Lesbian actress booted off Southwest flight for 'excessive' PDA

[Gravekeeper]

Whether something is right or not and whether something is A right are totally different questions.

But again, you're on someone else's property, they make the rules. You may not agree to them, and you're free to object. But you don't have the right to do what you want on someone else's property. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at?

Not so. In fact, I described it in a way that specifically would not involve either premeditation or conspiracy... unless you consider deciding to go along with something on the spur of the moment a conspiracy.

Both of your examples require premeditation on the behalf of at least one person and communication amongst several individuals to be effective. Its a rather unlikely scenario either way. Flip it the other way around:

If you're a flight attendant, or any CSR really, and you get several complaints from customers about another customer are you going to address the source of the complaints? Or are you really going to address each complaintant individually instead of the source?

You're going to address the source. But thats even assuming you didn't witness the problem. Which, in the this case, it does sound like the attendant witnessed the problem before stepping in.

If it helps any, I do know also that there are gay couples who would, while doing something innocuous, notice someone seeming uncomfortable with that and keep turning it up just to aggravate them... including, if it comes to that, telling off the flight attendant once it gets that far.

Honestly, its starting to sound a bit like this. Ramp it up to 11 just to throw it out there, then throw a big stink when you're inevitably called on it. ><

Is there any sign of this video of hers yet?

[Andara Bledin]

Is there any sign of this video of hers yet?

Her claims were video and audio. Neither of which has been released by anyone. Mostly due to the fact that while they have a lot of support, there are also a lot of people wondering if they're full of shit about their claims of homophobia and they really did get kicked off for being assholes to the flight crew.

Southwest CEO supports decision to remove kissing women article at Houston Chronicle

Nice to see the CEO has his people's back on the decision.

^-.-^

[Lace Neil Singer]

But again, you're on someone else's property, they make the rules. You may not agree to them, and you're free to object. But you don't have the right to do what you want on someone else's property.

Kinda reminds me of people who whine about forum rules. For example, CS.com is Raps' property, so there's no point in complaining about the rules. Or bringing up the constitution, which doesn't work anyway in this case seeing as Raps is based in the UK.

As for the video/audio, I'm betting it either a) doesn't exist or b) does exist, but since it incriminates this actress as being a rude, rulebreaking bitch won't ever see the light of day.

If it did prove her innocence in this matter, surely she would have produced it by now?

[DrFaroohk]

There's always the option that she's hoarding the video to wait until people are totally against her, then whip it out and it shows that she's 100% right and makes everyone look stupid...at least that's what I'd do.

Here's the thing. There's "can" and there's "right". I "Can" ban all homosexuals from my house. It would extremely wrong of me to do so. Just like I "Can" make a website and pick and choose who can post and who I discipline for breaking rules. I can let one guy get away with saying fuck and then ban a guy for saying gee whiz. Because it's mine and I can.

But is it right? HELL NO.

So the airline "CAN" request a lesbian couple stop kissing but ignore a hetero couple. They "CAN" choose to believe the masses who claimed it was inappropriate.

But is it right? No.

That's why in situations like this, I take a "poisonous tree" stance. Not the legal precedant, just the notion. I have no doubt that if this were a brad and angelina, people would be all impressed and happy to see them kissing. Based upon this belief, it makes the customers who complained WRONG. Even though they "CAN" complain, they are wrong to do so. Everything else that happened after that was stemmed from this wrong incident and that is why I still side with the girls, even if they were being slightly lewd and told off flight attendants.

[Andara Bledin]

Now there's a report on CNN of Melissa Etheridge weighing in.

Mostly, she says that without something more than the "he said/she said" we have now, she's reserving judgment but that she prefers people save their PDA (no matter how big or small, and no matter what orientation) for in private.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

but that she prefers people save their PDA (no matter how big or small, and no matter what orientation) for in private.

Wouldn't that turn it into an A, then? It wouldn't be public, and it wouldn't be a display without an audience...

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Nah. Peacocks still show off their tails even when nobody's watching.

^-.-^

[Peppergirl]

Now there's a report on CNN of Melissa Etheridge weighing in.

Mostly, she says that without something more than the "he said/she said" we have now, she's reserving judgment but that she prefers people save their PDA (no matter how big or small, and no matter what orientation) for in private.

