NO FOOD FOR YOU: Seattle-Area Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents

[TalkingDog]

"We have posted signs on our doors basically saying that they aren't allowed to come into our business," one employee tells travel journalist Christopher Elliott. "We have the right to refuse service to anyone."

She says that whenever a TSA agent attempts to dine at the restaurant, "we turn our backs and completely ignore them, and tell them to leave... Their kind aren't welcomed in our establishment."

The restaurant claims that 90% of its patrons are in agreement with their stance and that the local police have actually helped escort TSA workers of the premises.


http://consumerist.com/2011/02/seattle-area-restaurant-wont-serve-tsa-agents.html
http://www.elliott.org/blog/why-does-everyone-hate-the-tsa-lets-count-the-reasons/


Woot!


Edited to insert links

[Segami]

1. Please post a link to the story?

[eleny]

9. Here's a link

http://consumerist.com/2011/02/seattle-area-restaurant-wont-serve-tsa-agents.html

[Segami]

13. Thanks!

:hi:

[TalkingDog]

15. Many many apologies

too many irons in the fire.

[Segami]

132. Thanks and much appreciated! I wanted to read the complete article.

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

2. That is an absolutely petty and...

stupid policy.

Dumb on its face.

[Thunderstruck]

7. delete. wrong place

[FSogol]

14. So then it would be ok for them to refuse to serve GLTB customers, or blacks, or liberals?

:shrug:

It is a stupid policy.

[ZombieHorde]

19. Your examples are qualities people are born with, if we assume people have free will,

the TSA agents have a choice. I am not so sure your comparison fits.

[crazyjoe]

295. liberal is a quality people are born with? really?

[TalkingDog]

21. I think racism might be a problem legally. The others...if she chooses to, it's her business

quite literally.

When W was in office there was a spate of Conservitards refusing service to them that didn't believe. As I recall there was a split then too between the camps of: Let him do what he wants, I don't have to go to his business and the This is Wrong crowds.

I was never able to suss out why your camp thinks it's wrong and what you think should be done about it. Care to clear that up for me? (no snark, serious question)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. TSA is not a protected class

Now if the people who were refused service were members of a protected class, they could file suit and claim the TSA was just a cover for them not wanting to serve them since they are <$PROTECTED CLASS>

[SDuderstadt]

34. Bullshit...

You need to look at public accommodations cases.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. In what respect?

Yes it is a public accommodation, but in some state, proprietors can refuse service to people unless it is because they are a member of a protected class.

I do not know what the laws are in that kind of case in Seattle or WA. I am a desert type who likes to dry out now and then

[apocalypsehow]

43. I'm a supreme court justice. n/t.

[SDuderstadt]

46. You need to look at the circumstances under...

which a public accommodation can deny service to a business invitee. There's got to be some valid business reason for it, not some arbitrary and capricious dislike.

Suppose I owned a dry-cleaning store and I declare that I hated the military because of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think for a moment that I would be allowed to arbitrarily deny service to service members?

Think this through.

[MedicalAdmin]

70. There does not need to be a valid reason for it.

You are wrong on this. I can, as a business owner, refuse service for any number of reasons to anyone. It's bad business and it's bad policy in most situations, but service can be refused.

[SDuderstadt]

75. This is getting stupid n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

105. Its been a while since I took business law...if you have some citations/URLs would be glad

to read up on this.

The example I remember the instructor using was that a business was free to discriminate against black hair but not black skin. Thought it was kind of strange at the time...

[SDuderstadt]

117. See post # 107...

My whole point was that businesses do not have an absolute right to deny someone service and neither the Federal Civil Rights Act nor the Americans with Disabilities Act are the only applicable law. Even if a business invitee is not within a federally protected class, the business typically is required to have a non-arbitrary, non-capricious, legitimate business reason for denying someone service, as the article I provided makes clear.

DU's shoot-first, ask-questions-later brigade strikes again!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

101. I share your understanding of this

I also understand it varies in some locales.

[SDuderstadt]

121. See post # 107...

I am not wrong.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service.

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

You (and others) owe me an apology.

[jeff47]

108. Here's a clue:

Not all states have the same laws.

There's nothing in federal law preventing it, because "TSA officer" is not a protected class.

Some state laws may make it harder to refuse service, but in most states there are no restrictions.

As for your dry-cleaning example, that would be perfectly legal in most of the states I've lived in.

[SDuderstadt]

115. See post # 107 n/t

[jeff47]

141. Why should I? #107 agrees with my post. (nt)

[SDuderstadt]

147. Oh, bullshit...

please explain how the dry cleaners owner would demonstrate a legitimate, non-arbitrary business reason to deny service.

[jeff47]

218. That's the point, they don't need to.

In most states, nothing compels the owner to provide a reason at all. They can be as arbitrary as they would like.

That's where "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs come from. There's no legitimate business reason to deny service to people without footwear or shirts.

[SDuderstadt]

219. Tell that to...

the courts, dude. They seem to believe differently for some reason.

[jeff47]

220. So....still missing that "most states" part?

Finding one state where the business owner must provide a reason does not mean the other 49 states are bound by that law.

[SDuderstadt]

225. Dude...

Read the part of the article I excerpted from LegalZoom. The author is not just talking about California there.

[jeff47]

228. Actually, I'd suggest you go read it more carefully

The article starts out with federal discrimination laws. Then it moves to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a CA law. And it never leaves CA again. All 3 examples in the article are CA cases. There's a little philosophy at the end, but philosophy is not law.

Given that LegalZoom was created by CA attorneys, it's pretty reasonable for them to stick to CA law in their articles. And then recommend that you use their services to find a lawyer in your jurisdiction.

[SDuderstadt]

238. Dude...

Think this through. Do you really think LegalZoom only has CA clients? If your claim was true, she would not have answered the question, "It depends.". She would have answered something like, "Yes, UNLESS you're in CA OR those in question are in a federally protected class".

The excerpt is perfectly applicable to many, if not all , states.

[jberryhill]

252. LegalZoom articles are low quality pieces not written for "clients"

And that one specifically is written in the context of a particular California statute.

[SDuderstadt]

254. JB...

Let's make something clear. I have never claimed that a business can never legally discriminate. I also am not hiding up the LegalZoom article as the finally word on anything.


At the same time, a number of posters were make an overly broad claim that a business was limited only by the federally protected classes, which the LegalZoom article disproves. At the same time, the author is not limiting the advice to California, correctly saying "it depends".

The quality of the LegalZoom notwithstanding, it does disprove the overly broad claim many here were making. Read all the way through the thread and I believe you'll see what I mean.

[jberryhill]

258. The point being....

That classes like "everyone named Bob" are more numerous than any set of protected classes, whether defined federally or by state law.

[SDuderstadt]

263. Well...

I despise anyone named Bob (or any other palindromic name, for that matter), I WOULD be in favor of banning all Bobs.

[jeff47]

259. Well, I now understand why you're having so much trouble reading that article.

Given that you've completely failed to understand my post.

"Think this through. Do you really think LegalZoom only has CA clients?"

Please quote the portion of my post where I said that. Since my post is rather brief, that should be pretty easy for you. Perhaps you should pay attention to the part where I said LegalZoom would be happy to refer you to someone in your jurisdiction.

