Man kicked off flight because of his T-shirt.

[dustindow]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16752321/

theres the link.


Is this acceptable? More so these days, terrorism has scared the public to a point where we will sacrifice some of our core freedoms in the name of security. I'm not up to date on Australia's rights. But this shouldn't be a problem at all. It appears to me as a shadow of what kind of attitude we have now.

[ChodaBoy]

I think it was fair, the word 'terrorist' isnt a word too many people would like to see aboard a plane. The guy must have known it was going to be a problem

[lunchforthesky]

What kind of moran terrorist would actually wear a t-shirt saying terrorist on it, its pretty obvious he wasn't a danger.

[EinzingerIsGod]

That's ridiculous. The other day there was a local news story here about a family who was removed from a plane after their 3-year old daughter began crying before takeoff.

[The_Passenger]

I don't think that wearing a t-shirt is grounds to kick someone off of a plane, regardless of whether the t-shirt bothers people or not (and to be fair, I can see why this would bother people).

However, at the same time I suppose I also agree with the post below. It's ridiculous, but I guess the company should be able to do it.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Companies should be able to deny service to whomever they please, for whatever reason they want

[spitfirejunky]

I don't understand what's wrong with wearing a shirt like that. Such an arbitrary reason to kick someone off a plane.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

I wouldn't have kicked him off if it were up to me


But it isn't

[WhoDidTheElf]

He knew that his shirt was going to cause a problem, yet he still wore it. I sometimes wander...

[Kurrpt]

*wonder


and really, I wouldn't expect that in Australia. I mean, it would be understandable in America...

[SenorBoyce]

If it was a private company they should be able to deny service to whoever they want to for whatever reason they feel like. Sure it was a shitty reason, but that's irrelevant if it's a private company.

If they get public funding (like a lot of airline companies do..) then in no way is it acceptable.

[Scuba_Steve]

I bet if his shirt said Amhenendjad #1 terrorist he woulda been able to stay on.

[spitfirejunky]

*Ahmadinejad, yeah. :lol:

[Scuba_Steve]

*Ahmadinejad, yeah. :lol:

thats what I meant.







:(

[peeted]

meh, its not on kicking him off but he was a bit of a tit for wereing a t-shirt like that on a long haul flight.

[AmericanWeiner]

This should be a non issue and only displays the level of shallowness that humans demonstrate.

[Kurrpt]

I just don't see the point in the airline making a pre-emptive strike against the passenger.


I mean, if they warned the passenger that, in the event anyone has a problem with his attire, he would be made to change or something like that, then I could understand it.

But denying him access in-case a hypothetical situation would arise just seems ludicrous

[Amit]

Companies should be able to deny service to whomever they please, for whatever reason they want

winner




although this is just another reason for the islamic terrorists to laugh at the west :-(

[Kurrpt]

well, if that were the case, they should refund his money

[RockAndRoll]

Companies should be able to deny service to whomever they please, for whatever reason they want

So long as the conditions for refusal are made readily available before the purchase is made.

[Mr. Ron]

The guy was a 'tard for wearing the shirt. Free speech has it's limits.

[spitfirejunky]

I'm not sure this would be an example of exceeding free speech limits.

[samariah]

should of just told him to change or something

[Kurrpt]

it appears he did, but he wanted to "excercise his right to free speech"

[peeted]

He was a moron because its harsh as **** to paranoid people on airplanes, it doesn't exceed the limits of free speech though, giving someone a mild scare (you would have to be pretty retarded to be scared of someone with a t-shirt like that any way) by making a political statement doesn't exceed the boundaries of free speech at all.

[samariah]

i think it was in bad taste to wear the shirt, but they shouldnt have kicked him off

[Mr. Ron]

I'm not sure this would be an example of exceeding free speech limits.

I think it is. Just like when you're not supposed to scream fire in a crowded theater, you don't wear anything that has "terrorist" on it. It's common sense.

[-1up!-]

This is ****ing ridiculous, and it's an outrageous infringement on free speech. I'm happy to see he's thinking about legal action against the offenders and I dearly hope he wins.

I think it is. Just like when you're not supposed to scream fire in a crowded theater, you don't wear anything that has "terrorist" on it. It's common sense.

Poor comparison. Labelling Bush #1 terrorist is a awkward joke to make on a plane, I admit, but when you're kicking someone off a plane for showing just a buzzword, things are going really wrong. Common sense rather says that words printed on t-shirts are harmless.

[spitfirejunky]

I think it is. Just like when you're not supposed to scream fire in a crowded theater, you don't wear anything that has "terrorist" on it. It's common sense.

If someone wore a shirt that said "fire" in a crowded theater, you'd kick them out?

[Mr. Ron]

If someone wore a shirt that said "fire" in a crowded theater, you'd kick them out?

Thats different. Someone seeing the word fire on a T-shirt while in a theater is way different than identifying yourself as a terrorist on a plane.

[spitfirejunky]

Except his T-shirt made it clear that Bush was a terrorist, not him.

:confused:

[peeted]

if someone shouted fire in a theater you would kick them out for causing a disturbance and for suggesting that there was a fire. The t-shirt is making a political statement and really does the opposite of suggesting hes a terrorist, what terrorist would were a t-shirt like that?

any way the sorts of people who would **** themselves seeing a t-shirt like that on a plane deserve to be shiting themselves because they are quite obviously dribbling idiots.

[Mr. Ron]

WAIT WAIT WAIT.

When I read the article, I didn't see that the shirt was against bush. I thought the shirt identified the person wearing it as a terrorist, not Bush. My mistake. IN this case the man didn't deserve to be kicked off.


Sorry guys.:p

[Kurrpt]

I was gonna say Ron, cause after reading your previous comment, it didn't appear that you read the article.

[griftadan]

stupid? yes. is his freedom of speech being infringed? its a private company, they can hold him for whatever the hell they want.

[Zesty Mordant]

So long as the conditions for refusal are made readily available before the purchase is made.

this

[VomitStainedCretin]

if someone shouted fire in a theater you would kick them out for causing a disturbance and for suggesting that there was a fire. The t-shirt is making a political statement and really does the opposite of suggesting hes a terrorist, what terrorist would were a t-shirt like that?

any way the sorts of people who would **** themselves seeing a t-shirt like that on a plane deserve to be pooping themselves because they are quite obviously dribbling idiots.

123. If he was wearing a shirt saying "I love Bin Laden & laughed at 9/11" it would be understandable but Wearing Anti-Bush T-shirt=/=I like suicidally pilotting large passenger aircraft. Unless you're one of those "Anyone who does not always agree with the American administration is a turrrorrrist" retards of course.

[AmericanWeiner]

Was Bush on the plane?

Because I dunno what the people in australia were scared of when that guy informed them that bush is a terrorist

[Smokey D]

This is ****ing ridiculous, and it's an outrageous infringement on free speech. I'm happy to see he's thinking about legal action against the offenders and I dearly hope he wins.

I don't think there's a right to free speech in a private institution or company. I don't think he will be very successful if he pursues his claim under those grounds.

He might be able to argue that paying money for a service is tantamount to forming a contract, and the airline is in breach by failing to fulfill the deal for a reason not mentioned or alluded to. I'm not sure though; I'm not really clear on Australian consumer rights or the terms and conditions under which he accepted the ticket.

[peeted]

Freedom of speech is protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which over rides any form of contract or private institution which operates out of a compliant nation. He could pursue the case on the grounds of freedom of speech.