^-.-^

She's always been a class act. *nods approvingly*

[HYHYBT]

Who is she saving them to be private with? Last I heard she was in the middle of a nasty breakup.

Or maybe that was someone else.

My point above was what I stated in a very simple, plain, not-possible-to-misunderstand manner and which has nothing whatsoever to do with legal rights of any kind. That is: if you do not have the option of refusing without punishment, then it's a demand, even if it's phrased as a request and made politely.

Take the following:

"Would you mind not doing X, please?"
"Well, yes, actually I do mind." {continue doing X}

Now, unless the response is "Oh. Ok, then" then "would you mind..." was, in reality, a demand or order not to do X. And if the complaints were totally unreasonable (say, X is reading a book, just so as not to cloud things up) then the order to stop doing X because others are complaining is also unreasonable. That doesn't make it illegal; it doesn't mean they don't have the RIGHT to make such a demand or to throw you off if you dare to argue over what you should never have been asked in the first place.

---
As for conspiracy and premeditation... the scenario is this: A, B, C, and D are traveling together. On entering the plane, A notices that E and F are there. A either knows and has a grudge against one or both of them, or else just doesn't like "their kind," whatever that may be. A decides to get E and F in trouble, and complains about them to the flight attendant. B, C, and D, being of the same type of and good friends with A, go along with the story and back up the complaint.

Where does that involve premeditation of any kind, or conspiracy unless you count a totally spur-of-the-moment event as such?

[the_std]

My point above was what I stated in a very simple, plain, not-possible-to-misunderstand manner and which has nothing whatsoever to do with legal rights of any kind. That is: if you do not have the option of refusing without punishment, then it's a demand, even if it's phrased as a request and made politely.

Take the following:

"Would you mind not doing X, please?"
"Well, yes, actually I do mind." {continue doing X}

Now, unless the response is "Oh. Ok, then" then "would you mind..." was, in reality, a demand or order not to do X. And if the complaints were totally unreasonable (say, X is reading a book, just so as not to cloud things up) then the order to stop doing X because others are complaining is also unreasonable. That doesn't make it illegal; it doesn't mean they don't have the RIGHT to make such a demand or to throw you off if you dare to argue over what you should never have been asked in the first place.

Except that you're clouding the issue with that example.

First of all, of course "would you mind not doing x" turns into a demand if the person refuses to stop doing something. It's just being polite. Most people aren't under the impression that they've got much of a choice in the matter when they somewhere as tightly controlled as an airplane. Just because the flight attendants have authority doesn't mean they should be rude. Saying "would you mind not doing X" works because they don't hurt feelings most of the time, and most of the time the people they're talking to stop right away. It's another little social illusion that helps to lubricate tense or awkward situations.

Second of all, your example of "reading a book" doesn't work here. At all. Reading a book doesn't disturb other passengers and cannot be reasonably represented to do so. Therefore, refusing to stop reading a book becomes reasonable. However, the PDA in question here has the very real possibility of offending passengers at almost any intensity and it is a reasonable request that the people involved cut it out until they're not on a big metal tube flying through the sky. So... What does your example prove about this situation?

[Gravekeeper]

So the airline "CAN" request a lesbian couple stop kissing but ignore a hetero couple. They "CAN" choose to believe the masses who claimed it was inappropriate.

Your whole argument is based on personal assumptions that cannot be proven. By all accounts they would have made the same request of a hetero couple. Also, considering South West's track record with celebrity stupidity so far, they probably would have asked Brad and Angelina to stop too as there were children present which I assume was one of the catalyst's of the "family airline" comment. As indicated by the fact at least one set of parents moved their family to the far end of the cabin to escape the profanity she was screaming at the flight attendant.

But again, even ignoring all this, a grown up does not throw a temper tantrum like a 5 year old in public. Let alone on an airplane. That is wrong. Period. You don't scream profanity in public, let alone in front of children, either. That is classless, immature and shows a profound lack of self control.

Her reaction is her responsibility, not the responsiblity of the flight attendant. To suggest otherwise is one Hell of a slippery slope that leads to some rather dark places.

[smileyeagle1021]

Both of your examples require premeditation on the behalf of at least one person and communication amongst several individuals to be effective. Its a rather unlikely scenario either way.