"If your claim was true, she would not have answered the question"

There was no specific question. This was an article that was generally covering the topic, and the entire thrust of the article was "it depends". That's why they gave 3 examples that were vaguely contradictory...and all 3 examples are under CA law.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the compelling business reason to refuse service to people who are not wearing footwear? "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" signs are extremely common.

[SDuderstadt]

264. Because it's...

repulsive to other patrons.

[jeff47]

267. Like that's gonna fly

You'd have to explain why bare feet is repulsive, but sandals/flip-flops/Birkenstocks are not.

And perhaps the TSA is repulsive to the other patrons of the business cited by the original post...but you argued that such a position was illegal.

[SDuderstadt]

268. Nevermind...

dude.

This just gets sillier and sillier.

[MedicalAdmin]

116. Yes, a business owner can do that.

Protected classes are protected. Others are not. The danger is discriminating against one and then getting a twofer. Eg.: Military not served, but the military member was a visible minority and you had just set that policy for your company. It would be hard to prove that it wasn't because of the minority and not the military.

And give some of us a little credit. I have my lawyer review this *shit* yearly with me so I know what is allowed and what isn't. I'm not an expert but I am informed. If you are an expert in this area then provide a link or fact or something other than opinion. Sorry SDude, but your assertations fly in the face of my experience and legal advice from my lawyer.

[SDuderstadt]

118. See post # 107 n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

122. You chided the "DU amateur lawyer brigade" upthread, so presumably you're an actual lawyer

and have an American legal cite to back up your as yet unsubstantiated assertion and admonishment to "think this through."

I'll check back in a trice to see how you're coming on your cogent legal argument.

[SDuderstadt]

124. See post # 107, dude n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

151. Dude, that proves nothing

It is inconclusive and non committal on all but a few specific circumstances.

So you're not a lawyer, are you? You're just another member of the "DU amateur lawyer brigade."

Nice try, though, but sorry, you lose. You offer nothing to back up your assertion.

[SDuderstadt]

154. Absolute bullshit...

what I provided establishes that business owners do not enjoy any absolute right to deny service to people even of they are part of of a federally protected class. It confirms exactly what I said, dude.

Too funny.

[Stinky The Clown]

159. Reread your non legal cite ...... dude.

It is ambiguous about all but a few specific circumstances.

And hey .... I'm not the one claiming to be a legal expert .... YOU are. Convince me I misunderstood by making a cogent argument ..... not by arguing.

[SDuderstadt]

162. How is it "ambiguous"...

dude?

[Stinky The Clown]

173. I take that deflection to mean you can't mount a cogent argument to defend your assertion

Have a good day.

[SDuderstadt]

178. LOLOL!

Too funny.

[sabrina 1]

145. So then, DU cannot ban people?

I am constantly told that a private business has the right to refuse their services to people if they choose to do so.

[SDuderstadt]

148. If you violate TOS...

of course you can be banned.

[sabrina 1]

152. So a private business can decide who it wants to accomodate

and who it does not. All that restaurant has to do is to state that people who violate the Constitution for pay on a daily basis are not welcome there. And that should cover it pretty much.

[SDuderstadt]

155. LOLOL...

Too funny.

[sabrina 1]

176. Really, why? They have a philosophical and political difference

with the TSA's policies. Internet forums ban people all the time for the same reason.

Explain the difference please.

Why can FreeRepublic which is public forum, ban Democrats from their board? If those Demcorats abide by the general rules of being respectful etc. what gives them the right to ban them?

[SDuderstadt]

179. Number 1...

They have a right to set whatever rules they want.

Are you trying to compare FreeRepublic to a restaurant? Actually, if I have to explain how they are different, I'm not sure this "conversation" is really going much of anywhere.

[sabrina 1]

204. They are both businesses open to the public. Both are privately

owned. Both have the right to decide what kind of clientele they wish to attract.

Free Republic wants to attract rightwingers and has decided they can block anyone else from using their privately-owned business.

A restaurant is no different except in the service it provides. I don't see why Free Republic, as a business, has the right to kick people out of their space but a restaurant, as a business, would not have the same right, based on almost the exact same premise.

[SDuderstadt]

207. Do you know what the term...

"public accomodation" means? Are all businesses "public accommodations"?

[sabrina 1]

209. In the cyber world, political forums are 'public accomodations'.

There are many online businesses that accomodate the public. Why are you having a problem with this?

[SDuderstadt]

211. It's a discussion board, not an..

e-commerce site. How do you have a "business relationship" with DU or, even, FreeRepublic? This is not like an ISP in which there are mutual contractual responsibilities.

Seriously, unless you can cite some case law which establishes your premise, this is as futile as trying to reason with another poster who apparently believes that when cases go to trial, the court and the parties rely on standard dictionary definitions of terms.

In both cases, this betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how our legal system works. I'm done.

[sabrina 1]

236. When I go to a restaurant I don't become a partner in the business

nor do I have any contractual responsibilities. What are you talking about? They provide a service I want, that's it. When you go to an internet forum, you go to utilize their services. Same thing. I think it is you who doesn't understand how our legal system works.

[SDuderstadt]

240. Oh, yes, you do...

when you ordered your meal, you entered into an implied contract that you'd pay for that meal when presented with the check.

Why do you insist on debating topics you have no knowledge of? Actually, don't answer that. As I indicated earlier, I am done with your silliness.

[sabrina 1]

270. And when you become a member of an internet business

you enter into an implied contract that you would receive a service and in return you would abide by the rules laid out in their TOS agreement.

You don't get to make YOUR point and shut down other people, you do not have to respond to me, I can live with that. But your assumption that you can insult people, make your declarations, and then cut off any response, is a wrong assumption. This is a discussion board. If you want it to be a one-sided discussion, I'm afraid I did not agree to that.

[Kelvin Mace]

222. Legally, none I can find

(I am not a lawyer, but I read a lot).

Of course, as a business move, this would be a path to bankruptcy.

This guy locked on to a "class" of people that are not well liked, and not legally protected. He would probably get a medal if added bankers to his list (or BP employees).

[SDuderstadt]

226. Read the Legalzoom article...

I linked to and excerpted

[Kelvin Mace]

221. Sadly, unless you are in a protected class

you can be legally discriminated against. Unemployed folks are discovering this with job ads that state "Currently unemployed need not apply".

As things stand, you cannot be discriminated based on age, sex, religion (sexual orientation in some states), disability, or race/ethnicity.

Anything else is fair game, especially in "right to work" states.

[MedicalAdmin]

63. TSA agents are not a protected class.

I don't agree with it, but there is nothing wrong with it. It's there establishment and if they don't want to serve a non protected status person, they can.

[SDuderstadt]

65. See post # 46 n/t

[MedicalAdmin]

71. Um... what?

Oooookay. Thanks for that. I appreciate your support for my thesis.

[JVS]

76. It's where he got told.

[SDuderstadt]

125. See post # 107...

You owe me an apology.

[MedicalAdmin]

269. Thanks - that makes more sense.

I was like - post 36? What?



And I am balancing the advice of my lawyer, whom I know is well versed on local business laws, and the word of some dude online. Ya gotta admit, it does tip the scales some... Just sayin...