[Smokey D]

To my understanding, free speech is only protected in a public or governmental environment. In the same way you can be kicked out of a bar for being loud and obnoxious, other companies reserve the right to not serve people for whatever reason, and that includes language that is likely to incite, inflame or otherwise cause disturbance.



1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.


Looking at the relevant article, it seems he might be able to pursue a claim for suppression of free speech as per section 1 and possibly subsection 3 (b) (I'm not sure whether the right for companies to refuse service for speech is enshrined in law). However, he could also be thwarted on subsection 3 (a) or 3 (b) (if the right to refuse service is in law), or on some common law principle not made clear here. I'm also not sure whether Article 19 of the ICCPR has been ratified verbatim. Australia's domestic law might have a broader scope for exceptions, and you can only pursue a claim within the law of the jurisdiction you're in.

[peeted]

It will most likely come down then, to the perceived harm he was causing to other people on the flight, which it would be hard to see being great enough to warrant expulsion from the flight without a refund.

[lunchforthesky]

He should of been at least given a refund but even then its stupid to kick him off.

[Smokey D]

I think a refund is probably quite likely, but that's not really a matter of free speech.

[lunchforthesky]

From the above post i just assumed he wasnt getting a refund.

[Smokey D]

I haven't actually read the article, so I'm not sure about the refund thing. It just seems likely, especially if he's going to pursue it in court, that it's not worth the airline's effort to dispute it. My original point was in response to 1up's comment on breaching laws on free speech, the relevance of which I'm not too sure.

[Zesty Mordant]

To my understanding, free speech is only protected in a public or governmental environment. In the same way you can be kicked out of a bar for being loud and obnoxious, other companies reserve the right to not serve people for whatever reason, and that includes language that is likely to incite, inflame or otherwise cause disturbance.


Im not very well versed in certain fields of economics, so this might sound incredibly dumb, but if a private company is publicly owned (with shares available on the global market) such as Qantas (the airline that refused the passenger), does this indirectly affect their policies?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that private companies that wish to involve themselves in manners that would make them publicly owned then become a part of the public sphere and therefore, must acquiesce to certain laws, such as freedom of speech, etc.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

I fail to see how a UN Treaty has any bearing on how Quantas operates their airlines. Unless there is an Australian law stating that they must allow their customers a degree of freedom of speech, they can throw him off. To do otherwise would infringe upon their right to operate their business anyway they please

Then again, I fail to see how any UN treaty can have any bearing on anything

[lunchforthesky]

Because we have a thing called laws to protect people from business, thats why you cant run a sweatshop in the UK, its basic labour laws, sadly its acceptable to do it in Bangladesh and Nepal.

[White Riot!]

he should of just taken it off an switched............then put it back on inflight.


Its pretty stupid thing to happen

BOOO! qantas!

[rancid22]

That's ridiculous. The other day there was a local news story here about a family who was removed from a plane after their 3-year old daughter began crying before takeoff.

yea i saw that too. although i found that time just because the girl was going crazy and the parents had no control over her. the world isn't going to stop for one little girl, so they gave them the boot.

but i can't believe they would kick someone off the flight for wearing that shirt. he clearly wore it on purpose but they have no right to do so considering it did not threaten anyone.

[Rounder]

So long as the conditions for refusal are made readily available before the purchase is made.

Nope. I can guarantee you there is a 'right to refuse service for any reason' clause when you purchase a ticket, as is with most companies in the service industry.

[Rounder]

but i can't believe they would kick someone off the flight for wearing that shirt. he clearly wore it on purpose but they have no right to do so considering it did not threaten anyone.

They have every right.They can require that you wear a chicken for a hat in order to fly on their airline if they like.

[TheClap]

They could have made him, ummmmm, change T-shirts.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Because we have a thing called laws to protect people from business, thats why you cant run a sweatshop in the UK, its basic labour laws, sadly its acceptable to do it in Bangladesh and Nepal.

Those are workers. These are customers

[lunchforthesky]

I see your point.

Public Transport should be nationalised anyway :p

[Smokey D]

Im not very well versed in certain fields of economics, so this might sound incredibly dumb, but if a private company is publicly owned (with shares available on the global market) such as Qantas (the airline that refused the passenger), does this indirectly affect their policies?

Publicly owned is more when the government has a stake than when its shares are available to the public. But I don't see why it would.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that private companies that wish to involve themselves in manners that would make them publicly owned then become a part of the public sphere and therefore, must acquiesce to certain laws, such as freedom of speech, etc.

No, unless otherwise specified in law, companies don't need to comply to things like freedom of speech. Besides, the laws governing freedom of speech in Australia likely don't make any mention of companies so Qantas wouldn't have anything to acquiesce to. Companies are held to be legal persons with their own private rights. These rights are just as important as a real person's rights. For example, I don't need to let someone barge into my house and start spewing controversial opinions because of freedom of speech.

[RockAndRoll]

Nope. I can guarantee you there is a 'right to refuse service for any reason' clause when you purchase a ticket, as is with most companies in the service industry.
What part of a 'right to refuse service for any reason' clause isn't making the conditions for refusal readily available?

Also as much as some people on these boards might love it if there weren't, there are often laws about contracts and such, you can't just put in whatever you want. Well, you can, but the law won't really care.

[Smokey D]

If there's a right to refuse service clause in the terms and conditions, it's entirely enforceable, and I don't think it could be disputed.

There's a bit of a grey area with regards to things like discrimination, though. I don't think freedom of speech could be counted in that, though.

[JumpTheF**kUp]

It's not like his shirt said 'OMG IM A TERRORIST', it just stated his opinion that George Bush was a terrorist.

I do think that Chrizzle has a point (that the airline is the one that decides whether the passenger is allowed on), but that's pretty ridiculous.

Hahaha, have any of you seen the Chaser's War On Everything clip where they try to get a flight (in Australia) under the names Terry Wrist and Al Kyder?

:lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VmqUDcBsso <-- There's the link

[RockAndRoll]

If there's a right to refuse service clause in the terms and conditions, it's entirely enforceable, and I don't think it could be disputed.

There's a bit of a grey area with regards to things like discrimination, though. I don't think freedom of speech could be counted in that, though.

I don't know the specifics on this. But my point is that you can't just throw in any clauses under terms and conditions and expect them to be respected. For example in Canada you can't charge greater than 60% interest per year, or it's equivalent. Even if the bank throws in a 'we can charge you as much interest as we want' clause they'll be charged for applying criminal interests rates if they charge you over 60%/a. It doesn't matter what their 'terms and conditions' may happen to say.

The same types of principles would apply to this. Once again I don't know about this specific case but throwing in a 'we retain the right to refuse service at any time for any reason' clause probably doesn't actually give you that right. I doubt, for example, that if you were on a flight with a layover in Melbourne they could fly you to Melbourne and then refuse to complete the trip because you're aboriginal and they decided they don't like aboriginal people anymore.

[Smokey D]

I don't know the specifics on this. But my point is that you can't just throw in any clauses under terms and conditions and expect them to be respected. For example in Canada you can't charge greater than 60% interest per year, or it's equivalent. Even if the bank throws in a 'we can charge you as much interest as we want' clause they'll be charged for applying criminal interests rates if they charge you over 60%/a. It doesn't matter what their 'terms and conditions' may happen to say.

