Woman Kicked of Southwest flight for political T shirt

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

In this case clearly dropping the F-bomb on a shirt was out of line and I have no problem with Southwest making the decision it did. However private companies that use public property (like airports) and public employees (like flight controllers) can't just make decisions like this willy-nilly.



[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't make the decision willy-nilly. They have rules, approved by the FAA, that prohibit obscene behavior and clothing.

[ QUOTE ]
for example, Southwest should have no more right to throw me off for wearing a Kerry-Edwards shirt than it would for someone wearing an Alaska Airlines logo

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are political issues, not prohibited by the rules. Despite the OP's title, this is not a political issue, it is an issue of public obscenity. Sorry, I meant to say public idiocy.

[rlpsjstyle]

Well put, ben, as you got back here before I did.

This woman violated the "Terms and Agreements" of her airline ticket. The company doesn't have established rules against political views, other companies, or other such arbitrary examples.

They do have an obscenity rule. There is little doubt that the F-Bomb can be, and often is, construed to be an obscene word.

They gave her the chance to rectify the situation and continue on the flight. She declined. If she was doing this as an act of civil disobedience, she needs to own up to the consequences of her choice. Even if it is an extra $200 or so out of pocket.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In this case clearly dropping the F-bomb on a shirt was out of line and I have no problem with Southwest making the decision it did. However private companies that use public property (like airports) and public employees (like flight controllers) can't just make decisions like this willy-nilly.



[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't make the decision willy-nilly. They have rules, approved by the FAA, that prohibit obscene behavior and clothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading what I wrote next time. I never said Southwest acted willy-nilly. In fact, I agree that Southwest acted appropriately. I was responding to this statement:

[ QUOTE ]
Private businesses have a right to make decisions based on any criteria they want.

[/ QUOTE ]

The statement that private business can make such decisions as they see fit (or, as I put it, willy-nilly) is totally wrong. It is especially wrong for businesses that live off of government like airlines. However, in this particular case Southwest acted appropriately, and did not act willy-nilly.

[rlpsjstyle]

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.

[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.