And oh God do they need trolled😉
2 Likes
This seems to be the problem that some Christians keep having… they think that rights that extend to everyone only really extends to them.
17 Likes
Airline cabins are not public spaces.
1 Like
Religious expression is protected against discrimination even by private entities.
11 Likes
They provide accommodations to the public - this was a key part of the civil rights movement. They can not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. If they could, we’d still have segregation.
17 Likes
This is true. But in this case, the woman admitted she wore the shirt to specifically to tröll people i.e. disrupt the safe operation of the flight, not as religious expression. Airlines have the legal authority to remove from flights people who are seeking to disrupt the safe operation of the flight.
In this case, the sensitive and delicate passengers offended by the woman’s shirt should have been the ones removed from the flight.
FWIW, @anon82991609 & @Mindysan33, part of the disconnect in the conversation may come from the fact that it’s not the First Amendment that’s coming into play here, it’s the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which derives its power from the Commerce Clause, not the First Amendment). What AA did (while being stupid and short-sighted and reactionary) isn’t really a violation of the First Amendment, but might run afoul of some of the anti-discrimination provisions under the CRA.
3 Likes
And some people would clearly be quite “okay” with that.
SMH
Pedantry about whether it’s a First Amendment issue (aka the ‘freedom of religion’ part) because the airline is a company and not the Fed Gov is irrelevant; the airline still violated the woman’s civil liberties, regardless to why she chose to wear the t-shirt that she did.
Sadly “being right” and ‘getting the last word’ seems to matter more to some people than the actual problem at hand.
13 Likes
And how exactly does someone wearing an article of clothing “disrupt the safe operation of the flight”? Is the vehicle somehow less aerodynamic due to a slogan worn by a passenger?
That may be true, but her motivation is irrelevant to the points of law involved, i.e. freedom of expression and freedom of religion. If the shirt had advocated acts of violence against other passengers, I might feel differently, but a simple statement of belief is no serious threat to anyone. It may challenge someone’s assumptions, but that is not in and of itself a terrible thing, IMHO.
10 Likes
That doesn’t fucking matter, because, as has been pointed out many times in this thread:
She’s a member of the church, and the shirt expresses her real, actual religious beliefs; or at least that she has the right to believe them.
17 Likes
It doesn’t.
I agree.
Powermaster?
7 Likes
Yup, Powermaster 901.
Not sure how this hijacked a Satan t-shirt thread.
Oh well, I’m wearing my Obey Cthulhu tshirt today in solidarity…
12 Likes
It’s no Allis Chalmers WD, but it’ll do.
A Farmall pulling fence posts with the county’s allotment of trees seen in the background. Brother, you’re speaking my language…
1 Like
Title VII of the civil rights act is clear, as you say:
But the first amendment also bars discrimination against minority religions or the establishment of a national religion which had historically been a problem for various kinds of religious minorities and for black churches, which most certainly influenced the writing of Title VII.
Irrelevant. Her motives are immaterial, her treatment in a public accommodation is not.
14 Likes
