P, K, B.
"Second, if I walk through with a gun, I'm "non conforming" and I suspect you'd *want* me harrassed, just a bit."
Let's just TRY to keep this in the realm of possibility, okay?
Carrying a gun is a lot different.
Nope. Its not even different. There are rules set up. One of those is you can't take guns past there. Another is you're subject to search. I personally think the restriction on guns is absurd and a violation of rights, but that's another topic, entirely. I carry a gun, I'm in violation, and BY DEFINITION, I'm no longer conforming.
You're taking her word - unless you want to tell me you were there , that she was singled out for her political afflications. This doesn't seem to be backed by much fact. The testimony of other people who were there apparently showed she was objecting/resisting, thus causing problems, drawing attention to herself, AND breaking the agreed rules.
So, she didn't have a right to enter a contract with another airline?
For a legal service they were providing to other people?
Like I said, you lose your rights one by one.
And they had the right to refuse her. This again, isn't clear cut. Ask Denny's about what happens if people think you discriminate, and sure, despite posting "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
You keep saying it, but that's all you're doing.
The "loss" of rights already occured. I'm not sure what you're advocating - everybody can be searched except those who object?
As for your example of walking on the interstate, I see people walking on the interstate at times. Usually because they've had car problems. But that isn't the point.
Notice the sign on the entrance ramp on the interstate. Pedestrians, Horses, Mopeds (that's can't go interstate speed), etc - are PROHIBITED. Its a public road.
You might not LIKE the fact its exactly on point, but that's your problem. There exists precedent to deny rights, because of OTHER people's needs and safety.
Reality check. She was NOT doing this.
Check your reality check at the door.
First, you don't know. Neither do I. We've got one HIGHLY politicized account, and one less so, that disagree. The second sounds more reasonable, but we don't know. She *was* creating a disturbance in some fashion.
Now ANSWER the question - HOW do you deal with the "RIGHTS" of the OTHER PASSENGERS?
Because its crucial to the whole point underling a culture/civilization/non-anarchy.
They have the right to safe passage, and not fear for their lives, right? Yes or no, please. And if yes - as you should say (or else you've got no business arguing "rights" - how do you balance a possible problem, one where they are scared, with her rights to be outraged at being searched?
It requires a balance. Its not a black and white issue.
Ummm, how?
Disrupting security, for one.
But golly, its so HARD to think about these things, its so much EASIER to scream about "Loss of rights" and never postulate how you CAN'T HAVE A SOCIETY where EVERYBODY HAS EVERY "RIGHT" they want ANYTIME".
Must be those damn evil repos. Their fault!
Addison