[speltwon]

81. There's nothing wrong with it LEGALLY. As a matter of policy,

it's abhorrent. But yes, since TSA agents are not a protected class, it's ok.

[SDuderstadt]

123. See post # 107 n/t

[bhikkhu]

161. denying every third person on Tuesdays is arbitrary.

Denying employees of the TSA is not arbitrary. Precious post #107 doesn't apply.

[SDuderstadt]

165. Of course it's arbitrary...

This gets sillier by the moment.

[bhikkhu]

191. Synonyms for arbitrary:

arbitrary (adj)

Synonyms: random, chance, subjective, uninformed, illogical, capricious, indiscriminate, haphazard

(from encarta)

If a corporation is involved in an activity inherently unjust, its not arbitrary to dissolve one's relationship with that corporation. Why does that seem silly to you? It can be put in many different ways, in many different contexts, but it doesn't come out as arbitrary in any of them I can think of.

The silly part is I don't even have a problem with the TSA myself; I don't really know a great deal about the case against them. That someone believes the actions of the corporation to be unconstitutional and unjust, and decides to "shun them", so to speak - that is very easy to understand and support. We have that right, and its not silly.

[SDuderstadt]

196. I don't think many cases hinge on...

a standard dictionary definition. That's why there are stipulations as to definitions at the outset.

[jbnow]

184. I think there is something wrong with it but it is legal

evidently.

There are good and bad tsa agents. I assume no one is saying people shouldn't be searched
and know the agents didn't order the machines or new level of search
and surely some do search as respectfully as possible

It's like refusing to serve cops or military or politicians or principals or actors because some do bad things

[Raksha]

68. Sure they could if they wanted to.

If a restaurant or any private business wants to refuse service to anyone it means just that--ANYONE, and for any reason. Of course if they refused service to blacks or GLTB people, they'd have to deal with the fallout from their more liberal customers. Many of those customers would no doubt boycott them--and be VERY public about it too.

It says in the OP that 90% of their other customers are in favor of the policy. There is still such a thing as "community standards," and it counts for something. There are also anti-discrimination laws in effect regarding discrimination based on a trait a person was born with, such as skin color.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Bullshit...

see post # 36.

Do you honestly believe that a public accommodation can deny service to a business invitee simply because they don't like them?

[Raksha]

77. Yes, that seems to be the consensus on this thread.

The TSA agents are welcome to sue the restaurant if they don't like it. It would be interesting to see what would happen with a lawsuit like that.

[SDuderstadt]

84. It doesn't make any difference what..

the "consensus" here is.

What makes a difference is what the law is.

[SDuderstadt]

107. It's simply not as...

"black and white" (no pun intended) as you guys are making it out to be:

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

[MedicalAdmin]

126. I never took a black and white position.

And does the decision the article site apply to Washington state where the mythical restaurant in question exists?

You may be right, but I'm still not sure. I just know that in our area, I can refuse service to just about anyone except protected classes.

[SDuderstadt]

127. Your claim was a little broader than...

"your area".

You owe me an apology.

[MedicalAdmin]

183. I owe you jack shit, o ye of great hubris.

You posted a link that talks about a "case" interpretation that applies to CA. So you are missing 49 states too.

[SDuderstadt]

194. Let me say this slowly....

People were claiming that ANY business could just deny service to anyone other than those in federally protected classes for any reason. I showed that to be wrong, because you only have to provide one contradictory example to disprove a universal claim.

More importantly, if California were the only exception, her answer to the premise would not have been "it depends". She would have said that it was okay EXCEPT for California.

It's really hysterical to watch the mental and verbal gymnastics you and others will engage in simply to avoid admitting you could be wrong about something.

Too funny.

[jberryhill]

253. And you mischaracterized what I said

I had said the general rule is "anyone for any reason".

It is the exceptions which are narrowly defined, either as federally protected classes or a handful of state-defined classes.

Do you know what "general rule" means?

It means that there are minor exceptions. And when the general category in question is "anyone", then any class you want to define apart from federal or state defined classes, renders those defined exceptions to be "minor".

[SDuderstadt]

256. I do know what "general rule" means and...

I did not intentionally mischaracterize what you said. However, I believe the author of the LegalZoom's article is correct in her summary in the last paragraph.

[SDuderstadt]

201. I'll make you a deal...

tell me what state you are in (no detailed info) and I will provide you with multiple cases that disprove your claim.

Deal?

[MedicalAdmin]

265. OK - deal.

Minnesota. I'm always open to new information. Just not always new opinions. I have too many of my own already.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

158. Thank you

[Kelvin Mace]

224. The argument the business owner could

make is that since the TSA is almost universally reviled for its gross mistreatment of the public, having them in his restaurant would be bad for his business.

I would suspect that any business could also refuse service to "uniformed" Klansmen or Nazis.

Now personally, I would serve them, but only after I had selected each of them (at random, or course) for a full body search to insure they were bring no contraband (food from other restaurants) or dangerous devices (like nail clippers) into my restaurant.

Finally, the law you cite in the article is California law, which is not applicable to a business in Seattle.

[SDuderstadt]

245. Dude...

just because the author cites CA examples, doesn't mean she is only dressing CA law.

If your claim were true, she wouldn't have posed the question, then answered, "It depends". She would have answered something like, "Yes, UNLESS you're in CA OR those in question are members of a federally protected class".

I find the contortions some here will go through simply to avoid admitting they could possibly be wrong about something nothing short of astounding.

[jberryhill]

251. You are completely mischaracterizing that article

That article starts with an explanation of impermissible reasons - a narrow category typically limited in most states to disability, race and sex - and then gets into some state law variations that chew around the edges of definable classes based on personal characteristics. For example, some states include sexual orientation, and some states do not.

"For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership."

"In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service."

It is odd for someone to say things like "you need to study this area" and rely on that one popular article, which describes the limitations of protected class status, while rejecting the input of people who have actually studied this subject.

Moreover, that article expressly relates to California cases under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and you are peddling the impression that that unusually expansive state law is of general applicability.

As noted previously, states can add to what are considered "protected categories" and define standards to be met relative to those protected categories. Those categories remain limited exceptions to the general rule.

It is clear you have not studied the subject in depth and that you lack critical perspective in relation to that one article you have cited.

[SDuderstadt]

257. JB...

I never once said that YOU "need to study this area", nor did I reject your input.

If you look closely, I was addressing people who were making an overly broad claim and the fact that they were not aware of the CA provisions and/or cases belies any possibility they have studied this in any depth.

I'm not sure your argument is with me.

[speltwon]

88. You don't understand the law

Blacks are a protected class. They would be violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and others). TSA agents are not. However, it IS a disgusting policy imo. I, as a Seattle resident , will make a point never to eat there.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Yes...

it is.

Restaurants are a public accommodation and patrons are business invitees. The restaurant has a right to refuse service, but only within very narrow parameters.

Despising the TSA is not one of them.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. "Despising the TSA is not one of them."

Please enlighten us with the legal basis for that assertion.

Thank you.

[JVS]

56. I think the very narrow parameters are some kind of imaginary bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

58. See post # 46...

dude.

