Thaumaturgic wrote:

Let me know where you work so I can come over and interrupt you with unsolicited comments about how sexy your clothing is. No need to get upset though because im just being sarcastic

Why would I be offended? If you are telling me that I look good or that what I am wearing looks good even if you say it via a sarcastic way then please go ahead. And I'm LGBT, so I always wear good looking stuff when I go out in the public.

grbauc wrote:

Thank god you posted this. I was wondering if I'm the only one that thinks and feels this way. Thanks for a nice post with lots of common sense. For me you nailed it. Racist and sexist bigots are not what's being talked about here.

Finally, someone with common sense! Thank you for understanding and agreeing with my post.

aerolimani wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Am I imagining things?

A couple of hours ago I made a post here that (I think) has disappeared. Did anyone see it?

I told how my 1973 dictionary did not contain the words "sexist" or "creep." I went on to mention that our vocabulary changes along with social changes regarding acceptable behaviors.

It was there. I saw it. It's gone now. Maybe someone took "offense" to something in it, and clicked the "report this post" button. Who knows? On the old a.net, replies kept the same number, no matter what. So, if a post was deleted, you could see where the number was missing. It appears that the new a.net numbers are dynamic, so there is no longer evidence of any missing/deleted posts.

Thank you very much. I'm 78, and quite capable of having a "senior moment" where I thought I did or saw something and later find that I must be mistaken.

I, too, noticed no break in the sequence numbers and what I submitted is not in my posting history.

I'm surprised that this can happen without the submitter being notified of the deletion and a reason given for the action.

Again, many thanks.

LeCoqFrancais wrote:

Thaumaturgic wrote:

Let me know where you work so I can come over and interrupt you with unsolicited comments about how sexy your clothing is. No need to get upset though because im just being sarcastic

Why would I be offended? If you are telling me that I look good or that what I am wearing looks good even if you say it via a sarcastic way then please go ahead. And I'm LGBT, so I always wear good looking stuff when I go out in the public.

grbauc wrote:

Thank god you posted this. I was wondering if I'm the only one that thinks and feels this way. Thanks for a nice post with lots of common sense. For me you nailed it. Racist and sexist bigots are not what's being talked about here.

Finally, someone with common sense! Thank you for understanding and agreeing with my post.

Somehow I doubt you wouldn't mind, but that is besides the point.

The point is that catcalling (particularly catcalling women) in 2016 is not acceptable behavior even if you think you are being harmless, sarcastic or flattering because I 100% guarantee you the people you are catcalling (again, particularly women) don't see your behavior the same way. Forgive me if I am not sympathetic that its no longer socially OK to harass people trying to do their job (or in any other circumstances for that matter).

LeCoqFrancais wrote:

To simplify my previous post, I simply believe that we live in an overly PC world where people make huge drama over very minor things and where people can no longer say anything with out having to think if somebody might post what they say on Facebook or some other social media were it could affect this persons life.

No, sorry, you are quite wrong. The FA has the right to carry out her duties without being subjected to offensive cat calling and wolf whistling. It does not matter if the cat-calling was said in earnest or if it was meant as a rather silly "joke". She has the right to do her job as a professional and be treated as such.

Besides, who are you to dictate what a FA may or may not be offended by? The fact that she, along with other passengers, were offended by this lout's behaviour ought to demonstrate to you that he was way out of line. Sexual harassment is no way a "minor thing" as you put it, and it can be verbal as well as physical.

Religious men dont want sit next to a woman and they are bigots, woman is right, lecherous man calls woman sexy and she takes offense, she is wrong and the lech is right, what hypocricy.

God forbid a woman stand up for herself in a professional environment.

"No, no. They should just stand there and take it. Because it's not like flight attendants are there for any reason other than to serve you and be a sex object. Silly women and their rights! I sure miss the days when I could treat them less than human."

This is seriously how some of you sound right now. Yeah, maybe this guy's comments could have been more extreme, but it was well within this flight attendants' rights to kick this guy out if she was uncomfortable or felt like he was preventing a safe environment. We don't know how his tone was, or what vibes he was giving off, or if he was acting strangely before. She's an adult, and she gave him a warning. She can make decisions for herself if something seems off.