Well, obviously when other laws come into play the situation changes. Insofar as the terms and conditions do not break the law, they are enforceable.

The same types of principles would apply to this. Once again I don't know about this specific case but throwing in a 'we retain the right to refuse service at any time for any reason' clause probably doesn't actually give you that right. I doubt, for example, that if you were on a flight with a layover in Melbourne they could fly you to Melbourne and then refuse to complete the trip because you're aboriginal and they decided they don't like aboriginal people anymore.

That's why I said there is a degree of confusion regarding discrimination. The law is still developing for most countries in that area. It causes all sorts of problems. Can, for example, a women join a gentlemen's club, and can she sue on discriminatory grounds if she's denied membership?

However, there are usually laws against that kind of thing where as there's not a law guaranteeing people's right to say whatever they want in private institutions. Nor is there one, indeed, guaranteeing anybody's right to fly with Qantas.

[Iskandar]

The guy was a 'tard for wearing the shirt. Free speech has it's limits.
It's not illegal to wear a shirt.

[Smokey D]

As far as I can tell, it's not illegal for the airline to kick him off the plane either.

[Rounder]

I don't know the specifics on this. But my point is that you can't just throw in any clauses under terms and conditions and expect them to be respected. For example in Canada you can't charge greater than 60% interest per year, or it's equivalent. Even if the bank throws in a 'we can charge you as much interest as we want' clause they'll be charged for applying criminal interests rates if they charge you over 60%/a. It doesn't matter what their 'terms and conditions' may happen to say.

There have been times when I have kicked someone out of my car in the middle of nowhere because they were so drunk they started getting a little too rowdy in my vehicle. It's my right. If someone got into my car with a T-shirt that said 'I murder taxi drivers' I would tell him to lick my balls and drag him out of my car with force if necessary. It's my property.

The same types of principles would apply to this. Once again I don't know about this specific case but throwing in a 'we retain the right to refuse service at any time for any reason' clause probably doesn't actually give you that right. I doubt, for example, that if you were on a flight with a layover in Melbourne they could fly you to Melbourne and then refuse to complete the trip because you're aboriginal and they decided they don't like aboriginal people anymore.


That is a different situation. If there are laws in Austrailia regarding racism like their is in the US, then of course it's illegal. However, for the same reason that a convenience store or a bar can refuse service to anyone (mostly to those who are too intoxicated), an airliner can refuse service to anyone. The bar, as well as the airplane, is private property, and their are laws regarding tresspassing on the books in the US.

[RockAndRoll]

Well, obviously when other laws come into play the situation changes. Insofar as the terms and conditions do not break the law, they are enforceable.

That's why I said there is a degree of confusion regarding discrimination. The law is still developing for most countries in that area. It causes all sorts of problems. Can, for example, a women join a gentlemen's club, and can she sue on discriminatory grounds if she's denied membership?

However, there are usually laws against that kind of thing where as there's not a law guaranteeing people's right to say whatever they want in private institutions. Nor is there one, indeed, guaranteeing anybody's right to fly with Qantas.

No, but that doesn't mean they can deny you rights to service at any time for any reason either, even ignoring the racial/gender/whatever discrimination.The point is that those clauses don't nessecarily actually mean what people think they do.

[Smokey D]

No, but that doesn't mean they can deny you rights to service at any time for any reason either. I mean even if you forget the discriminatory thing I don't think courts would favour Qantas if they refused someone service once they arrived somewhere where they had a layover and then decide they don't want to complete their service. The point is that those clauses don't nessecarily actually mean what people think they do.

That would be failure to complete the service for which they were contracted, which would leave Qantas open to all sorts of things.

[RockAndRoll]

That is a different situation. If there are laws in Austrailia regarding racism like their is in the US, then of course it's illegal. However, for the same reason that a convenience store or a bar can refuse service to anyone (mostly to those who are too intoxicated), an airliner can refuse service to anyone. The bar, as well as the airplane, is private property, and their are laws regarding tresspassing on the books in the US.

Yes, but the difference is Qantas already sold the man a ticket. They already agreed to provide him with a service.

[Smokey D]

Under the condition that he complied with their rules.

[RockAndRoll]

That would be failure to complete the service for which they were contracted, which would leave Qantas open to all sorts of things.

As is selling a man a ticket and then refusing to service him.

[Rounder]

No, but that doesn't mean they can deny you rights to service at any time for any reason either, even ignoring the racial/gender/whatever discrimination.The point is that those clauses don't nessecarily actually mean what people think they do.

Within the law, those clauses are pretty comprehensive.

If someone got into my cab with a t-shirt that said. 'taxi drivers are the 1 terrorist', I would tell him to lick my balls and to get the **** out of my cab, and would use force if necessary. It's my property, I can even refuse service for the way they look. I can refuse them for not bathing or puking on themselves, or when they have pissed their pants, it's my property right. Just like the airplane is their property, they pretty much can do what they will within the law.

[RockAndRoll]

Under the condition that he complied with their rules.

Yes, however there are certain limitations on those rules and they have to make the rules available before he purchased the ticket.

[Smokey D]

As is selling a man a ticket and then refusing to service him.

He was only promised service provided he complied.

The company might be able to make some reference to sunk costs and dispute even paying him a refund.

Does anyone have a damn ticket to read the terms and conditions?

[RockAndRoll]

Within the law, those clauses are pretty comprehensive.

If someone got into my cab with a t-shirt that said. 'taxi drivers are the 1 terrorist', I would tell him to lick my balls and to get the **** out of my cab, and would use force if necessary. It's my property, I can even refuse service for the way they look. I can refuse them for not bathing or puking on themselves, or when they have pissed their pants, it's my property right. Just like the airplane is their property, they pretty much can do what they will within the law.

Yes you can refuse service to people, but once you've agreed to service somebody rules are different.

[RockAndRoll]

He was only promised service provided he complied.

The company might be able to make some reference to sunk costs and dispute even paying him a refund.

what he has to comply with must be made clear before the purchase is made though. furthermore there are some things which are just legally unnacceptable conditions anyways.

[Smokey D]

According to US law (which I imagine is broadly similar to Australian law), you can discriminate against people outside of a protected class (ie, divisions of gender, nationality, race or religion) provided there's an interest to be protected by such discrimination. A bar owner can refuse service to people wearing gang patches on the grounds that fights are likely to take place if people are allowed to wear them in his establishment. I suppose this could be extended to a controversial teeshirt making people feel inordinately uncomfortable on what is for many already a stressful undertaking like flying.

http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article13721.html

[Rounder]

Yes you can refuse service to people, but once you've agreed to service somebody rules are different.

Not in my line of work. Someone can get into my cab, pay me ahead of time, and if I feel threatened or in anyway uncofortable with my passenger, I will kick them out.

I can't say for sure, but I'm confident that when you purchase a ticket you are consenting to abide by the contract between the airline and you. I'd be willing to bet there is a 'passenger safety' clause and tons of others that give the airline the right to refuse service to those they feel threaten the safety of the passengers, and or the airplane and flight crew, even after a ticket is bought and paid for.

[Smokey D]

If I rolled up to the airport with a belt of dynamite strapped to my chest, I couldn't expect service even if I had bought a ticket.

[griftadan]

I see your point.

Public Transport should be nationalised anyway :p

oh sweet jesus.

