65 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

With all respect Expat I've said my piece and I will not repeat it again. Your welcome to your views. As an intelligent informed person I would challenge you to support the freedoms of others as you would support your own. We need to exercise extreme care in silencing others as in my opinion it will not be long before we ourselves are under the microscope of public scrutiny. Especially given who took a certain oath yesterday. Its easy to want to shut someone like Jarrar up as his views are not popular. I would caution that in Washington D.C. our views and rights, (talk radio and the 2nd amendment in particular) are now in the minority and unpopular as well. If freedom is a double edged sword then so is the opposite end. Whittling away at the rights of others damages our own. In addition it leads to dangerous precedents that we can ill afford to support. Once again I like and respect you as much as it's possible to do so from behind a computer screen. I believe you love our country and it's freedoms. I will have to agree to disagree with you on this issue at least. I will say no more on the subject. Be well my friend and thanks for the exchange of ideas.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt
Quote:
You may not consider the T-shirt to be offensive. I do. This is a subjective issue, and who on the aircraft is authorized to be the judge of what is offensive?

This is a subjective issue highlights the reason what they did was wrong and why we should not tolerate it. Who decides tomorrow what is offensive?

Suppose it was a plane full of arabs, would the shirt still be offensive? If not, then why not, it is other offensive or it isn't - oh that's right , its subjective.

Contracts shouldn't contain subjective clauses or terms. Define offensive - is it just arab language shirts or all foreign language shirts.

Suppose you board the plane in military garb and its full of Nancy Pelosi supporters who complain your military attire is offensive - you ok with being booted off?

Where does it end?

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

Bitmasher makes a point, whereas we don't really know what else he was doing. It there were chanting, loud praying to Allah, etc, then I could see this being disruptive and requiring action.
This, however is purely an assumption as there is only one side of the story being told so we have to use the information that we have available as facts of the case. That being he was thrown off because he had a tee shirt with Arabic writing on it. I wonder how many of those "offended" passengers even knew what was written on the tee shirt? I am sorry but "We will not be silent" in any language is not very intimidating or threatening to me.

Secondly expat is correct, the Constitution does only limit Government however the attached Bill Of Rights and the Amendments do limit what we as individuals are allowed to do to one another.
for instance if Expat were a realtor and he and I entered into a contract for him to Rent my property on my behalf but not to ...ummmm lets say Mexicans.
Now assume that a Mexican came to inquire about the property and met all qualifications except that they were Mexican, and they were refused based on their Mexican ethnicity the rental property.
Now Expat is in court and the Judge asks " whats your defense Mr. Expat?"
"why I have a contract with the property owner that forbids me renting to Mexicans" replies Expat.
"That contract is invalid Mr. Expat because it contains conditions that Violate law, pay the Mexican what they were asking for", replies the Judge.
By my example above it is clear that private businesses cannot just make up rules as they go. They are still bound by Law, that law being Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
If this person was thrown off this Plane simply because his tee shirt had writing that was in Arabic then that is a violation of his Rights as stated earlier by Mr. Bunny. No contract that he signed will erase those rights no matter what or how it is written.
Now if, as bitmasher suggested, there was more to it then that would certainly change things dramatically, in my opinion. We don't know though. Tort reform I tell you and we would have the whole truth instead of one side and a settlement.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

Wrong, JTap.

If I refused to rent to a Mexican family, it would not be a violation of Constitutional rights. It would be a violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

The Constitution doesn't inherently prohibit such practices -- which is why Congress enacted legislation to prohibit them.

If anything, this case borders on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial segregation in public places. However, the case at hand centers around message, not race. There is nothing preventing restriction of expression in private contracts or enforcement of dress standards.

The Constitution constrains government, and the Bill of Rights was written by the founding fathers as a limit on the powers of the federal government -- not as a guarantee of fairness in private interactions.

I'm all for standing up for people's rights. But I don't want to see the concept cheapened by those who would muddy the waters and build a perception that the Constitution is something it's not. The Constitution was written to protect us from the government, not each other.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

Wrong expat
Correct JTap

Your lack of confidence in my research and fact checking abilities are disturbing to me. Cry

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 is an upgrade of the same Act of 1964 giving enforcement and penalty provisions to the Act. Both are part of the Civil Rights Act that dates back to 1866 but it only stated that racial discrimination was illegal but gave no enforcement or penalty provisions.
It was ruled in 1968 (Jones v. Mayer 392 U.S. 409 1968) Supreme Court decision that "the Thirteenth Amendment's enforcement section empowered Congress to eliminate racial barriers to the acquisition of property since those barriers constituted "badges and incidents of slavery." http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_645/

That would make it a violation of Constitutional rights, IE; the 13th Amendment, for you to honor our contract and NOT rent to Mexicans based solely on the fact that they were Mexicans.
All Laws passed must be in line with our Constitutional Rights as spelled out in the Bill Of Rights and the Amendments following it. Of course in the event that public safety may dictate, some of these Rights may be, shall we say, minimized.
Furthermore I am firing you as my Realtor for getting me in a court battle. It was assumed that you would execute our contract with some semblance of privacy.