What you think the law says and what it actually says are two different things. DU's "amateur lawyer brigade" always cracks me up.

[JVS]

62. Physician heal thyself.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Refute my argument in...

post # 46.

[JVS]

74. You didn't even post #36. And if you say there are very specific rules for discriminating, it's....

your job to point to those rules.

[MedicalAdmin]

73. Um - here is post number 36 in it's entirety.

Now will you explain WTF you are talking about?

"Yes it is a public accommodation, but in some state, proprietors can refuse service to people unless it is because they are a member of a protected class.

I do not know what the laws are in that kind of case in Seattle or WA. I am a desert type who likes to dry out now and then"

[sabrina 1]

146. Internet forums are public accomodations and patrons are

business invitees. Yet, Free Republic has the right to refuse to accomodate people who are not Republicans and to ban anyone they don't want there for philosophical and/or political differences.

[Name removed]

288. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

289. Read post # 17 again...

dude.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

290. I'll also note you use "Dude" when you get your ass handed to you in an argument.

[Name removed]

291. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

293. I'll also note...

I use "dude" all the time, dude.

[Pirate Smile]

175. I had the same response. Just nasty.

[Daemonaquila]

227. Nonsense.

They are resisting the abuses of our government and these idiots who keep working for the TSA either because they agree with what they're doing or are too chickens**t to take a stand and find a new job. Small acts like these get the message across. Hopefully hundreds of others will join. I'd love to see TSA agents (and border patrol and some others) find that being bully boys has consequences.

[SDuderstadt]

246. LOLOL!

Too funny.

[timtom]

244. As much as I despise TSA

and all it stands for, you are quite right. I'm secretly glad it happened, but it is, in fact, wrong. America must retake the moral high-ground (though, it may be too late).

[ixion]

3. Good for her. Nice to see people standing up to fascism.

The TSA are distinctly un-American, and should be treated as such.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Jesus...

the TSA is not fascism. Your hyperbole is silly.

[truebrit71]

31. What do you call warrantless searches then?

I know what I call them...

[SDuderstadt]

35. Dude...

It's not a "warrentless search". This getting stupid.

[ixion]

45. Well, there's no warrant, the person has done nothing wrong, but they are searched

so yes it is. Keep on spinnin' though!

[speltwon]

92. Airport security has ALWAYS done warrantless searches LONG before TSA

The issue is the body scans and invasive patdowns. A search of luggage of ANY sort is a warrantless search, as is an x-ray scan. Not all warrantless searches are illegal.

[NeedleCast]

274. You are submitting to the search by getting on the airplane

Just like if a cop pulls you over and you agree to let them search your car. They don't need a warrant if you've given them permission.

Come on...

[Leftist Agitator]

52. Uh, yeah, it is a warrantless search, Duder.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now do want to keep minimizing the crimes of the TSA and look even more foolish, or do you want to admit that you were wrong?

[SDuderstadt]

55. No, it's not, dude...

Here's an idea. Why don't you try to get on a flight, refuse to undergo security procedures, then sue because you claim it's a warrentless search.

You'll get laughed out of court.

[ixion]

59. Which says more about the court than it does about the crime

Your sense justice is disturbing, at best.

[SDuderstadt]

64. And your ignorance of the law is...

stunning.

I'd love to see you design an airport security system.

Why don't you take a swing at it?

[MedicalAdmin]

83. And yet, despite being asked and given an chance to explain...

... you hypothetical encyclopedic and genius level understanding of the law, you choose to attack the messanger and name call.

Don't blame us for the fact that you don't want to do any heavy lifting. If I'm wrong - fine. But you have to do more than say "you're wrong. Neener, neener, neener" and expect us to just accept it. Or maybe you do.

Feel free to refute.

[SDuderstadt]

87. See post # 46...

and please point me to anywhere I called anyone a name.

[ixion]

100. Wouldn't have a problem with it. I could design one that wasn't unconstitutional

The TSA, however, has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with harassing private citizens.

[speltwon]

95. It *is* a warrantless search. It is not an ILLEGAL warrantless search

that's inarguable (at least the former). LOTS of warrantless searches are perfectly legal. Do I really need to list the myriad of exceptions to the warrant requirement? I'll list a few - border exception, consent, plain view, open view, search incident to arrest, imminent circs, community caretaking, abandoned property, etc.

[SDuderstadt]

120. Point taken...

I should have noted it was not an illegal warrentless search. You've made the point far better than I.

[speltwon]

160. thx. Another one I see a not is when somebody says

"x is not discrimination". Example: a woman's field hockey team refuses to allow a man to play on their team (or the league). That IS discrimination. It's just not illegal.

[SDuderstadt]

163. I doubt if many here are familiar with...

BFOQ's and other legal subtleties.

[speltwon]

170. and there is a tendency when a word means a "bad" thing to

not admit that something is in fact what that word describes.

Discrimination. That's a "bad word". A track team discriminates by not signing up slow runners. A basketball team discriminates against those that can't play basketball. A Phd mathematics program discriminates agaisnt those w/o good math scores, etc.

But since discrimination is "bad", people will say "that's not discrimination". Of COURSE it is, it's just not unlawful.

Similarly, warrantless searches are "bad", but of course there's a myriad of exceptions, but people don't want to admit it's a warrantless search, because then they admit a policy they support is in fact - bad- in their minds.

Enter a courthouse and you will get screened for weapons by govt. agents. Is that a warrantless search? Sure. But it's not an llegal one.

BFOQ's are another example of legal discrimination. With an amateur team, like a league of softball players, it is also legal to discriminate on account of gender. A woman's softball league does that. It's not a BFOQ because it's not a job/occupation. It's a pastime. Even if they use public facilities, a woman's softball team can legally discriminate on account of gender...

[truebrit71]

135. Dude, yes it is. It is a search without probable cause, and 100% of the time without a warrant.

..

[SDuderstadt]

150. As someone else pointed out...

I should have said it's not an illegal warrantless search.

[ixion]

44. It is definitively fascism on all counts, and my statement was not hyperbole

however I'm sure you'll still get your extra choco-rations. Double plus good!

How sad to see DUers defending neocon creations. :(

[SDuderstadt]

61. Dude...

You can try to smear me all you want ("defending neocon creations"), but it's pretty silly to label everything you find offensive as fascism.

You ought to talk to people who lived under actual fascist regimes.

[ixion]

102. I'm not smearing. I'm stating a FACT

the TSA was created under George W. Bush, and driven by neocon policy. Do you deny that as well?

[JVS]

138. The TSA are our friends, like all authority figures.

:-)

[SDuderstadt]

156. Nice strawman...

dude.

[U4ikLefty]

200. some Dude needs attention...lol

[Name removed]

169. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NeedleCast]

275. It has nothing at all to do with fascism as you are not required to get on a plane

If you want to travel to another region quickly, air transportation is your best bet, but no one is requiring you to get on a plane. If you do choose to travel to another location by air, you are giving consent to being searched, so there is not illegal search taking place.

Fascism. I'm pretty sure you don't know what that word really means.