[RockAndRoll]

According to US law (which I imagine is broadly similar to Australian law), you can discriminate against people outside of a protected class (ie, divisions of gender, nationality, race or religion) provided there's an interest to be protected by such discrimination. A bar owner can refuse service to people wearing gang patches on the grounds that fights are likely to take place if people are allowed to wear them in his establishment. I suppose this could be extended to a controversial teeshirt making people feel inordinately uncomfortable on what is for many already a stressful undertaking like flying.

http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article13721.html
I didn't say that you're never allowed to refuse service to people.


Not in my line of work. Someone can get into my cab, pay me ahead of time, and if I feel threatened or in anyway uncofortable with my passenger, I will kick them out.

I can't say for sure, but I'm confident that when you purchase a ticket you are consenting to abide by the contract between the airline and you. I'd be willing to bet there is a 'passenger safety' clause and tons of others that give the airline the right to refuse service to those they feel threaten the safety of the passengers, and or the airplane and flight crew, even after a ticket is bought and paid for.
Yes, in your line of work actually. I didn't say that you can't ever refuse someone service. But you can't just refuse people service willy-nilly once you've entered into a contract with them. Just like they can't refuse to pay you willy-nilly once they've entered in a contract with you. However before you enter in a contract it's an entirely different story.

If I rolled up to the airport with a belt of dynamite strapped to my chest, I couldn't expect service even if I had bought a ticket.
Are either of you going to argue my actual point now, or do you guys just really enjoy the whole straw man thing?

[Smokey D]

I didn't say that you're never allowed to refuse service to people.

I was just providing an example of where they might be able to refuse service for peculiar dress.

Are either of you going to argue my actual point now, or do you guys just really enjoy the whole straw man thing?

Stawmen are fun, but only when they aren't recognised.

I don't know what I'm meant to be arguing anymore. The airline probably had (or at least, thought they had) fair and just cause to prevent the offending teeshirt wearer to board the plane. I can think of a couple of examples of the reasoning they might have used, and you haven't addressed the first one I gave you.

[RockAndRoll]

I was just providing an example of where they might be able to refuse service for peculiar dress.
Yes, and I know that under certain circumstances it can be done.

Stawmen are fun, but only when they aren't recognised.

I don't know what I'm meant to be arguing anymore. The airline probably had (or at least, thought they had) fair and just cause to prevent the offending teeshirt wearer to board the plane. I can think of a couple of examples of the reasoning they might have used, and you haven't addressed the first one I gave you.

Yes, I'm sure they did think they had, but that doesn't actually matter. Which first reason are you reffering to?

And as I already stated, I'm not actually saying in this particular case it was illegal for the airline to refuse him service as I'm not familiar enough with the particular laws and details of the case in question.

[Smokey D]

Yes, I'm sure they did think they had, but that doesn't actually matter. Which first reason are you reffering to?

It matters quite a lot. Companies have to be able to execute discretion.

The reason is that a controversial teeshirt might make people feel inordinately uncomfortable on what is for many already a stressful undertaking like flying, and thereby cause unwarranted and unneeded distress.

[RockAndRoll]

It matters quite a lot. Companies have to be able to execute discretion.
Well yes, but what I mean is that it doesn't matter as to whether they were actually right to do it or not.

The reason is that a controversial teeshirt might make people feel inordinately uncomfortable on what is for many already a stressful undertaking like flying, and thereby cause unwarranted and unneeded distress.

Yea, I don't know how well that'll stand up in a court though.

[shaqadelic]

The rights to refuse service must be supported with a proper reason. I hardly think that the T shirt will cause stress to the passengers is a valid one.

If we were to replace the people in the plane with the people who have posted in this thread, hardly anyone found it distressing and I think this view will be shared among the plane's real passengers.

If the person was drunk and going crazy, then it is a valid reason.

But I am not sure which part of law the guy could pursue the company after, discrimination, freedom of speech or something more specific as freedom of political communication.

[Knifeboy]

I'm suprised how many in this forum support airlines rights to refuse people passage if they wear a turban

[ringworm]

well, at 500 mph 30,0000 ft, dont hate people for wanting to feel safe & secure

obviously, a moron in a t-shirt like this wouldnt scare me, but his lack of common sense does

[PerpetualBurn]

I think it's pretty fair that the airline be allowed a dress code, and inflammatory t-shirts, even funny ones, are one of the things I expect to be banned.

If the airline had turned him away because he was Asian or something, I may have a problem, but really...he's a bit of a prick for wearing that shirt in an airport.

[croniun]

Anyone who wears their beliefs on their t-shirt kind of annoys me. It's like those soccer moms who have the bumper stickers that say "My child is the student of the month and so and so middle school." Get over yourself.

[Rounder]

The rights to refuse service must be supported with a proper reason. I hardly think that the T shirt will cause stress to the passengers is a valid one.

If we were to replace the people in the plane with the people who have posted in this thread, hardly anyone found it distressing and I think this view will be shared among the plane's real passengers.

If the person was drunk and going crazy, then it is a valid reason.

But I am not sure which part of law the guy could pursue the company after, discrimination, freedom of speech or something more specific as freedom of political communication.

While I wouldn't worry about some idiot wearing Bush is a number 1 terrorist shirt on a plane, ringworm nailed it. The shirt don't bother me. His lack of common sense does. I would be more afraid that he would see the big PULL sign on the exit door at about 30,000 feet and be unable to resist the urge.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

I'm suprised how many in this forum support airlines rights to refuse people passage if they wear a turban

As long as it isn't some nationalized airline, then I'd say they do have that right. Or at least, they should have that right


I disagree with bigotry, but I won't restrict someone's right to be bigoted, unless they restrict someone else's rights. Air travel is not a right

[jeffro]

I've known people that where not let on a flight just for wearing a t-shirt in general. A lot of airlines have some kind of dress code for passengers, requiring them to at least dress casual.

[Volumnius Flush]

It's the same reason you can't say bomb on aplane. It's just wrong and insensitive. What if I sat down next to him and said, "The person next to me is a terrorist."? He would be a little upset, especially if they escorted him off. I believe in solid-t's.

[shaqadelic]

. His lack of common sense does. I would be more afraid that he would see the big PULL sign on the exit door at about 30,000 feet and be unable to resist the urge.

I don't think by wearing the shirt, the guy lacks common sense in a fashion that he will pull the exit door. He may not be politically correct but I don't see how can you draw such a conclusion.

[The Digital Pimp]

A gross error of judgement by the guy, and a reasonable reaction from the airline. Just like you don't joke about bombs, you don't joke about terrorists.

[Rounder]

I don't think by wearing the shirt, the guy lacks common sense in a fashion that he will pull the exit door. He may not be politically correct but I don't see how can you draw such a conclusion.

it was hyperbole. It does show a lack of common sense to wear any shirt that says terrorist on it and try to get on an airplane. I hear stories everyday (my work involves being at the airport for hours) about people getting searched for the dumbest stuff. I don't know how that guy even made it to the airplane. Nevertheless, he still is showing a lack of common sense.

[AmericanWeiner]

A gross error of judgement by the guy, and a reasonable reaction from the airline. Just like you don't joke about bombs, you don't joke about terrorists.

I don't see it as a joke.

I think it's pretty fair that the airline be allowed a dress code, and inflammatory t-shirts, even funny ones, are one of the things I expect to be banned.

If the airline had turned him away because he was Asian or something, I may have a problem, but really...he's a bit of a prick for wearing that shirt in an airport.