You can't just do what you want to others without expecting other people to respond negatively. That's not how the world works.

BobPatterson wrote:

Good way to get kicked off a plane.

http://www.refinery29.com/2016/10/12609 ... -attendant

No wonder Donald Trump doesn't fly commercially...

I mean, I'd like to think catcalling anyone is a no-no on any airline or ever, but apparently that's not the general consensus here.

I don't understand how people think it's ever okay to give unsolicited remarks or just act like a general idiot on an aircraft.

Delete.

DexSwart wrote:

I mean, I'd like to think catcalling anyone is a no-no on any airline or ever, but apparently that's not the general consensus here.

I don't understand how people think it's ever okay to give unsolicited remarks or just act like a general idiot on an aircraft.

According to my database for this thread first time I ever kept score:

36 - different posters
26 - support the FA and Alaska Airlines
08 - do not support them
02 - position not known, only asked for information

Your post was sequence # 56, but at least 3 posts have been deleted (including one of mine). I scored the delete posts based upon references in other posts.

59 - posts scored
43 - posts support FA and Alaska Airlines
14 - do not support them
02 - position not known

Can a general consensus be detected here?

Please consider me to have been a biased observer. Someone else might have come up with slightly different scores, perhaps 24-10 vs my scoring of 26-8 in the first group above.

Thanks to everyone who participated in this very civil discussion. (Note to Revelation: watch the language on Alaska Airlines, bub. )

DexSwart wrote:

I mean, I'd like to think catcalling anyone is a no-no on any airline or ever

Indeed, I thought this was just common sense. But I guess common sense isn't all that common.

The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what all of us, or indeed anyone else in the entire universe thinks; If the flight attendant felt uncomfortable then she has zero obligation to tolerate it. I've seen another post from a friend on facebook who was on that flight, and they stated that the man in question was in the middle seat between two women, and that not just the FA but his entire row, and the row of women directly in front of them were also extremely uncomfortable.

It is not our job to police anyone elses discomfort and try to rationalize it away. If you think we're being too PC, than maybe it is YOU that has a lot to learn and grow still.

reasonable wrote:

catcalling anybody is never okay anywhere

This.

LeCoqFrancais wrote:

What happened to the time were you could say, with out being scared of loosing your job, that you disliked a certain nation, religion, race? People should not be racist or sexist, but people should be allowed to give their opinions about certain subjects in certain contexts with out having the fear of repercussion.

Oh those glorious times! Remember when you could deny a promotion or fire somebody, or just not hire them at all, for being Black, Gay, or a Woman without fear of repercussion? Or say horrible things about Jews or Catholics to the faces of Jewish or Catholic or Muslim people who are Jewish or Catholic or Muslim at your job or in a social, public setting with no fear of repercussion? Those times are not so long ago - some of these things still happen every day - in many states you can still be fired for being LGBT, for example, and they are the opposite side of the vanished, wonderful world where you can be casually bigoted without consequence.

It's a good thing we've worked hard at doing away with behavior like that, because it rightly should be unacceptable.

Inside your own home, you can be as bigoted as you like. But anywhere else, you can, should, and likely will face consequences.

Perhaps a better solution might be to not behave in a bigoted way, or figure out what it is that makes you behave that way.

LeCoqFrancais wrote:

Why would I be offended?

Maybe you wouldn't. But many would. Which is why it's not really appropriate. Particularly if some stranger walked into your place of business and started catcalling you, or making homophobic remarks about you.

CanadaFair wrote:

Religious men dont want sit next to a woman and they are bigots, woman is right, lecherous man calls woman sexy and she takes offense, she is wrong and the lech is right, what hypocricy.

Posters here any time a story like that comes out never defend the religious person. Also note that you are talking about passengers sitting next to other passengers, not disrespecting the crew and then refusing to apologise after.

