You’ve sure got plenty of assumptions.

Her right to travel was not denied. She was allowed to travel, provided she was properly attired. She chose not to cover her shirt and thus also chose not to travel.

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.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the right to travel is an inherent element of “liberty” that cannot be denied to American citizens. Although the Executive may regulate the travel practices of citizens, by requiring them to obtain valid passports, it may not condition the fulfillment of such requirements with the imposition of rules that abridge basic constitutional notions of liberty, assembly, association, and personal autonomy.

Airlines are not ‘Private businesses’ they’re ‘Common Carriers’

I’m not. Quit projecting.

I don’t call you ugly, do I?

No you don’t. You just act like an ass. I don’t call you ugly either though so I’m not sure why you would bring this up. I did say that you bring an ugly presence to this site. Understand the difference?

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.”

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