That'd be fine as long as it was stated at the terms of purchase and wasn't extensive (solid or patterned shirt)

[CarnageFairy]

Companies should be able to deny service to whomever they please, for whatever reason they want

Any reason?

Should a company be able to deny someone service because of race, gender, creed, etc...?

[shaqadelic]

it was hyperbole. It does show a lack of common sense to wear any shirt that says terrorist on it and try to get on an airplane. I hear stories everyday (my work involves being at the airport for hours) about people getting searched for the dumbest stuff. I don't know how that guy even made it to the airplane. Nevertheless, he still is showing a lack of common sense.

I think he getting through security is testament enough to how he is not a security threat neither could he bring major distress to passenegrs.

[lightningmetal666]

Companies should be able to deny service to whomever they please, for whatever reason they want

Well there goes the Americans with Disabilties Act and the Civil Rights Act....

This is such a retarded reason for a person to be removed from a plane. Bush is a terrorist and the guy was just being honest.

Obviously nowadays everybody is so scared of their own shadow, we can't even wear politically motivated shirts anymore. Hell, after Columbine, trenchcoats and heavy metal suddenly became the reason for kids bringing guns to school. I have perfectly sane and healthy friends who have been suspended for wearing a trenchcoat to school.

[Vinnypants]

The t-shirt speaks the truth

[Pluperfect_Arson]

But Jasson, who had earlier traveled on a Qantas domestic flight wearing the Bush T-shirt, said his right to freedom of speech had been infringed by Qantas.

I read through this entire thread, and I am surprised that no one has brought this point up. He had traveled on a Qantas flight wearing that exact same t-shirt, yet the next time he boarded he was kicked off.

Clearly, he didn't do anything idiotic the first time he rode in the aeroplane, so what would make it any different the second time? Also, if the shirt stated that Bush is the terrorist, why would the flight attendants think he was going to do something stupid on a flight from Australia to England?

[shaqadelic]

^^^ Ah more supporting argument for the guy.

[PerpetualBurn]

I think the claiming he was a terrorist suspect is vastly over the top, but I think people have to look at it rationally; if I were to go to a lot of shops/pubs wearing something inflammatory then they would likely tell me to piss off.

Hell, most pubs and clubs don't allow you to wear baseball caps because of their association with chav culture and obnoxious/violent thugs.

I think both sides are making a bigger deal out of this than is necessary.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Any reason?

Should a company be able to deny someone service because of race, gender, creed, etc...?

If they're willing to take the cut in profit that will undoubtedly come from doing so, then yes. Capitalism is based upon the free exchange of goods or services for money between two consenting parties for their mutual benefit. A law infringing upon that, either by restricting who one can deal with or forcing one to deal with someone one does not want to deal with, runs contrary to that ideal

Well there goes the Americans with Disabilties Act and the Civil Rights Act....

I oppose both of those

This is such a retarded reason for a person to be removed from a plane.

When you run an airline, you can allow people to wear whatever they want. I know I wouldn't care if somebody were wearing that shirt on my airplane. Qantas did, and, as it's their airplane, they should be allowed to allow whomever they want to ride it. Yes, the guy should have gotten a refund, but he should not receive any kind of restitution for Qantas' right to deny service.

Bush is a terrorist and the guy was just being honest.

Irrelevant

Obviously nowadays everybody is so scared of their own shadow, we can't even wear politically motivated shirts anymore. Hell, after Columbine, trenchcoats and heavy metal suddenly became the reason for kids bringing guns to school. I have perfectly sane and healthy friends who have been suspended for wearing a trenchcoat to school.

That's different. Assuming it's a public school, they'd have to comport the to rights enumerated in the Constitution. Assuming Qantas isn't some nationalized airline like Air France, they have (or should have) every right to deny service to whomever they want for what ever reason they want. Naturally, they would deny service to as few people as possible, in order to achieve as high a profit as possible. If, however, they decide to deny service to someone, they should have every right to do so.

[Iskandar]

If they're willing to take the cut in profit that will undoubtedly come from doing so, then yes. Capitalism is based upon the free exchange of goods or services for money between two consenting parties for their mutual benefit. A law infringing upon that, either by restricting who one can deal with or forcing one to deal with someone one does not want to deal with, runs contrary to that ideal
Capitalism is, when you get right down to it, based on private property. The market that allows for exchange is based on what you're talking about.

I don't think that private firms should be permitted to refuse service to someone on the basis of anything that contradicts their legal rights (whatever those happen to be).

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

If they're willing to take the cut in profit that will undoubtedly come from doing so, then yes.
There's no reason to assume that there will be a cut in profit

Capitalism is based upon the free exchange of goods or services for money between two consenting parties for their mutual benefit.
No, that is the central idea of economic libertarianism
A law infringing upon that, either by restricting who one can deal with or forcing one to deal with someone one does not want to deal with, runs contrary to that ideal
well, obviously, but i don't see where the moral justification for upholding that ideal comes from

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

There's no reason to assume that there will be a cut in profit

If I refuse to serve someone, I'm turning down the profit that would arise from serving them. If I refuse to sell hamburgers to black people, that's a market I'm excluding myself to that I would otherwise be able to utilize and make money from. Not to mention the fact that if it becomes known that I don't serve black people, people who aren't black but don't agree with my policies may decide not to patronize me, further hurting my profits

No, that is the central idea of economic libertarianism

I don't really see a difference

well, obviously, but i don't see where the moral justification for upholding that ideal comes from

Personally, I'd say that capitalism is the only morally justifiable economic system, as it involves two entirely consenting parties trading for mutual benefit. Anything else (Communism, Socialism), in my opinion, would be theft.

[Iskandar]

Personally, I'd say that capitalism is the only morally justifiable economic system, as it involves two entirely consenting parties trading for mutual benefit. Anything else (Communism, Socialism), in my opinion, would be theft.
Personally, I don't think private property is morally justifiable. Whaddya know.

[EcentricAgnostic]

It's nothing too serious but wearing a short that has the word "terrorist on it while going on an airoplane is kinda uneceptable.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

If I refuse to serve someone, I'm turning down the profit that would arise from serving them. If I refuse to sell hamburgers to black people, that's a market I'm excluding myself to that I would otherwise be able to utilize and make money from. Not to mention the fact that if it becomes known that I don't serve black people, people who aren't black but don't agree with my policies may decide not to patronize me, further hurting my profits

I own a restaurant and my customers prefer a racially homogenous environment

or

I run an airline and I reassure the majority of my customers by banning a small minority group like muslims

I don't really see a difference
I do. "The free exchange of goods" and is not necessarily a part of capitalism; I can willingly buy crack from a drug dealer but this does not benefit me. You also ignore the importance of technology and the creation and protection of the necessary institutional framework for capitalism by the state.


Personally, I'd say that capitalism is the only morally justifiable economic system, as it involves two entirely consenting parties trading for mutual benefit. Anything else (Communism, Socialism), in my opinion, would be theft.
I'm not talking about communism or socialism -- alternatives to capitalism. I want justification for your position on the virtue of absolutely unrestricted economic activity

[Tha End]

ahaha

this is srsly stupid

should they ban men dressed like this from boarding the plane as well?

http://www.geocities.com/randomtrips/kuwait2000/images/large/3kuwaitis1.jpg

omg they're un-american

omg






...omg

[rancid22]

They have every right.They can require that you wear a chicken for a hat in order to fly on their airline if they like.

i disagree. if they cannot refuse service due to race, they have no right to do so due to a shirt one wears that poses no threat.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Personally, I don't think private property is morally justifiable. Whaddya know.

