Burlesque Dancer Says JetBlue Forced Her to Change Her Shorts Before Boarding Flight

[ElDoorO]

Because kids like wearing the clothes they like? That's clothes, not skin. Kids rail against any restriction to their right to individual expression.

I dunno, I think people have a tendency to fight simply to fight. It has less to do with their expression and more to do with them having something to do. You could not have convinced me, as a kid, that wearing business professional clothes makes you more appealing in most social circles and gives you an air of authority. Now? Holy fuck balls is it a night and day difference -- I've seen it first hand.

It wasn't *too* long ago you had to wear business professional to fly. A little further ago what was considered "lewd" would be "casual" now-a-days. So we have a weird set of social standards.

Personally, I don't really care what a person does. If she were to walk around in just enough clothing to keep her crotch and ass separated from the chair, I wouldn't care. She'll freeze her ass and quickly regret it.. and I'll get to see nipples and watch her face of regret the whole way there but I really don't care. If she were obese and nasty, I still wouldn't care. I have bigger things to worry about.

I might, at most, think "well that's tacky..." and a few seconds later forget about it while reading my book. However I recognize I'm a very unusual person and most people don't think like this so.....

[Deleted]

Evolving? Lewd has been around forever. It has always been a word, dating back to before colonization of America

On topic: They are shorts. That's no worse than a lot of athletic shorts that girls wear. These are just high-waisted cloth shorts by the looks of it. They are short on the bottom, but the cover what they need to cover.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=ethymology+lewd

the origins are older than the english language.

[Machismo]

I wanted to google it myself, but I couldn't even think of how we say 'dress code'... I had to google that first lol.

So apparently we do have a dress code around here and it is as following:
- take off your jacket
- shirts with insulting imagery aren't allowed
- if in primary school, take off your shoes and put on your slippers.

But now that I think about it, there was one general unspoken rule. Wearing a cap was considered rude.

The cap rule, as well as the insulting imagery rule are also the norm for pretty much every school in this country. As for jackets, I don't believe my sons' school has any rules about wearing them in class.

[shadowmouse]

Just because you want to force businesses to operate according to your beliefs, does not mean you should get to do so.

It is done all the time, and with good reason. The Commerce Clause specifically covers interstate commerce, airlines enjoy a controlled commodity giving them special privileges (and considerable protection from competition) because of the federal government. Those two factors take an airline out of the usual situation of a business, where state laws and state constitutions are usually more closely related.

She was harmed in that she had already paid for her ticket. She was in clothing that she had already flown in that day, and was faced with a cram down -- buy something, or accept a later flight that would have gotten her home at a time later than the service she had paid for. To this day, she has not been given cash back, she has been given a credit with the airline you say she can simply not fly with ... they took her money and delivered service other than that which she bargained for.

You really cannot have both.

Actually, I can. I wasn't wishing, I was commenting on the actual, current state of the law, see the first part of my current response.

See https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/326/501 and https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/391/308 for examples of how the current matter might be attacked. What distinguishes airlines from the later mall cases is that no one state constitution covers them as they pass through the airspace of several states, nor is there an adequate alternative like picketing on a public sidewalk. Constraints of time, possibly also licensing and physical issues, leave little choice but to fly on an airline. They are the streets of our modern era. As I noted, a passenger buys a ticket in good faith, with no disclosure that they've damned near bought a lottery ticket. To leave enforcement of something like clothing a random choice borders on fraud. As a side issue, had she been wearing certain cultural/religious garments, ones that might have scared or offended passengers, the airline clearly could not act in the same way (it has, however, been tried), as a personal expression why does her choice merit less protection?

[Reeve]

We were speaking about high schools (I believe you brought it up), so that means teenagers.

Once again, I don't give a damn what someone wears. If s girl wants to dress like that, she should be free to do so.

This is what you said about it: "I would say they are hotpants not shorts, but I do agree she shouldn't have been allowed on the flight dressed like that, especially if the were children on it."