DBun wrote:

The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what all of us, or indeed anyone else in the entire universe thinks; If the flight attendant felt uncomfortable then she has zero obligation to tolerate it.

DBun wrote:

It is not our job to police anyone elses discomfort and try to rationalize it away. If you think we're being too PC, than maybe it is YOU that has a lot to learn and grow still.

It isn't the "sexy" comment that irritates me the most, it's the "I'm just playing with you" comment. What did he think gave him the right to do that?

mariner

I am always eager to learn new words and just added "catcalling" to my vocabulary. Nails it to the point when commenting PC tyranny in the US. Sorry Folks, but am I glad to live in the still liberal side of the pond. I agree that such remarks as ."Ooh, sexy" should not be made while People are doing their Job. But the FA responded with an over reaction. She should at least told the guy that he would be off-loaded if he continued with such remarks. Off-loading without prior caution is totally inappropriate. An airliner cabin is not a prison cell and passengers are not inmates. Passengers are the People that pay the income and benefits of the crew.

someone hurry up!

We need a safe space and PC principle stat!

*sigh* What joke this country is turning into.

deltal1011man wrote:

someone hurry up!

We need a safe space and PC principle stat!

*sigh* What joke this country is turning into.

[sarcasm]
Yep, let's keep those women, Blacks, Muslims and homosexuals in their place!
[/sarcasm]

Revelation wrote:

Her job isn't to be sexually appealing, or even non-sexually appealing, her job is to doing what she can to save your ass in an emergency.

Why should her appearance enter into it?

Yes. This.

Perhaps it wasn't the FA who the comment was directed at that made the call. Perhaps it was the captain. Perhaps the crew decided it was best to avoid any further issues given that the offending passenger was seated between two female passengers. I seriously doubt the FA that the comment was directed at made the ultimate decision on removing this passenger from the aircraft.

I give the benefit of the doubt to the flight crew.

PanHAM wrote:

I am always eager to learn new words and just added "catcalling" to my vocabulary. Nails it to the point when commenting PC tyranny in the US. Sorry Folks, but am I glad to live in the still liberal side of the pond. I agree that such remarks as ."Ooh, sexy" should not be made while People are doing their Job. But the FA responded with an over reaction. She should at least told the guy that he would be off-loaded if he continued with such remarks. Off-loading without prior caution is totally inappropriate. An airliner cabin is not a prison cell and passengers are not inmates. Passengers are the People that pay the income and benefits of the crew.

She confronted him and asked for an apology. That is giving him a second chance.

Someone got kicked off another airplane for their hat and tshirt that had a political message yesterday in America but there wasn't a huge story made about it.

It is interesting to see the bias of the posters that fake outrage because some broads are all "PC"

This guy crossed a line. Sexual harassment is never excusable. I'm glad that he was booted and hopefully he learned his lesson that being creep isn't tolerated.

deltal1011man wrote:

Revelation wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

someone hurry up!

We need a safe space and PC principle stat!

*sigh* What joke this country is turning into.

[sarcasm]
Yep, let's keep those women, Blacks, Muslims and homosexuals in their place!
[/sarcasm]

Wow.

What an amazingly stupid post. Good job.

I would PC that one up for you but....I don't care how you feel about it.

Well, Delta1011man, you have neatly summed up the problem. You don't care about how others feel.

The boorish guy who "joked" inappropriately got tossed off the plane for acting out under the same attitude. He, too, didn't care how the FA would feel or how the passengers around him would feel. He only "cared" when the gate agent (or whatever the title was) came to walk him off the plane. And even then he expressed no remorse for his actions, but only meekly whimpered "I didn't do anything wrong."

Justice is not "politically correct." He received summary justice from the court of local jurisdiction, the airline crew. If he so wishes, he can appeal the decision.

ElliottM wrote:

Nevertheless, I agree at the end of the day the airline and the FA were well within their rights, just as any private organization should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Otherwise, that is limiting the rights of an organization to choose who it does business with, which is a limitation on the private sector.