To each his own

I own a restaurant and my customers prefer a racially homogenous environment

or

I run an airline and I reassure the majority of my customers by banning a small minority group like muslims

On the off chance that the barring of a certain ethnic group is going to get more people to fly on an airplane, then the airlines should be allowed to do so. It would, however, be the policy of said airline, and not some law

I find bigotry to be disgusting, and the sooner it vanishes, the better. But I'm in no position to force someone to accept somebody else. Would you really want to work for a company that, were they not forbidden by law, would turn you away at the sight of the color of your skin?

I do. "The free exchange of goods" and is not necessarily a part of capitalism; I can willingly buy crack from a drug dealer but this does not benefit me

But you're spending your money willingly, regardless. Presumably, it should be for your benefit. However, if you want to throw your money away, that's your right

You also ignore the importance of technology and the creation and protection of the necessary institutional framework for capitalism by the state.

I'll agree there is the need for a few governmental restrictions to ensure that capitalism runs smoothly (anti-trust, copyright). I don't really see what technology has to do with anything. If I invent a technology, I should be able to sell it to whomever I want.

I'm not talking about communism or socialism -- alternatives to capitalism. I want justification for your position on the virtue of absolutely unrestricted economic activity

Because it maximizes economic freedom, giving everyone a command of their own destiny

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

On the off chance that the barring of a certain ethnic group is going to get more people to fly on an airplane, then the airlines should be allowed to do so. It would, however, be the policy of said airline, and not some law

I wasn't suggesting laws enforcing bigotry

I find bigotry to be disgusting, and the sooner it vanishes, the better. But I'm in no position to force someone to accept somebody else.
Well, obviously, you don't have political power.
Would you really want to work for a company that, were they not forbidden by law, would turn you away at the sight of the color of your skin?
I'm not sure how this works as an argument

But you're spending your money willingly, regardless. Presumably, it should be for your benefit.
no, the point is that it probably is not for my benefit

However, if you want to throw your money away, that's your right
Why?


I'll agree there is the need for a few governmental restrictions to ensure that capitalism runs smoothly (anti-trust, copyright). I don't really see what technology has to do with anything. If I invent a technology, I should be able to sell it to whomever I want.
a pre-induistrial society, even with free exchange of goods, could hardly be a capitalist society. And I don't see why if I, for example, invented an atomic weapon I should be able to sell it to anyone.

Because it maximizes economic freedom, giving everyone a command of their own destiny
this is just vague drivel

[palepalepeach]

That's ridiculous. The other day there was a local news story here about a family who was removed from a plane after their 3-year old daughter began crying before takeoff.

Yes, I saw that. And they seemed like really nice people... :(

[Danger Bird]

Qantas issued a statement saying comments made verbally or on a T-shirt which had the potential to offend other travelers or threaten the security of aircraft “will not be tolerated.”

WTF why not, it's a big wide world out there, eventually you're going to get offended, that's the best thing about it. Even if somebody didn't agree with it, actually feeling offended or violated because of it is downright childish. I don't buy for a second that the T-shirt could be interpreted as a threat simply for containing the word 'terrorist', because you would have to completely diregard the context to take it that way.

[SovietKid]

I would have allowed him to get on, but it was QANTAS' decision and I can see why they did it.

Moving off topic slightly: Australian airport security = Top notch

These people from a TV show had tickets on a plane under the names Terry Wrist and Al Kaida, not only were they allowed to purchase the tickets no fuss, Virgin Blue (the airline) sent out a call for them over the loudspeaker system because they were late for their flights. (Virgin Blue has a rule that anything terrorist related will not be taken lightly).

[Smokey D]

I'm suprised how many in this forum support airlines rights to refuse people passage if they wear a turban

That would probably be discrimination of a person based membership of a protected class, and therefore illegal.


Yea, I don't know how well that'll stand up in a court though.

It would probably depend on how explicit the teeshirt was.

[Knifeboy]

That would probably be discrimination of a person based membership of a protected class, and therefore illegal.


I am fully aware of that, that doesn't mean that there isn't a suprising amount of mx'ers supporting that though.

[PerpetualBurn]

WTF why not, it's a big wide world out there, eventually you're going to get offended, that's the best thing about it. Even if somebody didn't agree with it, actually feeling offended or violated because of it is downright childish. I don't buy for a second that the T-shirt could be interpreted as a threat simply for containing the word 'terrorist', because you would have to completely diregard the context to take it that way.

Because it's a business that would rather tell one person to cover the words on their t-shirt than upset the other customers who may be offended?

Really, I just wouldn't be surprised if the airline had asked me to cover up or change the shirt.

[Jude]

That's ridiculous. The other day there was a local news story here about a family who was removed from a plane after their 3-year old daughter began crying before takeoff.

What's wrong with that, I'd have been happy if I were another passenger on that plane.

Think about how much you hate it when you're getting on some 8 hour flight and someone who's tremendously fat/smelly/has a loud screaming baby gets on next to you.

:\

Anyway, I sort of support the airline's right to choose who they want to deny service too, but I don't think wearing a shirt like that is grounds even for suspicion.

[Smokey D]

I am fully aware of that, that doesn't mean that there isn't a suprising amount of mx'ers supporting that though.

I don't remember anyone saying that a turban was good reason to kick someone off a plane.



Anyway, I sort of support the airline's right to choose who they want to deny service too, but I don't think wearing a shirt like that is grounds even for suspicion.

It's not so much suspicion as the possibility the message on the shirt might cause distress.

[Knifeboy]

I don't remember anyone saying that a turban was good reason to kick someone off a plane.

That's probably because noone said that, that doesn't really relate to my post though? :confused:

[Smokey D]

I don't know why you brought up mx'ers supporting people wearing turbans been thrown off airplanes when no one said anything even remotely similar.

[RockAndRoll]

I don't know why you brought up mx'ers supporting people wearing turbans been thrown off airplanes when no one said anything even remotely similar.

People did say things which imply they would support an airline's right to refuse service to people who wear turbans.

for example:

Companies should be able to deny service to whomever they please, for whatever reason they want
If it was a private company they should be able to deny service to whoever they want to for whatever reason they feel like.
Originally Posted by Chrizzle fo' Shizzle
Companies should be able to deny service to whomever they please, for whatever reason they want

winner

stupid? yes. is his freedom of speech being infringed? its a private company, they can hold him for whatever the hell they want.

[Zesty Mordant]

I could be wrong, but if a company wants to deny people wearing turbans onto airplanes, that's their potential loss and another airline's gain

[Smokey D]

It's also probably illegal because a turban is an article of clothing that specifically relates to membership of a protected class and does not, in itself, give cause for throwing someone off a plane.

[Ethan.]

I think this is stupid. He could probably sue if he wanted. Its obviously infringing on the rights guaranteed by the first amendment (I think?)

[Smokey D]

It was in Australia.

And whether he could sue successfully is a bit of a questionable issue. He could succeed, but the airline would have pretty good precedent in its favour.

[Ethan.]

Oh my bad I should have read the article rather than skim through it. I don't know anything about Australia laws... But I think he could succeed in America.

[Smokey D]

I dunno. There are laws protecting the right to wear whatever clothing you want provided it does not cause problems. However, the airline might be able to argue that this teeshirt would cause undue distress to those who are already unnerved about flying, especially in a post 9/11 world.