That's not a statement that the airline should be able to enforce their dress code the way they want (a statement I'd agree with). That's a statement that her manner of dress was inappropriate for a flight with children.

However, when she's in a private business, they get to make the decisions. As for schools, that's the problem with seeking publicly-funded education. You ask the government to intervene on part of it, you give them permission to intervene on others. You live with what the school board wants, which is usually a group of older, more socially-conservative people. If it were up to me, education would be privatized. Then kids could go to schools with dress codes they approved of (or no dress code at all).

So after looking it up, my old high school does have the fingertips dress code rule. That said, it was never enforced while I was in school, and girls with skirts and shorts shorter than their fingertips were the norm at my school, not the exception. I did see one girl get chastised for wearing a spaghetti string top once, but it was so surprising to her and everyone that it was a big deal around the school. We didn't even know what a spaghetti string top was (it's... a shirt), let alone that they were against the rules. Like... were bare shoulders supposed to be titillating/distracting? Girls regularly wore bare midriffs, and I fairly often saw tube tops too.

[Dug]

And I have no problem if they want to wear something comfortable, or even something slutty. However, when using a private business, their freedoms cannot supersede the freedoms of the owner of the business.

That's fine but so far nobody has presented an established dress code for JetBlue other than "non obscene/lewd" or w/e. Meaning it's pretty much up to an individual employees take on what is or isn't appropriate. One day you have someone letting in every woman with their ass on full display in tights walking through and the next you got someone stopping this woman in some loose short shorts.

[Machismo]

It is done all the time, and with good reason. The Commerce Clause specifically covers interstate commerce, airlines enjoy a controlled commodity giving them special privileges (and considerable protection from competition) because of the federal government. Those two factors take an airline out of the usual situation of a business, where state laws and state constitutions are usually more closely related.

She was harmed in that she had already paid for her ticket. She was in clothing that she had already flown in that day, and was faced with a cram down -- buy something, or accept a later flight that would have gotten her home at a time later than the service she had paid for. To this day, she has not been given cash back, she has been given a credit with the airline you say she can simply not fly with ... they took her money and delivered service other than that which she bargained for.



Actually, I can. I wasn't wishing, I was commenting on the actual, current state of the law, see the first part of my current response.

See https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/326/501 and https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/391/308 for examples of how the current matter might be attacked. What distinguishes airlines from the later mall cases is that no one state constitution covers them as they pass through the airspace of several states, nor is there an adequate alternative like picketing on a public sidewalk. Constraints of time, possibly also licensing and physical issues, leave little choice but to fly on an airline. They are the streets of our modern era. As I noted, a passenger buys a ticket in good faith, with no disclosure that they've damned near bought a lottery ticket. To leave enforcement of something like clothing a random choice borders on fraud. As a side issue, had she been wearing certain cultural/religious garments, ones that might have scared or offended passengers, the airline clearly could not act in the same way (it has, however, been tried), as a personal expression why does her choice merit less protection?

So, you're an authoritarian, who wants to tell others how to run their lives. How does that make you any different than the stuffy social conservatives who wanted to ban gay marriage?

It's not done with good reason, it's done to force your particular beliefs onto others. And since you support it, you have no cause to complain when others choose to do it to you. When a person makes an agreement with an airline, they lay out the reasons they can opt to refuse service, including for attire. She can try to sue them, but won't likely end up winning a decision. In the end, they will spend a pittance of money to get this to go away, as it's the most efficient solution.

She doesn't deserve less protection, she deserves the same. I believe an airline should be able to refuse to serve someone for any reason they choose, because I actually support freedom. You should try it.

[Reeve]

I dunno, I think people have a tendency to fight simply to fight. It has less to do with their expression and more to do with them having something to do. You could not have convinced me, as a kid, that wearing business professional clothes makes you more appealing in most social circles and gives you an air of authority. Now? Holy fuck balls is it a night and day difference -- I've seen it first hand.