I totally agree that the passenger was being disruptive and I can even understand wanting him off of the flight. The issue I have (and I don't have a solution just and internal struggle) is that people are quick to say they have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, yet recent supreme court cases say that business cannot discriminate against gay people (and they shouldn't be able to). So we can't refuse service because you are gay, but we can refuse service because of your statements? As terrible a statement as it is, saying you won't serve someone because they said something that is offensive is dangerous territory. The passenger could make the argument that he was referring to the inanimate object, not the flight attendant and was booted off the flight simply for making a statement the flight attendant didn't like. Remember that what is deemed offensive is subjective, just because you think their belief or statement is offensive doesn't mean they can't say it.

Now, what was said could be deemed harassment (unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information [a ridiculously broad statement, in my opinion but it is the standard, https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm) and that is by no means protected speech. But, is a flight attendant right before a flight really the right situation where that should be decided, some will say yes, others no. It is obvious that Alaska Airlines supports their employee and likely that it was harassment and I think that is where you have to leave it. Not really anything else to do about it, if you don't like it, don't fly Alaska.

LeCoqFrancais wrote:

To simplify my previous post, I simply believe that we live in an overly PC world where people make huge drama over very minor things and where people can no longer say anything with out having to think if somebody might post what they say on Facebook or some other social media were it could affect this persons life.

Then mission accomplished. You're apparently one of those dolts who think "Free speech" = "consequence-free speech". This has nothing to do with being "overly PC". It has everything to do with people not wanting to accept the fact that there may be consequences to their speech. Your contention that "people shouldn't be racist or sexist" but then that they shouldn't have to be afraid of losing (see that? Losing is NOT the same as loosing. They are 2 different words with 2 different meanings) their jobs is either born of you being obtuse or ignorant.

ikramerica wrote:

Maybe he thought he was on WN? The FA would have called the vest stylish, he would have said it was sexy, she would have said thank you, I'm married, and life would have gone on...

BTW - he wasn't catcalling if you look at the context. he called out when the ugly as heck vest was put on and called it sexy. He was making fun of the freaking VEST! Are we so sensitive now that we equate making a joke about an ugly safety item to sexual assault with a minor? (see ridiculous posts above).

Or...during the federally-mandated safety presentation, people could keep their mouths shut. See?

Define catcalling, because in today's culture, so much as saying "hi" to women, especially if they are a feminist, can get you charged with harassment.

Boeing778X wrote:

Define catcalling, because in today's culture, so much as saying "hi" to women, especially if they are a feminist, can get you charged with harassment.

Nice hyperbolic statement.

mpdpilot wrote:

ElliottM wrote:

Nevertheless, I agree at the end of the day the airline and the FA were well within their rights, just as any private organization should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Otherwise, that is limiting the rights of an organization to choose who it does business with, which is a limitation on the private sector.

I totally agree that the passenger was being disruptive and I can even understand wanting him off of the flight. The issue I have (and I don't have a solution just and internal struggle) is that people are quick to say they have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, yet recent supreme court cases say that business cannot discriminate against gay people (and they shouldn't be able to). So we can't refuse service because you are gay, but we can refuse service because of your statements? As terrible a statement as it is, saying you won't serve someone because they said something that is offensive is dangerous territory. The passenger could make the argument that he was referring to the inanimate object, not the flight attendant and was booted off the flight simply for making a statement the flight attendant didn't like. Remember that what is deemed offensive is subjective, just because you think their belief or statement is offensive doesn't mean they can't say it.

Now, what was said could be deemed harassment (unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information [a ridiculously broad statement, in my opinion but it is the standard, https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm) and that is by no means protected speech. But, is a flight attendant right before a flight really the right situation where that should be decided, some will say yes, others no. It is obvious that Alaska Airlines supports their employee and likely that it was harassment and I think that is where you have to leave it. Not really anything else to do about it, if you don't like it, don't fly Alaska.

Not dangerous territory at all. There is a big difference between a verbally abusive customer being asked to leave and refusal of service on the basis of any discrimination. Imagine a business that refused to serve black people, how does that sit? This is no different.

