[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely businesses have a right to make decisions based on what they want. Whether or not those decisions come alongside consequences is not the point.

How else can casinos refuse service to anyone, could fast-food joints refuse service to customers, bars cut off drunks, or sporting event security escort out abrasive fans?

Could any of these result in problems? Sure, I suppose so. But private businesses make their decisions based on the criteria that they see fit. SW Airlines wasn't saying this woman couldn't fly. They were saying she couldin't fly on this flight with that shirt on. And, because she refused to cooperate with their requests, they don't owe her anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chalk this one up to willfully disregarding what I'm saying. Within limits, airlines can set policies. But let's say the person was kicked off the airplane for being a white woman. Clearly that would be a violation of federal law (and probably other laws). The commerce clause gives the federal government this authority. Likewise if the woman were kicked off the plane for wearing a shirt that said: "i like president bush" it would be a violation of her civil rights. the fact that her shirt was obviously offensive is what makes it okay, plus the likelihood that southwest has clearly spelled out policies on handling such occurences. it's not that they can do whatever they want, it's that they have the right to protect other passengers from lewd, obscene, and patently offensive shirts.