[Ethan.]

Thats a good point. I don't really know for sure and I guess an actualy lawsuit being carried out would be only one way to figure out for sure.

This kind of made me realize 9/11 had more of an effect on the rest of the world than I thought.

[ringworm]

So Quantas shouldn't be allowed to kick him off because of a "potential" disturbance to other passengers, but Muslim Cab Drivers can deny a customer a ride home because you have alcohol or a canine soley because it's against their religion?

Seems like a few in here cant figure out where they stand on discrimination

[Ethan.]

I'm totally against it, but I accept the fact that it is reality and its not going to stop for a looooooooong time. If it ever does.

[Smokey D]

So Quantas shouldn't be allowed to kick him off because of a "potential" disturbance to other passengers, but Muslim Cab Drivers can deny a customer a ride home because you have alcohol or a canine soley because it's against their religion?

Most cabs don't accept animals.

Most people carrying round alcohol won't be accepted into cabs.

[YDload]

i didnt read the article so here are some possibilities for what i imagine his shirt said:

I'M WITH ALLAH
-------------->

I AM DA BOMB

YOU LAUGH BECAUSE I'M DIFFERENT,
I LAUGH BECAUSE I'M GOING TO PARADISE

HEY BUSH, STOP DIS-TURBAN MY COUNTRY!

THE REAL 20TH HIJACKER

JEWISH CONTROL OF PALESTINE "IS-REAL" STUPID!

[PerpetualBurn]

Most people carrying round alcohol won't be accepted into cabs.

American taxis are weird.

[Rounder]

Most cabs don't accept animals.

Most people carrying round alcohol won't be accepted into cabs.


the rules are that you cannot carry open containers, but I will most of the time let someone who is in control of themselves to carry a beer as long as they keep it down and not wave it out the window.

[Smokey D]

But it's at your discretion, correct?

[VomitStainedCretin]

YOU LAUGH BECAUSE I'M DIFFERENT,
I LAUGH BECAUSE I'M GOING TO PARADISE

This would be an awesome T-shirt :thumb:

[i don't know lol]

I think its fine. The airline has its passengers to think about and they don't want a plane load of people wearing this sort of attire with this sort of negative statement. It makes people uncomfortable and they would be less likely to fly the airline again, causing the airline to lose business. He can wear something else next time.

[Lupus]

I support the airline's right to deny service, but if the guy already bought tickets, you have to take into account the inconvenience it caused him. I guess it depends on the airline's official policy. They probably reserve the right ot kick you out for any reason they want.

[i don't know lol]

Yeah I don't know the details. I mean a t shirt is easily covered up by another or a shirt of some sort. I wonder if he was being stubborn about it as well?

[ringworm]

Most cabs don't accept animals.
Seeing eye dogs? They too have been denied

Most people carrying round alcohol won't be accepted into cabs.
In your luggage after a vacation?

Of course you cant get into a cab carrying a beer, ffs, that wasnt what I meant????

[Kage]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


How the hell would a private airline company denying him passage infringe on his "right to free speech"? His claim of that is laughable at best, and just shows he is uneducated about his so-called rights.

[shaqadelic]

Seeing eye dogs? They too have been denied

The British shariah council has released a statement saying that there is nothing against Islam from allowing seeing dogs into taxis, restaurants and etc. Can you show me the news report of the Muslim cab driver refusing a blind man with guide dog?

In your luggage after a vacation?


Wait, and how does the taxi driver know then?

[ringworm]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800&page=1
Commissioners at one of the country's biggest airports are considering punishing Muslim cab drivers who refuse service to passengers possessing alcohol or guide dogs.

Some had guide dogs or pets, others were carrying cases of wine from California, or liquor from duty-free shops.

says Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission. "We've had complaints of people being asked if they had any alcoholic beverages in their luggage."

The state agency that licenses cab drivers prohibits discrimination against passengers unless the driver feels his life is in danger.

Over the past 5 years, airport officials say 5,400 passengers have been turned away.

here are a few more links
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=muslim+cab+drivers+refusing&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[shaqadelic]

About the luggage thing, a simple no is easy. As for the guide dog issue, if there is law against refusing guide dogs like any Disability Discrimination Act which is around in a number of countries, then the passenger can take actions based on that.

Other than that refusing liquor in hand seems to be at one's discretion.

It may be a religious matter for the cab drivers but it shouldn't be viewed as one by other people, they should just address already existing laws.

[ringworm]

It may be a religious matter for the cab drivers but it shouldn't be viewed as one by other people, they should just address already existing laws.
I may have misunderstood this
if a man say's "I refuse to take you anywhere because *insert religion here* forbids me", I will view it as a religious matter & nothing else & just plain wrong

curious question, what if I reversed it & said "I won't serve a Muslim patron in a restaurant" because my unique & wierd religion (whatever that may be just for arguments sake) thinks Islam is a sin?

This is racial or religious discrimination, how can refusing a ride in a cab witht the same excuse be different?

[shaqadelic]

I may have misunderstood this
if a man say's "I refuse to take you anywhere because *insert religion here* forbids me", I will view it as a religious matter & nothing else & just plain wrong

I wonder if you will be equally bothered if a non Muslim says that he doesn't allow dogs without mentioning religion.


curious question, what if I reversed it & said "I won't serve a Muslim patron in a restaurant" because my unique & wierd religion (whatever that may be just for arguments sake) thinks Islam is a sin?

This is racial or religious discrimination, how can refusing a ride in a cab witht the same excuse be different?

It is different because having a dog is not a religious or racial matter. Besides, there are perfectly many Muslims drivers who accept guide dogs.

[ringworm]

I wonder if you will be equally bothered if a non Muslim says that he doesn't allow dogs without mentioning religion.
Well, that is a good point, I couldnt imagine, but what do people do that dont have a car & need to go the Vet for instance? Do they have to walk?

but my real confusion is how feverishly "most" in here despise religion in the workplace, and fight against any form of discrimination, but not many are angered by this.

I think it's hypocritical & just more evidence of the "political correctness" that is slowly weakening a once strong country. We're afraid we might offend someone even when they are breaking the law?

It is different because having a dog is not a religious or racial matter.
So why are they making it one?

The state agency that licenses cab drivers prohibits discrimination against passengers unless the driver feels his life is in danger.

Plain & Simple ^^

[shaqadelic]

Well, that is a good point, I couldnt imagine..

I do wish you to find the answer for that question then, because it appears that you are singling out religion here if you are not bothered by a taxi driver who refuse dogs without mentioning religion.

, but what do people do that dont have a car & need to go the Vet for instance? Do they have to walk?

They can contact the taxi company and inform them of his/her situation. There will definitely be many taxi drivers who allow dogs, including Muslims drivers.

but my real confusion is how feverishly "most" in here despise religion in the workplace, and fight against any form of discrimination, but not many are angered by this.

Because a non religious person can rationalise why refuse animals into cabs as opposed to refusing jobs to someone because he/she is a homosexual.

I think it's hypocritical & just more evidence of the "political correctness" that is slowly weakening a once strong country. We're afraid we might offend someone even when they are breaking the law?

Note that they are only breaking the law (in some places for that matter) for refusing guide dogs.

So why are they making it one?

The state agency that licenses cab drivers prohibits discrimination against passengers unless the driver feels his life is in danger.

The point is that it is left to his discretion. One can reason that an animal may not be able to be controlled by its owner and that could lead to a life dangering situation.