PDX757 wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

Define catcalling, because in today's culture, so much as saying "hi" to women, especially if they are a feminist, can get you charged with harassment.

Nice hyperbolic statement.

Is it? Don't take my word for it.

I thought about this thread all day. Exactly what professions is it permissible for a woman to expect to be treated professionally without any sanctioned harassment? The level of excuse-making is pathetic.

mpdpilot wrote:

ElliottM wrote:

Nevertheless, I agree at the end of the day the airline and the FA were well within their rights, just as any private organization should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Otherwise, that is limiting the rights of an organization to choose who it does business with, which is a limitation on the private sector.

I totally agree that the passenger was being disruptive and I can even understand wanting him off of the flight. The issue I have (and I don't have a solution just and internal struggle) is that people are quick to say they have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, yet recent supreme court cases say that business cannot discriminate against gay people (and they shouldn't be able to). So we can't refuse service because you are gay, but we can refuse service because of your statements? As terrible a statement as it is, saying you won't serve someone because they said something that is offensive is dangerous territory. The passenger could make the argument that he was referring to the inanimate object, not the flight attendant and was booted off the flight simply for making a statement the flight attendant didn't like.

I'm not a supreme court justice, I didn't make those laws. I'm aware of them, though. I disagree with the laws saying you cannot refuse service to someone on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe it should be legal to refuse service to someone because they are straight/gay/bi/whatever. I certainly would do no such thing, were I to own a business, but I believe it should be legal.

I don't find the statements made by this passenger offensive, but I defend the right of the airline and its employees to decide what they will and will not allow in their place of work. "saying you won't serve someone because they said something that is offensive is dangerous territory." Maybe so, but it should be the right of every organization to refuse service for any reason. Choosing who you do and don't do business with is the core of the private sector.

Remember that what is deemed offensive is subjective, just because you think their belief or statement is offensive doesn't mean they can't say it.

Of course, they are welcome to say it. And I as a business owner am welcome to throw them out. Again, this is the private sector we are talking about. Free speech doesn't mean speech free of consequences.

Brewfangrb wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

Maybe he thought he was on WN? The FA would have called the vest stylish, he would have said it was sexy, she would have said thank you, I'm married, and life would have gone on...

BTW - he wasn't catcalling if you look at the context. he called out when the ugly as heck vest was put on and called it sexy. He was making fun of the freaking VEST! Are we so sensitive now that we equate making a joke about an ugly safety item to sexual assault with a minor? (see ridiculous posts above).

Or...during the federally-mandated safety presentation, people could keep their mouths shut. See?

I agree. But he was wrong for interupting it. Not for mocking the look of those vests. And it's certainly a stretch to equate it to sexual contact with a minor as was previously done.

Btw- if the demonstration is so serious, why do so many airlines make a joke out of them?

mpdpilot wrote:

ElliottM wrote:

Nevertheless, I agree at the end of the day the airline and the FA were well within their rights, just as any private organization should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Otherwise, that is limiting the rights of an organization to choose who it does business with, which is a limitation on the private sector.

I totally agree that the passenger was being disruptive and I can even understand wanting him off of the flight. The issue I have (and I don't have a solution just and internal struggle) is that people are quick to say they have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, yet recent supreme court cases say that business cannot discriminate against gay people (and they shouldn't be able to). So we can't refuse service because you are gay, but we can refuse service because of your statements? As terrible a statement as it is, saying you won't serve someone because they said something that is offensive is dangerous territory. The passenger could make the argument that he was referring to the inanimate object, not the flight attendant and was booted off the flight simply for making a statement the flight attendant didn't like. Remember that what is deemed offensive is subjective, just because you think their belief or statement is offensive doesn't mean they can't say it.

Now, what was said could be deemed harassment (unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information [a ridiculously broad statement, in my opinion but it is the standard, https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm) and that is by no means protected speech. But, is a flight attendant right before a flight really the right situation where that should be decided, some will say yes, others no. It is obvious that Alaska Airlines supports their employee and likely that it was harassment and I think that is where you have to leave it. Not really anything else to do about it, if you don't like it, don't fly Alaska.

