Two Muslims pulled from flight to North Carolina because....

[lxskllr]

ZOMG!!11! Get that filthy afghan out of your house! I bet it has a bomb!!!

 

[marmasatt]

After watching this, I would be kind of nervous getting on a plane with some of then:

British Muslims demand release of terrorists, curse U.S., mourn bin Laden

Holy crap. I thought that was happening on American soil. Guess it's just a matter of time. "USA, you will pay?...." What have we done exactly? And these guys aren't the real extremists allegedly. These are the mainstream guys, who are allowed to hide in plain site, lol. And this is why there is a problem... You get a bunch of hillbillies on the same flight, throw in a couple of scared mom and dads with a handful of kids.... and then you get stuff like this situation. It's too bad.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Obviously they are insane, and shouldn't be allowed on the plane. Until you get your head straight, you don't get to fly with sane people. I agree with the airline's actions. Quit wearing that stupid shit. It just announces, "hey, I'm a lunatic."

Same goes for Catholic priest. Quit wearing that stupid outfit. No need to advertise you're a lunatic.

And yes, I'm tired of people treating lunatics (see religious people) as they were sane. And when you go out of your way to dress like a moron, that is just the next level of insanity. Quit treating these people (religious nuts) like they "normal." They're not. They are insane. And insane people shouldn't fly on planes.

While I also agree that religion is b.s., you have to understand that for thousands of years humans have looked to some greater power as an answer to so many of life's mysteries. Lots of people swear that they have felt the presence of a God, or some higher power, that prayers have been answered... I believe this to be nothing more than coincidence or a placebo, but people will believe what they want to believe. While I think there are a lot more agnostics today than in the past, and I think that religious position is growing, it will take some time before people move away from religion (in general). What I'm getting at in this rambling is that someone isn't insane because they believe in a God. I believe they are wrong, but it's not a change that will happen overnight after thousands of years of human history of looking to the heavens for answers. A bit of tolerance from everyone, regardless of their religious views, can go a long way.

 

[JJChicken]

Obviously they are insane, and shouldn't be allowed on the plane. Until you get your head straight, you don't get to fly with sane people. I agree with the airline's actions. Quit wearing that stupid shit. It just announces, "hey, I'm a lunatic."

Same goes for Catholic priest. Quit wearing that stupid outfit. No need to advertise you're a lunatic.

And yes, I'm tired of people treating lunatics (see religious people) as they were sane. And when you go out of your way to dress like a moron, that is just the next level of insanity. Quit treating these people (religious nuts) like they "normal." They're not. They are insane. And insane people shouldn't fly on planes.

Fucking agree. This story is a non-story at best.

 

[Vic Vega]

So this privately owned company has no right to decide who they will or will not do business with?

 

[JJChicken]

So this privately owned company has no right to decide who they will or will not do business with?

Welcome to the pussification of America.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

So this privately owned company has no right to decide who they will or will not do business with?

you're joking right?

you must be the kind of person who yells "VIOLATION OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT!!1!1!!11!" when you say something dumb and people call you out on it.

 

[Vic Vega]

you're joking right?

From a legal standpoint, does this privately owned company have the right to choose who it does business with? Do they have the right to choose who will and will not be allowed in their privately owned aircraft? Do they have the right to remove persons from their personal private property as they deem fit?

Here's a hint, the answer is Yes to all three.

 

[dawp]

So this privately owned company has no right to decide who they will or will not do business with?

airlines are highly regulated, plus you can not discrimination based on religion.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

From a legal standpoint, does this privately owned company have the right to choose who it does business with? Do they have the right to choose who will and will not be allowed in their privately owned aircraft? Do they have the right to remove persons from their personal private property as they deem fit?

Here's a hint, the answer is Yes to all three.

lol, no.

 

[Vic Vega]

you're joking right?

you must be the kind of person who yells "VIOLATION OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT!!1!1!!11!" when you say something dumb and people call you out on it.

We are a nation of laws. There is no moral or ethical judgement being made about the behavior, as that isn't the question, the question is, is the airline within its rights to do what it did?

The answer is Yes.

 

[jruchko]

So this privately owned company has no right to decide who they will or will not do business with?

Not when it violates anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Vic Vega]

airlines are highly regulated, plus you can not discrimination based on religion.

Show me where they discriminated based on religion.

