awful lot of men never realize it. “Fed up Bitch” was a pretty big hint but I suppose that some men have never really noticed that women can think, design computers, do math, and write philosophy.

As it is, if you say something that Limbough didn’t say first, you’re branded as a leftist, commie pinko, arab loving asswipe. Once you’re seen as a woman, you’re not even an asswipe anymore, just a feminazi, a form of life beneath notice. (Except of course for the shirtfront)

LOL Dave! I was going to get all huffy and bored about 7-11s not being subject to the common carrier regulations. But I love the image of an interstate flying 7-11. I’m biting my tongue on the flying carpet jokes. (Not very PC, doncha know?)

King of Fools: My visit to the local 7-11 doesn’t have much to do with being on a motor vehicle involved in interstate commerce…unless i’m missing something.

Also, does it make a difference

Plain and simple, Southwest is a private business with private shareholders.

that Southwest has accepted federal bailout in the past?

It seems to me that if you accept money from the state, you implicitly agree to whatever nannying the state wants to do.

When did Southwest get a bailout?

As FuB notes:”It shall be unlawful for any common carrier by motor vehicle engaged in interstate or foreign commerce to make, give, or cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person . . . in any respect whatsoever; or to subject any particular person . . . to any unjust discrimination or any unjust or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever . . . .”

I’d have to say that there was nothing ‘unjust’ about this discrimination.

Why is ‘discrimination’ considered such a bad word?

Rob:

FuB cited two cases that concerned discrimination based on political ideology and race, respectively. Neither of which matter a whit in this situation.

What a waste of bandwidth. How many times do I have to post the same text before everyone reads it?

Section 216 (d) of Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 316 (d) provides in part:

“It shall be unlawful for any common carrier by motor vehicle engaged in interstate or foreign commerce to make, give, or cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person . . . in any respect whatsoever; or to subject any particular person . . . to any unjust discrimination or any unjust or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever . . . .”

There’s the law. One of the cases I cited was a complete red herring, my honest error, and I fixed it in less than an hour. The other applies specifically, in that the carrier, and the full force of the state of Virginia, was found to have violated the statute. Specifically they violated this part of the statute:

or to subject any particular person . . . to any unjust discrimination or any unjust or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever . . . .”

Do those words, in any way, suggest that the statute applies only to discrimination based on ideology or race?

Fed Up: What does the PATRIOT act have to do with anything you were talking about?

I sure don’t recall any part of it making it illegal to bring a gun on a plane, or carry around explosives. (The former was already illegal, and as far as I know it’s still not technically illegal to have TNT on your person in principle, though there are amount and location restrictions and permit requirements… all of which, AFAIK, pre-date PATRIOT.)

I’d like to invoke the Volokh Conspiracy PATRIOT Act rule, and require all allusions to PATRTIOT be accompanied with a specific citation.

Whistler:

Holding her to a standard of behaviour is not discrimination. No way, no how.

Sigh… Boynton v. Virginia, “… passengers in transit on a paid interstate Trailways journey had a right to expect that this essential transportation food service voluntarily provided for them under such circumstances would be rendered without discrimination prohibited by the Interstate Commerce Act. Under the circumstances of this case, therefore, petitioner had a federal right to remain in the white portion of the restaurant. He was there under “authority of law” – the Interstate Commerce Act – and it was error for the Supreme Court of Virginia to affirm his conviction…”

…a standard of behavior… She was sitting in her assigned seat, dressed in a fashion legal in every state of the union.

I’m really amazed at how much hate the left has.

I’m really amazed that quoting federal statutes and court decisions is construed as hate. Or perhaps you’re talking about the kind of venom spewed by guys like Rush Limbotomy, and Jerry Falwell?

Mark J:

You could also say that you have a right to carry a firearm, have a right to transport some trinitrotoluene…

The Patriot act certainly cleared up that issue, wouldn’t you say?

I’ve not been able to find a more detailed description of this event but I have to wonder what precipitated the problem.

Were other passengers offended by the shirt? did they make a fuss, forcing the issue to the steward?

Was she seated next to someone who couldn’t keep his eyes to himself?

Was this a decision made by a single fussy old steward, acting on her own volition?

If a mob, or even an individual, loudly take offense with someone who’s quietly sleeping in her seat, while dressed in fashion legal in every state of the union, who exactly is failing to conform to a standard of behavior?

Does it matter? Southwest Airlines is backing the decision to eject her from the plane, and they certainly have the right to regulate decorum on their property.

The thing that makes this especially absurd is that it would be almost impossible for most of the passengers to even see this logo unless they stopped by her chair and peered at her breasts. I’ll admit than men mostly can’t help this behavior, but there are lots of times I would have liked to have something like “Fuck off and take the dick you rode in on with you!” written across my breasts, in hopes it would have more impact than my wedding ring and disgusted attitude.

And you know that the logo was only visible unless people were gawking at her breasts because…you were there?

FuB cited two cases that concerned discrimination based on political ideology and race, respectively. Neither of which matter a whit in this situation.

sorry, bailout was probably the wrong word, but it’s more likely than not that they’ve been on the receiving end of federal funds distributed to local authorities.

That’s not automatic. For instance, were I to get a federal-backed loan for my home I wouldn’t have to adhere to federal equality laws as to who I do and do not admit into it.

If the federal government, when giving the money to the airline, put provisions on it then you’d be correct.

Listen, the bottom line of this issue is this: Yes the woman has a right to wear that t-shirt. But Southwest airlines also has a right to eject people who are disrupting their flights. All citizens of this country, for instance, have a right to protest. They do not, however, have the right to protest in the aisles of Southwest Airlines flights.

The flight attendants felt this woman’s shirt was causing a disturbance among the passengers. They asked her to cover it. She didn’t fully comply, she was ejected. There was no discrimination here.

Dave, you specificaly (someone who claims to be a libertarian and once said that capitalism cures all ills) should understand this.

Oops…. I’m not Rob. He’s used my computer… AGAIN!!

I can’t figure out how to sign him out and me in

Carol