Are you really comparing being gay to being a boorish lout that doesn't know how to behave in public? Now, if the man said, "I have Tourette's Syndrome and blurt out inappropriate things", then maybe he would have had ground to stand on. That isn't the case. Being gay isn't something someone wakes up and decides anymore then a straight person makes a conscious decision to be straight. One does make a conscious decision to blurt out "ooooh, sexy" to a complete stranger, sitting on a plane full of other complete strangers. That's the difference. Being an idiot is not the same as being gay.

I say good job Alaska! The guy was given the opportunity to stop his boorish behavior and he didn't. I don't put up with inappropriate antics in my place of work and have asked people to leave or have had them removed. People need to learn that there are consequences to actions. Period.

ikramerica wrote:

Btw- if the demonstration is so serious, why do so many airlines make a joke out of them?

Because cabin crew injecting humour (or even onscreen humour) is likely to lead to passengers paying attention (always difficult) and remembering what is said (even harder). In contrast, a smart arse interjecting leads to distraction and passengers remember the distraction, not the safety message.

What just happened several posts in this thread?!?

Anyhoo. Revelation put up a facebook account of what happened. To surmise the facts of it (according to the facebook post - which may neither be accurate or complete).


1. F/A giving safety demo put life jacket on.

2. Man called out "oohhh, sexy"

3. F/A took offence, stopped safety demo and reprimanded man for his action.

4. Man stated it was in jest.

5. F/A abandoned safety demo and had man removed.

Amiga500 wrote:

Anyhoo. Revelation put up a facebook account of what happened. To surmise the facts of it (according to the facebook post - which may neither be accurate or complete).

1. F/A giving safety demo put life jacket on.

2. Man called out "oohhh, sexy"

3. F/A took offence, stopped safety demo and reprimanded man for his action.

4. Man stated it was in jest.

5. F/A abandoned safety demo and had man removed.

That's your interpretation. Mine is:

1. F/A giving safety demo put life jacket on.

2. Man interrupts safety demo by calling out "oohhh, sexy"

3. F/A took offence, stopped safety demo and asked the man to be respectful.

4. Man was not respectful and instead stated it was in jest.

5. F/A abandoned safety demo and had man removed.

Something tells me that you and others aren't going to agree with my interpretation, but so be it.

Revelation wrote:

4. Man was not respectful and instead stated it was in jest.

Is pointing out that it was a humerous (however bad the humour was) gesture and not meant to be taken seriously disrespectful?

Amiga500 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

4. Man was not respectful and instead stated it was in jest.

Is pointing out that it was a humerous (however bad the humour was) gesture and not meant to be taken seriously disrespectful?

Let's simplify things:

Person A: Ooh, sexy!
Person B: You need to be respectful.
Person A: C'mon, I'm just playing with you!

In this situation Person A starts out by being disrespectful, is asked/told to be respectful, and fails to do so. Given that Person A is working in an official capacity, failing to give the requested respect is quite disrespectful.

Put another way, what if Person B was a police officer, or a teacher, or a soldier, would you think Person A was being disrespectful or not?

Revelation wrote:

and fails to do so.

Revelation wrote:

failing to give the requested respect is quite disrespectful.

Again - Is pointing out that it was a humerous (however bad the humour was) gesture and not meant to be taken seriously disrespectful?


Yes or no please.

Amiga500 wrote:

Again - Is pointing out that it was a humerous (however bad the humour was) gesture and not meant to be taken seriously disrespectful?

Yes or no please.

Making it a yes or no answer removes all the context, yet it's all about the context.

In this context it is seriously disrespectful because the context is a uniformed professional doing their job in front of a room full of people.

In short, you are undermining their authority, and given their job is to help save your ass in an emergency, it matters.

Revelation wrote:

Making it a yes or no answer removes all the context, yet it's all about the context.

Bull.

Once more - Is pointing out that it was a humerous (however bad the humour was) gesture and not meant to be taken seriously disrespectful?