[Ignis]

60. One can shop around and fly the airlines that don't require groping?

I'd love to see where the holy Free Market is on this issue. :shrug:

[sabrina 1]

177. I agree with her also. When people realize that if they agree

to abuse the public's rights, there will be consequences maybe fewer of them will be willing to do so.

[ixion]

182. Exactly. The only reason they persist is because it's tolerated

it's good to see more intolerance in this case! :toast:

[sabrina 1]

205. Yep, one of the few times I find intolerance, tolerable!

:-)

[FSogol]

4. Is this the same restaurant who was refusing to serve the police?

Bad policy, picking who to serve. Better to treat everyone equally.

[MineralMan]

47. The restaurant is unnamed. The story is bogus.

[MineralMan]

49. 411.com and whitepages.com show nobody

with the last name of McLawson anywhere in Washington. Nobody.

The KC McLawson mentioned in some of these stories does not exist, apparently, just like the unnamed restaurant. Bullshit story.

[MedicalAdmin]

89. Ummm. Not everyone is listed.

Seriously. It took me 2 years of concerted effort to get us listed after we opened up the satelite location.

I'm just sayin. However a restaurant refusing service to anyone is pretty fishy these days...

[MineralMan]

97. It's pretty uncommon for a person living in an area not to be listed

on the people search engines. I've virtually never found people not listed, even if they lack phone service. Those search engines are very complete these days.

Business listings are something else again.

I believe this story is bogus on its face, just from the lack of the restaurant's name. If they've got signs banning the TSA in their windows, they'd be proud to have their name in the story. Bogus story.

[MedicalAdmin]

110. I agree but I don't KNOW (written in stone)

Good points, as usual.

[Bunny]

130. Just ran my name through both of your sources, and I'm not listed.

Are you going to tell me I don't exist?

[WolverineDG]

149. Nah, that was some coffee shop in Portland

and they only kicked the officer out AFTER they took his money. Hypocrites.

dg

[joeybee12]

5. Sorry, but the ones they should be refusing service to are the assholes in Congress

who aren't doing anything about this, not the low-level, poorly paid schmucks being told what to do.

[Carni]

53. I agree! LOL! EOM

[magdalena]

217. Thank you! n/t

[Liberal_in_LA]

6. wow. That's intense.

[leftstreet]

8. Link?

[somone]

11. Here's one

http://consumerist.com/2011/02/seattle-area-restaurant-wont-serve-tsa-agents.html

[leftstreet]

18. That link is NOT credible

No different than the bullshit 'flyover'

They're turf blogs

:eyes:

[Cirque du So-What]

10. Link

http://consumerist.com/2011/02/seattle-area-restaurant-wont-serve-tsa-agents.html

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall when these imperial storm troopers - newly empowered with the only real authority any of them have probably ever known - got escorted from the premises.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

22. unRec

Bullshit 'story' circulating on bullshit racist anti-TSA blogs

[virgogal]

16. "We have the right to refuse service to anyone"-----Since when?

Slippery slope here IMHO.

[TalkingDog]

23. Since forever. As long as the government is not involved

in any way shape or form, there is no law or rule suggesting private business owners can't turn away whomever they like.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Absolutely wrong...

Businesses are public accommodations and, as such, can only refuse to serve someone for bonafide reasons and within narrowly defined parameters.

Hating the TSA is not one of them. The anti-TSA bigotry here is getting out of hand.

[MedicalAdmin]

93. The system is the enemy. Not the people in the system.

ANd it's not really bigotry, is it? It's a political stance.

[sabrina 1]

206. People who go along with the system are also the enemy.

When the system abuses the rights of the people, if no one went along with it, we would keep our democracy. But there are always those who make excuses for why they do what they do 'I needed a job' etc. People laid down their lives so that they would not live in a country like Libya. People there are laying down their lives so that future generations there can be free of government oppression.

Gaining the freedom we were born into, cost a lot of blood. Those who cave in to authoritarian governments who would dismantle this democracy, have zero excuse for doing so imo because they are weakening our democracy and giving away not just their own freedom, but OURS without our permission.

I have no sympathy for people who 'just follow orders'. They are not innocent, they are selfish. They spit on the memory of the many courageous and selfless people who left them a democracy, who thought it was worth dying for.

[SDuderstadt]

208. Serious question:

Are you calling our government, "authoritarian"?

[sabrina 1]

213. Did you consider the Bush administration's policies to be democratic?

Have you read the Patriot Act?

Are you aware that we are in a constant state of emergency in this country which gives the president extraordinary powers?

Do you remember the Military Commissions Act? Do you think that the removal of Habeas Corpus was NOT autoritarian?

Did you consider spying on the American people to be democratic?

Do you think the draconian Drug Laws, which were the original excuse for the removal of our Constitutional Rights, are NOT Authoritarian?

I supported Democrats because of the authoritarian and undemocratic policies passed into law, which are a huge threat to this democracy, by the previous administration. Nothing much has changed about the most egregious destructive laws instituted with the excuse of 'national security' which is always the excuse of most authoritarian governments.

Yes, we DO live in an authoritarian country, until those anti-Constitutional laws are rescinded. I am surprised you asked, considering you are a Democrat.

[SDuderstadt]

214. Nevermind...

This has descended into silliness. You need to really, really study the definition of the word "authoritarian". If you had ever actually lived in an authoritarian country, you might know what you're actually talking about.

I'm going to ask you politely one time to quit questioning my Democratic credentials. I won't ask again.


As I said before, I'm done.

[jberryhill]

239. Actually, you kind of have that backwards

In general, businesses can refuse to provide service to anyone for any reason or no reason.

The exception is that they cannot refuse to do so for an impermissible reason - i.e. race discrimination.

The constellation of impermissible reasons is the thing that is bounded.

[msanthrope]

243. The backwardness is what made it amusing--the Legalzoom cite, too....n/t

[SDuderstadt]

248. Sorry, JB...

I disagree...the business has to show that it's not arbitrary and that there is a legitimate business purpose for it. That's a narrower, not a broader parameter.

More importantly, I am responding to those who claim that it is a universal business right, which is shown by the LegalZoom article if for no other reasons than the CA examples. Beyond that, the author makes the point that courts are finding the issue of broader access to public accomodations to trump the individual liberty claim of the business owner to deny service.

[virgogal]

27. Suppose all of the TSA agents were black and they were refused

service.

The owner could say that he/she didn't serve TSA agents,or police,or fireman or anything else just to cover racial bigotry.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. But they're not all black, so why discuss that?

[virgogal]

48. I discussed it because of my prior post and the reply.

[Gormy Cuss]

42. If the restaurant can demonstrate that it's not based on race they're fine.

Now it could be difficult if they don't have a customer base with enough of an African-American clientele to demonstrate that...

[SDuderstadt]

54. No, they're not...

You need to study some cases on public accommodations and business invitees.

[MedicalAdmin]

96. Links?

You keep saying but you don't keep linking.

[Gormy Cuss]

237. You need to study what "public accommodations" means in the law.

Denial of service is allowed as long as it doesn't violate any of the legally stipulated bases under Federal, state, or local law.

[SDuderstadt]

247. Bullshit...

that's NOT what the courts say.