I also take exception to your statement that the Constitution does not protect us from one another. What it does is give us certain rights and liberties that are guaranteed regardless of who is doing the wrong to us. You can no more detain me for no reason than the Government can. You can no more force me into your religious beliefs than the Government can. You can not stop me from crossing state lines anymore than the Government can. You can not even stop civetcat from saying what's on his mind here on this forum any more than the Government can.

cowgal's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 03/10/2002
Posts: 1787
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

Geez, I hate arguing with you Jtapia! lol

Part of your statements are correct and I can see you're very passionate about the Constitution.

You state that civetcat can say whatever he wants on this forum and no one can stop him. Wrong. His posts can be deleted. He can be banned and not allowed to participate. It is privately owned and can be censored. However he's more than welcome to start his own forum and say whatever he wants to. That is a protected right.

Ok, another example. We are all very keen on our 2nd amendment rights here. In spite of those rights, we cannot take our firearms into certain places, even if we have the proper concealed carry permits. So do we throw a fit and say, the constitution gives us the right so that business or institution MUST allow us our rights? Of course not! There are limitations on all our rights.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

civetcat comment was not meant to be serious. Just a jab at him because I know that he gets under expats skin. neener!

As for your other statements, I made provisions for that in my statement that rights can be minimized for the Public Safety, such as being searched at the Airport etc.

I do thoroughly enjoy debating with expat. He knows how to and really presents his views with knowledge and factually with references without all of the rhetoric.
He just isn't a very good Realtor.

Offline
Joined: 07/31/2007
Posts: 635
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

The question I have is did they know what the shirt said before he was asked to cover? If I saw someone on a plane wearing that shirt with all that is happening today, and I knew what it said, then I'd be a little uneasy too. How does the airline know if "we will no longer be silent" doesn't translate to "we're no longer hiding in a cave in Afghanistan"? I know I'd want to exit.

It does fall under their contract for "patently offensive", so I believe they did have that right. What they were doing in a way was preventing a possible safety issue during the flight. Who is to say another passenger wouldn't have started asking questions that would eventually end in a fight while a mile high?

If the guy doesn't like the service, then he has the right as an American to choose a different airline.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt
jfrench wrote:
The question I have is did they know what the shirt said before he was asked to cover? If I saw someone on a plane wearing that shirt with all that is happening today, and I knew what it said, then I'd be a little uneasy too. How does the airline know if "we will no longer be silent" doesn't translate to "we're no longer hiding in a cave in Afghanistan"? I know I'd want to exit.

It does fall under their contract for "patently offensive", so I believe they did have that right. What they were doing in a way was preventing a possible safety issue during the flight. Who is to say another passenger wouldn't have started asking questions that would eventually end in a fight while a mile high?

If the guy doesn't like the service, then he has the right as an American to choose a different airline.

In 1989 The Supreme Court gave a ruling (Texas v. Johnson 491 U.S. 397, The flag burning case) that has become the benchmark for deciding exactly what is protected by the 1st Amendment and defines a "Clear and Present Danger", which the Tee Shirt would have to represent in this particular case.
In their ruling, "expressive conduct " is protected by the 1st Amendment. even if "overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent".
It also held that "Expression may not be prohibited on the basis that an audience that takes serious offense to the expression may disturb the peace". and "The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.

I don't agree with the Tee shirt and I despise the ACLU but what is right is right. You can't ignore the Constitution because someones Tee shirt pisses you off or intimidates you.
The Airline door swings both ways, if you don't like what is written on another passengers Tee Shirt then get off and take another flight.

"Just my opinion and I could be wrong." Dennis Miller

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

Watching this thread evolve has been interesting. A lot more of you are on Jarrar's side than I would have guessed.

Let's take the incident as fact from Jarrar. He was not racial profiled, but simply required to cover or don some other shirt. Profiling would have been denying him passage. JetBlue's right to decide what is inappropriate on its flight supersedes Jarrar's right to wear whatever he wants. This should be cut and dry, the fact that you may or may not find the shirt offensive is irrelevant, JetBlue's opinion is the only one that matters since its their jet.

Furthermore he was given the option to mitigate the situation by simply changing clothes, paid for by JetBlue. JetBlue went out of its way to accommodate him.

I think where JetBlue got in trouble was the ACLU claimed that even after he had changed clothes he was moved from his assigned front of the plane seat to the back of the plane. Hardly deserving of a quarter of a million, but if true it is arguably more of a racial profiling issue.

For those that sided with Jarrar, does this guy deserve a payout too?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7431640.stm

I posted this awhile back here:

http://www.biggamehunt.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17342

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
American Made vs. Overseas ManufacturingFieldDress902/27/2009 01:50 am
Horn mount coverflyanbrian1308/05/2008 20:49 pm
Firearm Coverganny76312/24/2007 20:07 pm
Looking for a well made, reliable shotgun for 200 dollarsredneckhunter504/08/2008 20:12 pm
Dog For Sale:M.Bird309/19/2011 10:57 am