Amiga500 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Making it a yes or no answer removes all the context, yet it's all about the context.

Bull.

So a fart in church is no different than a fart in the living room?

Again you evade answering the very simple question with desperate sidetracking.

To answer yours - deliberately farting in the presence of others is rude no matter where it is.

PDX757 wrote:

Not dangerous territory at all. There is a big difference between a verbally abusive customer being asked to leave and refusal of service on the basis of any discrimination. Imagine a business that refused to serve black people, how does that sit? This is no different.

I totally agree that discrimination and refusal of service are different, what I am saying is that it is debatable that he was being verbally abusive. It is obvious that Alaska Airlines and the flight attendant thought so and acted accordingly, and I think they should have that right. We can debate that decision, not that it will change anything. I do think that organizations should be mindful of what they think is offensive and refuse service for, as I said, what is offensive is subjective.

ElliottM wrote:

I'm not a supreme court justice, I didn't make those laws. I'm aware of them, though. I disagree with the laws saying you cannot refuse service to someone on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe it should be legal to refuse service to someone because they are straight/gay/bi/whatever. I certainly would do no such thing, were I to own a business, but I believe it should be legal.

I don't find the statements made by this passenger offensive, but I defend the right of the airline and its employees to decide what they will and will not allow in their place of work. "saying you won't serve someone because they said something that is offensive is dangerous territory." Maybe so, but it should be the right of every organization to refuse service for any reason. Choosing who you do and don't do business with is the core of the private sector.

Remember that what is deemed offensive is subjective, just because you think their belief or statement is offensive doesn't mean they can't say it.

Of course, they are welcome to say it. And I as a business owner am welcome to throw them out. Again, this is the private sector we are talking about. Free speech doesn't mean speech free of consequences.

But that is the law. So to refuse service you have to make the case that he was being abusive (easy case in my opinion), but that doesn't mean that others can't question that decision. And yes free speech doesn't mean free from consequences, and I do not feel sorry for this person, but I do think there is more to it than just "throw them out".

ASFlyer wrote:

Are you really comparing being gay to being a boorish lout that doesn't know how to behave in public? Now, if the man said, "I have Tourette's Syndrome and blurt out inappropriate things", then maybe he would have had ground to stand on. That isn't the case. Being gay isn't something someone wakes up and decides anymore then a straight person makes a conscious decision to be straight. One does make a conscious decision to blurt out "ooooh, sexy" to a complete stranger, sitting on a plane full of other complete strangers. That's the difference. Being an idiot is not the same as being gay.

To some that it is equally offensive (not right in my book). What I am saying is that what is offensive is subjective. I agree that Alaska didn't do anything wrong, I do think though that they should have to explain themselves (easily done, I think their statement already did for the most part).

Amiga500 wrote:

Again you evade answering the very simple question with desperate sidetracking.

Nope, the question was directly answered several posts ago, despite the fact that you're "desperately" trying to remove all context to try to strengthen your agenda.

Revelation wrote:

In this context it is seriously disrespectful because the context is a uniformed professional doing their job in front of a room full of people.

Revelation wrote:

That's your interpretation. Mine is:

1. F/A giving safety demo put life jacket on.

2. Man interrupts safety demo by calling out "oohhh, sexy"

3. F/A took offence, stopped safety demo and asked the man to be respectful.

4. Man was not respectful and instead stated it was in jest.

5. F/A abandoned safety demo and had man removed.

Something tells me that you and others aren't going to agree with my interpretation, but so be it.

Totally agree with your interpretation. One question, do you agree that removing someone from a flight is an appropriate response for being disrespectful?

I think just being disrespectful is a bit much to remove someone from the flight, I also think he was being a little more than just disrespectful.

Revelation wrote:

Nope, the question was directly answered several posts ago, despite the fact that you're "desperately" trying to remove all context to try to strengthen your agenda.

Context is irrelevant.

Apparently, according to Revelation, the act of informing someone that has taken offence at something you've said, that what you said was in jest, is disrespectful.