[jberryhill]

241. You are 180 degrees from correct, Dude

Here is a concise summary of the law in this area:

http://www.wikilaw3k.org/forum/Law-Ethics/Does-a-business-in-the-US-have-a-right-to-refuse-service-to-anyone-for-any-reason-472440.htm

"Businesses can refuse service for almost any reason (or no reason) with exceptions. Those exceptions at the federal level are race, religion, gender, national origin, and disability/perceived disability (refusing service based on sexual preference does not violate any federal law). Some states have laws covering all these categories plus sexual preference, and some also include transgendered persons and transsexuals.."

I actually used this principle this week. I do run a business and a guy wanted to hire me. In the course of talking to him, I got the impression he was something of a jerk, and not someone I wanted to work with. I declined the engagement. I have an utter right to do so, just because I didn't like him.

[SDuderstadt]

250. Sorry, JB...

I can cite case after case that proves my point.

A lawyer deciding a potential client is not a good fit is not nearly in the same class as a restaurant denying service to patrons.

[JVS]

51. The civil rights act does not apply to discimination based on occupation.

[joeunderdog]

80. You can get fired for being Democrat, too. Politics are not off limits. nt

[Modern_Matthew]

25. They'll get no sympathy from me.

Following orders is never a valid excuse for vile behavior.

Aren't they union now? Why not push for an end to these "security" measures they are required to enforce?

[truebrit71]

29. Didn't work in Nuremberg, no reason it should work in the USA.

n/t

[sufrommich]

78. Of course,any good anti-choice advocate could make the

same argument for businesses banning Planned Parenthood workers from their premises.

[cleanhippie]

26. Why? It does not accomplish anything, makes it personal with the agents, is petty, and discriminate

WTF does this accomplish. We all hate the TSA, but the individual agents are just regular people doing their job.

[MedicalAdmin]

98. It should be repeated.

You're right.

The enemy is the system, not the people in the system.

[cleanhippie]

144. +10000

:toast:

[Matariki]

28. As much as I hate TSA policy, this is pretty shitty.

And I hate TSA policy with a burning hate.

[MineralMan]

30. It's interesting that the story doesn't name the restaurant.

Very interesting. I'll have to see if I can find the name. Nope. Can't find the name anywhere. I call bogus on this story. Sounds like a blogger's version of an urban legend.

If someone knows the name of this "mystery cafe," please let me know. Otherwise, I'm treating it as bogus.

[leftstreet]

33. It's a bullshit story from racist anti-TSA blogs

It should be locked

[MineralMan]

37. Well, it sure seems like bullshit to me. If none of the blog entries

and other places this story appears actually names the restaurant, it's not news. I say it's a made-up story and full of crap.

Now, if someone comes up with a real story from a real place, then we can check it out. Random blogs are not legitimate sources, especially if critical information is missing in the story. Why would they not name the cafe? There's only one reason I can think of.

[MineralMan]

40. I've researched this thoroughly. It appears to be a bogus story.

In none of the posts on the internet is the restaurant named. Without that information, why should we believe that it's even true. There's not a single legitimate news source carrying the story - just one blog after another quoting each other.

BOGUS!

[spanone]

41. how the hell can they tell if they are tsa????

these people are only doing their jobs

[leftstreet]

50. *crickets*

Indeed. How can they tell?

[ixion]

57. Doing the 'jobs' being Good Germans

and they wear uniforms, so it wouldn't be too hard to pick them out.

[jeff47]

113. Perhaps by the uniform with TSA all over it? (nt)

[petronius]

210. In one of the articles, the cafe worker is quoted as saying her boss

flies a lot and has an amazing memory for faces - that was the point where my BS detector went off, actually...

[Dash87]

235. The story is fake.

It has such an urban legend feel, I would be shocked if there was any truth to this story.

[JVS]

66. This is like the coffee shop that refuses to serve cops. Legal.

[SDuderstadt]

90. Please cite the case n/t

[JVS]

94. No. I don't like you, and I'm not doing anything for you. Search DU. Someone posted a thread...

about it. The article even interviewed cops, IIRC.

[SDuderstadt]

104. In other words...

you cannot back up your claim.

Too funny.

[JVS]

109. No. It's just that I'm not keen on talking with you.

[SDuderstadt]

114. See post #107...

dude.

Nuance sucks, huh...

[Bonobo]

157. One of the many reasons, you should not call people "dude" insultingly. nt

[JVS]

167. If you read carefully, I didn't use that term in this thread.

Although after being called dude by a poster I did return a duderino.

[Bonobo]

185. I was referring to THAT person, not you.

He has a long history of using that term in the 9/11 dungeon as a way of insulting and belittling people.

It seems he has now sadly decided to take that strategy to GD.

[JVS]

187. Oh, a gungeoneer.

I was wondering where this person had been for 9 years.

[apocalypsehow]

195. The Gungeon, where our RKBA "enthusiasts" congregate, and the 9-11 forum, where our "researchers"

hang out and swap Chemtrail sightings (among other things), are two very different sub-cultures on DU.

Just thought I'd clear that up for yah. :hi:

[msanthrope]

242. Possibly the best "description" of these two groups ever posted on DU. Thanks! n/t

[SwampG8r]

229. ?

every time you have been asked to cite anything other than an inflated opinion pulled from your own ass you refuse
why would anyone feel a call for citation from someone defending bush creations,while refusing to back up his own claims with nothing more than more of his own claims, should be given more than a laughing refusal?

the story is as fake as your "legal expertise"

[Dorian Gray]

215. That thread existed

I remember it.

It was one of those hundreds of responses, arguing vehemently, diversionary threads. In other words, AWESOME!

[JVS]

260. Yes. It was something to behold.

[Obamanaut]

131. Here's a thread on it from days gone by. Link ->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8509347

[JVS]

134. See post #107. n/t

;-)

[Obamanaut]

136. Self delete. Excessive snark. nt

[JVS]

137. That was me playing a joke.

:hi:

[Obamanaut]

140. Oops. I'll delete the other one. Thanks for your patience. nt

[SDuderstadt]

153. Post # 107 just...

kicked your ass on the facts, dude.

[JVS]

164. Only if Seattle and Portland are in California, duderino.

[SDuderstadt]

168. Dude...

the fact that California, even by itself, works that way, disproves the claim that business owners can refuse service to anyone for any reason. Do you understand how refutation of claims works?

[JVS]

172. California makes rules for California.

You claimed "The restaurant has a right to refuse service, but only within very narrow parameters."

You demonstrated that California might have a problem with what the restaurant did. You did not demonstrate that there are similar laws in Seattle, nor Portland for that matter since you seem so hua-hua about this. Therefore you did not prove your claim that the restaurant's right to refuse service is limited any more than by the federal restrictions, which as covered in the prohibit only certain kinds of discrimination, leaving more than "very narrow parameters" up to the discretion of the restaurant.

[SDuderstadt]

181. Dude...

Are you denying that people here made a blanket claim that businesses could deny service to anyone they want for whatever reason they want?

Too funny.

[Bonobo]

186. Why don't you stop insulting people with that term, SDuderstadt?

Can't you discuss issues without the personal insults and condescension?

[JVS]

188. I think the answer to your question is already here in the thread.

[SDuderstadt]

192. Addressing people as "dude" is NOT...

an "insult", dude.