[ringworm]

you are singling out religion here
so are the cab drivers?
I dont see where you're going unless you're just trying to make me look like a Fox News listener assualting Muslims :)

Note that they are only breaking the law (in some places for that matter) for refusing guide dogs.
and people who are simply carrying alcohol?

The point is that it is left to his discretion. One can reason that an animal may not be able to be controlled by its owner and that could lead to a life dangering situation.
And a suitcase full of alcohol is a potential hazard as well?
I see your points, but your ignoring the fact that they are using religion as their only excuse, which is a no-no

[PerpetualBurn]

One can reason that an animal may not be able to be controlled by its owner and that could lead to a life dangering situation.More likely, one could reason that if a dog shat in the taxi, it would not be good for business.

[shaqadelic]

Good point.

I see your points, but your ignoring the fact that they are using religion as their only excuse, which is a no-no

I think as long as their reasonings can be rationalised outside of religious beliefs, is not against the law, then it is not a problem. Animals and the danger/risk they posed can be rationalised.

Islam view dog's/animal's shat as unclean and non Muslim share this view.

and people who are simply carrying alcohol?

Well, I don't think there is any law requiring you to accept passengers carrying beer so the taxi drivers can decide.

By the looks of things, I think Muslim drivers who want to refuse dogs should be instructed to not mention religion at all.

[ringworm]

I think as long as their reasonings can be rationalised outside of religious beliefs, is not against the law, then it is not a problem. Animals and the danger/risk they posed can be rationalised.
but thats not THEIR argument, they are basing all this commotion on religious beleifs

Islam view dog's/animal's shat as unclean and non Muslim share this view.
lol, they arent refering to shat as being unclean, just canine's in gerneral

Well, I don't think there is any law requiring you to accept passengers carrying beer so the taxi drivers can decide.
I've already quoted what the guidelines are for cabbie's & who can/cannot ride,
here it is again
The state agency that licenses cab drivers prohibits discrimination against passengers unless the driver feels his life is in danger.

By the looks of things, I think Muslim drivers who want to refuse dogs should be instructed to not mention religion at all.
so you're OK with discrimination as long as the person hide's behind his/her real reason's for doing it and offer's a beleivable lie?

[shaqadelic]

I've already quoted what the guidelines are for cabbie's & who can/cannot ride,
here it is again

One can reason that an animal may not be able to be controlled by its owner and that could lead to a life dangering situation.

so you're OK with discrimination as long as the person hide's behind his/her real reason's for doing it and offer's a beleivable lie?

I don't rule out a Muslim driver sharing similar concerns as his non Muslim counterparts regarding the safety risk of uncontrollable dogs/animals.

There is nothing wrong or deceiving of him to express this as his reasoning.

[GreyHam]

its just a moronic and insensitive thing to do, wearing a tshirt like that on a plane

im sorry he knew he was going on a plane, why wear such an irritating tshirt

[Smokey D]

Seeing eye dogs? They too have been denied

That's discrimination against blind people.


In your luggage after a vacation?

Of course you cant get into a cab carrying a beer, ffs, that wasnt what I meant????

Cabbies check your luggage?

[ringworm]

Cabbies check your luggage?

either you cant read or u & shag are intentionally avoiding my answers to your posts, see post#148 & some of the links I provided before asking another uninformed question, they are asking if you are carrying alcohol before you load your luggage which to me is none of their fkn business.

But the real kick in the nuts is how they are trying sooo hard to make out like here are more Americans discriminating against Islam by saying "they are exercising freedom of religion" by practicing it at work, which is what I thought most of you in here completely hate & despise?

But now I am realizing, its just White Christians that are primarily targeted since no one seems to be outraged by this.

[Ethan.]

I don't care if anybody practices any religion as long as it doesn't interfere with my work and my happiness. And I'm a white christian.

Well I care, because naturally a Christian like myself would like to try and share our beliefs and convert as many people as we can. But it is their right to do whatever they choose to do, and I'm not going to tell somebody what they can or can't do religion-wise because it's not my business.

[lunchforthesky]

Thats pretty stupid, what if their religion entailed human sacrifice?

As for conversion, I went to Utah once, never have I had to tell so many members of the god patrol that I dont belive in God and certainly didn't want to go to their church.

[Ethan.]

Thats pretty stupid, what if their religion entailed human sacrifice?

Well that would bother me, and I am in no way happy about murder, or "human sacrifice." That's why I mentioned this:

"I don't care if anybody practices any religion as long as it doesn't interfere with my work and my happiness."

As for conversion, I went to Utah once, never have I had to tell so many members of the god patrol that I dont belive in God and certainly didn't want to go to their church.
Okay. Well, for what it's worth, I'm sorry they bothered you. That's something I try not to do.

If you don't want it, at least I tried, and I'll leave it at that.

edit - let's try not to have a religion debate here...

[Smokey D]

either you cant read or u & shag are intentionally avoiding my answers to your posts, see post#148 & some of the links I provided before asking another uninformed question, they are asking if you are carrying alcohol before you load your luggage which to me is none of their fkn business.

I'm reasonably sure you don't have to tell him anything. That strikes me as a breach of privacy.

But the real kick in the nuts is how they are trying sooo hard to make out like here are more Americans discriminating against Islam by saying "they are exercising freedom of religion" by practicing it at work, which is what I thought most of you in here completely hate & despise?

There's no discrimination involved. I don't think these people (who I suspect make up a very small proportion of the total cabby population) have much of a leg to stand on.

What thing exactly are we meant to be hating?

But now I am realizing, its just White Christians that are primarily targeted since no one seems to be outraged by this.

Oh please.

[ringworm]

There's no discrimination involved. I don't think these people (who I suspect make up a very small proportion of the total cabby population) have much of a leg to stand on.
Again, you're not reading

And you're saying as long as it's just a "small" amount, it's not important?
A small amount of wrong-doing is OK, so why such an uproar over that tasered kid?

It was ONLY one student, so what? Is that OK?

Three-quarters of the 900 cabbies licensed to operate at the airport are Muslim, most from Somalia.

Over the past 5 years, airport officials say 5,400 passengers have been turned away.

What thing exactly are we meant to be hating?
uh, discrimination?

people using "freedom of religion" to discriminate on the job?

how they are trying to turn this around on US, like we're the ones discriminating against them?
"It is against our faith and the airport is discriminating against Muslim drivers," says a cab driver who would only give his first name, Hashim.

Oh please.
I'd love to see this thread if it was reversed & roles were switched

[Swill_Merchant]

Well, maybe he didn't have another shirt?

[Neoteric]

He could have just went on the plane without a shirt.

Not that big of a deal in that case.

[GreyHam]

Again, you're not reading

And you're saying as long as it's just a "small" amount, it's not important?
A small amount of wrong-doing is OK, so why such an uproar over that tasered kid?

It was ONLY one student, so what? Is that OK?




uh, discrimination?

people using "freedom of religion" to discriminate on the job?

how they are trying to turn this around on US, like we're the ones discriminating against them?



I'd love to see this thread if it was reversed & roles were switched

i understand what your saying and im totally with you. the UK is much more secular a country than the US, and as much as people have the right to practice their religion (every right in fact) some people also need to appreciate that some countries have cultures you dont agree with - it doesnt give you the right to enforce your views
i dont like the BNP but it doesnt give me the right to smack one in the teeth, however much they deserve it