The airline is a company. It's goal is to make money. They had passengers which they believed could be a liability and safety issue to their operation and other passengers. Said passengers were removed based on overwhelming requests from the other passengers.

You folks seem to think this is about religion or ethics, it's about running a business and the right of that business to regulate its own personal property.

That's all.

 

[Vic Vega]

Not when it violates anti-discrimination laws.

Again, no law was broken. There is no "religion discrimination" here. The two men were sold tickets and allowed to get on the plane. If there were discrimination they would have never been sold tickets in the first place and when they asked why, it would have to be stated because they are Muslim. This. Never. Happened.

You might argue that a contract has been breached, in which case the two passengers can address the issue with the airline in CIVIL court.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Show me where they discriminated based on religion.

The airline is a company. It's goal is to make money. They had passengers which they believed could be a liability and safety issue to their operation and other passengers. Said passengers were removed based on overwhelming requests from the other passengers.

You folks seem to think this is about religion or ethics, it's about running a business and the right of that business to regulate its own personal property.

That's all.

anyone with any sort of deductive reasoning will tell you why those 2 slims got pulled off the plane.

 

[dawp]

It wasn't the company, it was one employee of said company, hence the investigation.

 

[Vic Vega]

anyone with any sort of deductive reasoning will tell you why those 2 slims got pulled off the plane.

The simple fact of the matter is Muslims fly in the US and around the world all the time, every day, without problems. Flight after flight after flight without problems. These men were NOT removed because they were Muslim.

Again, there is no religious discrimination here.

 

[jruchko]

Show me where they discriminated based on religion.

You need to apply some very twisted logic to deny that this wasn't based on religion. The only reason people got upset is because of religious clothing.

The airline is a company. It's goal is to make money. They had passengers which they believed could be a liability and safety issue to their operation and other passengers. Said passengers were removed based on overwhelming requests from the other passengers.

You folks seem to think this is about religion or ethics, it's about running a business and the right of that business to regulate its own personal property.

That's all.

They discriminated based solely on religious grounds, that is not legal. It doesn't matter what the other passengers thought, the airline has a legal obligation to provide the services that were paid for.

EDIT: Can anyone find any evidence that shows passengers were upset? The only person making that claim was the pilot, and it sounds like he just didn't want to fly the 2 men himself.

 

[Vic Vega]

It wasn't the company, it was one employee of said company, hence the investigation.

Sure it was. The employee of the company, the pilot, is tasked with certain job functions and is compensated for these actions. He or she is acting as an agent of the company. One of those job functions is to regulate passengers aboard the aircraft, identify passengers which could be a liability to the operation of the aircraft, the company and the passengers, and remove them.

 

[Vic Vega]

You need to apply some very twisted logic to deny that this wasn't based on religion. The only reason people got upset is because of religious clothing.



They discriminated based solely on religious grounds, that is not legal. It doesn't matter what the other passengers thought, the airline has a legal obligation to provide the services that were paid for.

This is your opinion however it has not been proven.

Read my post above. You may be able to argue a breach of contract which the men can address in CIVIL court however no LAW has been broken.

 

[dawp]

Sure it was. The employee of the company, the pilot, is tasked with certain job functions and is compensated for these actions. He or she is acting as an agent of the company. One of those job functions is to regulate passengers aboard the aircraft, identify passengers which could be a liability to the operation of the aircraft, the company and the passengers, and remove them.

so why were they allowed to fly on a later flight if it was the company?

 

[Vic Vega]

so why were they allowed to fly on a later flight if it was the company?

Companies never change their minds, ever.

Again, the argument is NOT about morals or ethics, it's about if the behavior is legal. It IS legal.

So, based on the moral and ethical side, the side which can't be argued rationally because everyone has differing opinions and points of view, the airline obviously looked at the decision made and decided to change it. Is that hard to believe? That does not make the original decision illegal. It was probably a poor decision in the first place, just based on the media attention it is now garnering.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Dude... this is Tennessee we're talking about. Anywhere below Maryland/DC = Racist/Bigot turf.

Hrm a post stereotyping others in a thread about... yeah.

 

[SooperDave]

The passengers that were were complaining should have been the ones to leave the plane. The airline should be sued, and the pilot should be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dogshit out of Hong Kong stat.

 

[Vic Vega]

Hrm a post stereotyping others in a thread about... yeah.

Yeah, I laughed at that, too.