You're being silly.

As far as the "condescension", it turns out I was right in what I claimed. Of course, getting an apology is even more difficult than getting any of them to acknowledge their mistake.

[Bonobo]

193. It is used insultingly. You and I both know that. nt

[SDuderstadt]

197. It's used humorously...

dude.

Watch "The Big Lebowski" sometime.

[Bonobo]

198. One of my favorite movies.

Now please stop using it with me.

I have who you you choose to use it with and under what circumstances.

It is invariably used when you find someone that you wish to berate, condescend to or mock and I do not appreciate it.

Do not use the term with me any more please.

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SwampG8r]

232. see post 107

[SwampG8r]

231. see post 107

[SwampG8r]

230. see post 107

[petronius]

212. Here's the DU thread that I assume is being referred to - it was quite flamey

Enjoy! :)

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8490017

[hobbit709]

67. No strip, no grope, no service.

[MedicalAdmin]

103. Bwahahahahaha.

I'm not sure that would work in a family restaurant, but maybe a private club?

[speltwon]

79. Dumb policy

TSA Agents don't make policy. I just flew to SD and back and experienced nothing but professionalism from them. Granted, I didn't undergo patdown or rape-a-scan.

[aikoaiko]

82. The restaurant is within its rights, but it is still despicable.

The TSA's union should park on their front door.


What then? :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

128. Not necessarily...

See post # 107.

[aikoaiko]

129. Thank you for the information. Do you know if WA has something similar to the Unruh Civil Rights Act

:shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

143. Not offhand...

I wouldn't be surprised, though.

My overall point, though, was that a number here jumped in claiming an absolute right of businesses to deny service to someone , as long as they are not part of a federally protected class, which is simply not true, as I demonstrated.

[aikoaiko]

234. Yes, I was one of those who only considered Federal protection of certain classes.

Thank you again for the reminder that some states afford extra protections.

[SwampG8r]

233. see post 107

[martymar64]

216. What TSA Union?

:shrug:

[speltwon]

85. There is a Portland coffehouse that refuses to serve cops.

They kicked one out (he complied). They are within their rights to refuse to serve anybody as long as it's not a protected class. TSA agents, cops, etc. are not. What is or isn't a protected class is set federally, although state law can expand it. WA iirc adds sexual orientation and other stuff to the list.

Regardless, I am 100% against this POLICY, but it is legal as far as I know.

[JVS]

111. Yeah, I read about that too.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/06/red_black_cafe_shows_portland.html

[hugo_from_TN]

119. Yep, and that coffeehouse will never get another dime from me.

[Obamanaut]

133. Portland is a bit out of the way for coffee, from TN. I don't blame you. nt

[hugo_from_TN]

255. I am from TN, not in TN.

I live in Portland.

[Robb]

86. Smells like a hoax to me.

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

99. Yup. I'd almost guarantee it, based on the original source.

Every link found on Google to this story comes from one anti-TSA blog. Not a reliable source. There are zero legitimate news sources with the story in any form.

[BlueCheese]

91. Sigh.

If true, I think it's silly and counterproductive. This is exactly the kind of story that makes people across the country think that liberals are too far out there.

[MineralMan]

106. Well, the story is also on a bunch of other forums, mostly

libertarian and right wing ones. Being anti-TSA seems to be popular with lots of people, from both ends of the political spectrum.

[leftstreet]

112. +1

It's deliberate

They might as well start an OP saying "If restaurants don't want to serve black people, they shouldn't have to!"

But then...that wouldn't last too long here

[SidDithers]

139. Discrimination is never good...nt

Sid

[bluestateguy]

142. Not a good precedent to set

Next it will be public school teachers, or union workers, or lawyers, or Wall Street bankers (well, that latter one would not rankle me)

Or droids.

Remember when the bartender wouldn't serve R2D2 and C-3PO in the Mos Eisley Cantina?

"We don't serve their kind in here!"

[City of Mills]

166. I wouldn't patronize a business that refused service to a specific group of people

Unless it was the Ku Klux Klan - I hate those assholes.

[Dash87]

171. Fake

I bet this will be among the club of red dots on Snopes soon. lol

[Uzybone]

174. this is a disgrace

[Skittles]

180. sick shit

[Lucian]

189. It warms my heart when people on a liberal site defend gropers.

Seriously.

Even though the gropings violate the fourth amendment, but hey, let's stick up for the agents!

:eyes:

[NeedleCast]

277. Your post stuggest that all TSA agents are gropers

Broad Brush much?

[leftstreet]

278. If I bashed teachers here the way some bash TSA workers

I'd get my dick stapled to my forehead

unfuckingbelievable

[NeedleCast]

280. Truth

Its only cool to broad brush people we don't like. When you broad brush, it's also imperative that you use the word fascism even if you don't really know what it means.

[WatsonT]

190. Judging by all the TSA agents I've seen

they could stand to skip a meal or ten.

[Supply Side Jesus]

202. Pathetic

plain and simple

[upi402]

203. lol

Supply Side Jesus is a great scren name.

Serve TSA but squeeze their naughty bits first... ok fine, there's a 4' rule outside SeaTac airport.

[Blue_Tires]

223. Man.. 232 posts. If DU has taught me anything over the years, it's to NOT

jump in full-throttle cheerleading a "story" just because it appeared on some random blog with non-verified sources...

IF there is such a cafe, it would be very easy to find, since it: 1. Must be near the airport, and 2. Has a sign posted out front stating "No TSA"

Of course, having been burned by bloggers in the past, this is looking more like one of those "Wouldn't it be nice if this were true" posts, but the guy is squirming because he didn't expect the piece to spread like wildfire...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

249. Awww. The poor widdle agents will have to bring their lunches.

:nopity: :nopity:

[JVS]

261. I'm sure they can confiscate something tasty at work.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

262. However, the nutrional value of Bras and Panties is questionable.

[JVS]

266. You're forgetting things that people carry on.

They've been known to help themselves to cell phones and laptops. Why not the snacks that someone packed for a trip.

[Xithras]

271. Good for them.

This "we gotta be nice" bullshit is pathetic. The TSA are the footsoldiers in the war against freedom.

Your can cooperate, collaborate, or resist. The choice is yours.

[SDuderstadt]

272. "The TSA are the foot soldiers in the war against freedom"

Winner of today's overheated hyperbole award.

[Xithras]

282. You think there isn't a war against freedom?

Seriously? Do you read the news...ever?

[SDuderstadt]

284. I think your phraseology is...

silly. Stick to what I actually said.

[sabrina 1]

273. Absolutely agree with you. There needs to be consequences

for those who would cooperate in the destruction of our constitutional rights.

[leftstreet]

276. BULLSHIT !! This is about TSA workers forming unions

It started last fall

As did the anti-TSA propaganda

As did the legislative cry for privatization

:eyes:

FLRA Accepts AFGE Petition for Union Election at TSA

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire
The Federal Labor Relations Authority today accepted the petition from the American Federation of Government Employees to hold a union election at the Transportation Security Administration.