GK, you've been in Canada too long, in the good "family friendly" American southwest one person can claim that they saw a lesbian couple acting innapropriately and there is guaranteed to be at least some people around them who may have witnessed nothing that will back them up just because that is what they percieve typical lesbian behavior to be.

A while back in Salt Lake a gay couple was taking a shortcut across church owned land and sat down on a park bench to rest and kind of cuddled up (to stay warm). Church security asked them to leave because their behavior was innapropriate, they refused because they felt they were doing nothing wrong, so church security roughed them up. There was a shitstorm of people who didn't witness the altercation, didn't even know anyone involved in the altercation, who spouted off about how if gay couples would just keep it in the bedroom this wouldn't have happened and they were obviously being excessive because everyone knows that's what gay couples do.
Want to guess what the survelience footage showed when the AG was finally able to force the church to release it as part of the criminal investigation (sense the church tried to cover its ass by filing trespass charges against the couple to justify their security roughing them up)... it showed two men sitting on a park bench huddled together to stay warm, no groping, no fondling, a quick kiss on the cheek yes, but nothing else (this is the church edited footage that was released to the public, so that was the most incriminating the church could come up with).
So, yes, I can see one person saying "oh my god, did you see that lesbian couple kiss" turning into "stewardess, there is a lesbian couple back there making out and it's really innapropriate".

Is that what happened in this case? I don't know, I'm still waiting for this supposed video to come forward, but I'm not willing to rule it out because I know how easy it can happen.
Does that excuse this actress for using profanities and other less than mature actions, not in the least, but if that's what happened it certainly justifies her being royally pissed.

[Mytical]

GK has a point, if the person threw a tantrum, then it is perfectly acceptable they were booted off.

Smiley has a point also. The two are treated totally different. As was interracial couples at one time (and still in some parts of the world). Heck an older woman being with a younger man can raise some 'hackles' on some people. People can be ignorant. We were not there, and do not know what these two did. If it was a peck on the cheek, and holding hands, then yes the airline is a bit at fault. If it was more, then they are not. Regardless of how much the airline is at fault, however, the couple seems to be a bit at fault. Because they threw a tantrum (apparently) like children.

[Evandril]

The big part is, what choice does the flight attendant have when multiple people are complaining to them? If their actions, right or wrong, were bothering multiple people, should the flight attendant then quiz everyone complaining, to see if their complaints were justified, or should they address the people directly? If you're doing nothing wrong, and you throw a temper tantrum on an aircraft, you *WILL* be kicked off! Even with your book example, if asked to stop reading a book, and you loudly argue with the flight attendant...you WILL be kicked off the plane, and rightfully so.

The behavior that got them kicked off the plane was not the kiss, it was the way they acted when asked to stop. You can be pissed and *not* yell and scream profanities, it is possible! I know aircraft, and I know the 'danger' cell phone use is in modern aircraft (next to none), but when asked to turn off my phone, I have YET to yell at anyone...I turn off my phone, and carry on...And I do not believe anyone will argue that texting is less disruptive to the population at large than kissing, no matter the sexes involved.

[Andara Bledin]

The behavior that got them kicked off the plane was not the kiss, it was the way they acted when asked to stop. You can be pissed and *not* yell and scream profanities, it is possible!

This is the heart of the matter.

If they had responded to the request in a reasonable and "family friendly" manner, they'd have had a case.

Getting into a screaming match and yelling profanities on a plane is going to get you booted. Every. Single. Time. It doesn't matter who you are or why you're yelling. Unless you are protesting physical assault, you have put yourself in that situation.

This isn't about homophobia. It could have been. You know, if they hadn't behaved like SCs. They could have turned this into a real talking point.

But, no. They had to behave like spoiled children who weren't allowed to have their way and throw a noisy tantrum over it. They screwed up. And they got punished for screwing it up. And now it can't be any real sort of talking point because instead of being about the alleged PDA, it's now all about the tantrum. And they made it that way. Not the flight attendant. And not the ones who complained.

Not only did they screw that up, but if the people who did complain did so out of homophobic reasons, the couple has now actually given them a reason to discriminate. Because while I have no way to determine if the complaints were made due to sexual orientation, I'm pretty damn sure that the tantrum absolutely was, based on the immediate, heat-of-the-moment tweets out of Hailey. She was the only one with a provable agenda in the entire event, and she and her girlfriend ruined their chance to make a difference.

^-.-^