"AFGE argued, and the FLRA agreed, that the right for employees to elect an exclusive representative and the right to engage in collective bargaining are two separate and distinct rights," AFGE National President John Gage said. "We have always said the choice to unionize and the task of winning collective bargaining rights at TSA would be a two-part process.

"While we wait for the decision on collective bargaining rights that TSA Administrator Pistole has indicated will come soon, the election process can begin to move forward," Gage added. "TSOs have waited long enough for both formal representation in the workplace and for the same collective bargaining rights held by Border Patrol and Federal Protective Service officers, ICE agents, FEMA employees, DoD civilians—as well as those screening officers that work for TSA contractors.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/flra-accepts-afge-petition-for-union-election-at-tsa-107570868.html

TSA to hold union election

By Emily Long November 12, 2010

Transportation Security Administration employees soon will be able to vote for exclusive union representation.

The Federal Labor Relations Authority on Friday accepted a petition from the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union to hold an election to determine which group will represent TSA workers. Petitions filed by AFGE and NTEU earlier this year were denied by an FLRA regional official, but Friday's decision reverses that ruling. Both unions have been vying for exclusive representation of 40,000 TSA employees. FLRA will set the timeline for the election, count the votes and certify the results.

AFGE National President John Gage praised the decision, arguing Transportation Security officers have waited too long for union representation.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/111210l3.htm

TSA Is 'Far Behind The Curve' On Security, Lawmaker Says

NPR NewsBlog 11/22/2010
While the Transportation Security Administration says there's reason behind its new security processes at airports, the Republican congressman who's in line to become chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee says the agency is behind the times when it comes to protecting Americans.

"What they're doing really doesn't even address the current threat," Rep. John Mica, R-FL, told All Things Considered co-host Melissa Block this afternoon. Pat-downs and body scans of travelers might catch some of the would-be bombers of past years, Mica said, but won't stop terrorists intent on putting bombs on cargo planes.

Mica is an advocate of making more use of private contractors to do the screening and security work at airports. Melissa noted, as has Fox News, that Mica has come under some criticism because contributors to his campaigns have included companies that might benefit from such work. Mica called such talk "a lot of malarkey":

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/11/22/131517640/tsa-is-far-behind-the-curve-on-security-lawmaker-says

Traveler Anger Has Some Cities Considering Private Screeners

POSTED: 8:06 pm MST November 20, 2010

DENVER -- One city councilman in Colorado Springs is so fed up with new TSA security procedures he's ready to ask about switching to private contractors.

"I think we're kind of reaching a tipping point in this country right now," said Sean Paige, Colorado Springs city councilman. "Americans are tired of being treated like cattle and criminals every time they go out to the airport. We all understand the need for security, but I think we could do it with more dignity and more respect."

Paige said he'll ask airport managers to explore the pros and cons of switching to private screeners, something Sanford International Airport in Orlando, Fla. is already considering

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/25865627/detail.html

[Xithras]

281. This has nothing to do with unions

Some of us have been screaming about the TSA since busHitler created it. If you only noticed it last fall, you haven't been paying attention the last few years.

But, for what it's worth, I don't want them unionized...because I don't want them employed. There is no legitimate purpose to justify the existence of the TSA. They violate our privacy, they violate our freedoms, and it's been proven countless times that they add no real security in return. It's theater.

The TSA exists for one purpose: to acclimate Americans to the idea of the government invading their privacy "for public safety". It's a physical extension of the same mindset that gave us the Patriot Act, and it's just as illegitimate.

Cooperate, collaborate, or resist. Your choice.

[leftstreet]

285. OMG Do you seriously believe TSA workers just search your bod?

Do you have any idea how many 'jobs' are involved here?

Administration, Human Resources, Inspection, Security, EEOS techs, Finance, Programmers, OSHA techs...

OMG

Tell me you're kidding me with this "FREEDOMS!!!11" crap

:wow:

[Xithras]

286. And....?

You're saying that we should support the TSA as a government jobs program? You've GOT to be kidding.

And no, I'm not kidding. Let them find work elsewhere. The TSA needs to be defunded and shut down.

Freedom isn't a joke.

The United States survived more than 90 years of commercial aviation without needing to have law enforcement officers fingerbang four year olds and irradiate grandmothers to get a look at their vajayjays. The one incident that DID prompt it's creation happened because OTHER law enforcement agencies utterly failed to do their jobs. Hell, in the past 10 years, the TSA has proven itself incapable of locating and removing the kinds of weapons used on 9/11.

The agency harasses Americans, provides NO security, violates our privacy and our fundamental rights to be secure in our persons against warrantless searches, and is basically an affont to everything that liberal America is supposed to stand for. "Papers please?" FUCK THAT. There is NO valid argument for keeping the TSA around. NONE.

[SDuderstadt]

287. Let's see you design an...

airport security system, dude.

No one is saying the TSA is above criticism, but to claim they provide NO security is silly. Serious question: do you even fly and experience any of this "abuse"?

[Xithras]

292. Hmm...let's see.....

I think I'd design one that looked rather like the system we had on September 10 2001. 9/11 wasn't an airport security failure, it was a failure by our existing intelligence and law enforcement agencies to respond to clear signals and repeated warnings by our allies that an attack was imminent.

But, you may be right and I might have mis-stated things a bit. It's untrue that the TSA provides no security. It's absolutely true that it provides NO MORE security than already existed in airport terminals pre-9/11.

And while I don't fly nearly as often as I used to, I do still fly on occasion. I used to fly from Sac to LA, Phoenix, and Portland on a regular basis (family and business in all three), and now I drive. I'd rather spend 12 hours in a car and keep my dignity intact. On the flights I've taken, I've been lucky so far in that I haven't been pulled out for a secondary or sent through a pornoscanner. If that does eventually happen, I plan on walking out. I will NOT consent. If they try to arrest me, I plan on making the biggest, ugliest scene ever.

Look at my past posts. I've always been an advocate of civil disobedience, going right back to the days when I chained myself to a bunch of other protesters across some logging roads in Northern California to save the redwoods. If I can stare down a chainsaw carrying logger screaming in my face that I'm "stealing food out of the mouths of his kids", I can certainly stand up to some under-trained TSA agent.

[leftstreet]

297. Thanks for thinking it through

Increased 'security' since 9/11 and the Patriot Pork Act has mushroomed throughout the entire law enforcement system.

And you're right, wtf was the point of over 16 known intelligence agencies?
Fire all THEIR asses if they couldn't do their jobs!

[rucky]

279. Happy "Let'sTreat Low-Level Public Workers Like Crap" Week, everybody!

:hi:

[ncteechur]

283. If you recommended this because you like this policy, you should be ashamed of yourself.

You can not like a particular TSA worker because they suck at their job but to vilify the entire group when they are trying to do a job like anyone else then how is that different that what Scott Walker is doing?

[former9thward]

294. It is funny that posters are getting worked up over a story that is a hoax.

If you follow the link's update you find the story was a hoax but the author still defends writing it because "it represents people's feelings towards the TSA" What BS. http://www.elliott.org/blog/wheres-the-cafe-that-refuses-to-serve-the-tsa/

[Gormy Cuss]

296. Most of the discussion isn't about this story, it's about the right to refuse service.

IOW, the bogus story isn't really at the heart of the discussion.