It wasn't *too* long ago you had to wear business professional to fly. A little further ago what was considered "lewd" would be "casual" now-a-days. So we have a weird set of social standards.

But ironically, it wasn't too long ago that the flight attendant uniforms showed more leg than the shorts of the girl in the OP.

And yeah, what clothes you wear can completely change the way people react to you in a social setting. Clothing, speech mannerisms, cultural touchstones, grooming, status symbols... these things all adjust your "status" among the people you meet immediately, which can quickly change you from being no one important in people's minds to the dominant person in the room, or vice versa.

Personally, I don't really care what a person does. If she were to walk around in just enough clothing to keep her crotch and ass separated from the chair, I wouldn't care. She'll freeze her ass and quickly regret it.. and I'll get to see nipples and watch her face of regret the whole way there but I really don't care. If she were obese and nasty, I still wouldn't care. I have bigger things to worry about.

I might, at most, think "well that's tacky..." and a few seconds later forget about it while reading my book. However I recognize I'm a very unusual person and most people don't think like this so.....

Yeah, that'd be my reaction too.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, most girls do it to show off their ass and get some attention or validation. It's the same argument for wearing high heels - you wear it to look better, not because it's the epitome of comfort.

If they wanted to show off ass, they'd have worn yoga pants or a miniskirt. They wore short shorts because they're comfortable, cooling, and still allow you to engage in sports and running around.

[Machismo]

That's fine but so far nobody has presented an established dress code for JetBlue other than "non obscene/lewd" or w/e. Meaning it's pretty much up to an individual employees take on what is or isn't appropriate. One day you have someone letting in every woman with their ass on full display in tights walking through and the next you got someone stopping this woman in some loose short shorts.

That is their dress code. Yes, it's subjective, but that doesn't really matter. If you don't like their inconsistency, then fly with a different airline, take a bus, a boat, or drive yourself. I don't care if a businesses has a highly-specific dress code, because I think a business should be able to refuse to serve anyone they do not wish to serve. Of course, if that person already gave them money, then if the business does not return the money, they may be stealing.

- - - Updated - - -

This is what you said about it: "I would say they are hotpants not shorts, but I do agree she shouldn't have been allowed on the flight dressed like that, especially if the were children on it."

That's not a statement that the airline should be able to enforce their dress code the way they want (a statement I'd agree with). That's a statement that her manner of dress was inappropriate for a flight with children.



So after looking it up, my old high school does have the fingertips dress code rule. That said, it was never enforced while I was in school, and girls with skirts and shorts shorter than their fingertips were the norm at my school, not the exception. I did see one girl get chastised for wearing a spaghetti string top once, but it was so surprising to her and everyone that it was a big deal around the school. Girls regularly wore bare midriffs, and I fairly often saw tube tops too.

When I was in high school, the big no-no was bare midriffs. The principal and vice principal were really focused on that. Once again, no matter how firm the rules are, it all boils down to the subjective nature of those enforcing the rules.

[Reeve]

The girl in the OP was showing her entire legs. Not sure you're being realistic now.

OK, showed "as much" leg as the shorts of the girl in the OP. Because the flight attendants of the 1960s showed their entire legs too.

And again, what's the issue with legs?

[Reeve]

Religious people have demonized sexuality to the point that it's more offensive to them than violence. So... stupidity?

With the irony being that if people display their legs regularly, it stops being overly sexual.

[zenkai]

One person who works for a company didn't like how someone was dressed and told them to fix it, companie later apologizes for that ONE person's belief.

Gee this never happens, lets debate it endlessly.

[Reeve]

One person who works for a company didn't like how someone was dressed and told them to fix it, companie later apologizes for that ONE person's belief.

Gee this never happens, lets debate it endlessly.

According to the article, it was actually the whole gate and flight crew coming to an agreement, not one person. And Jet Blue didn't apologize, but did pay for the replacement outfit she had to buy, as well as offering her a flight voucher for a future flight.

[zenkai]

According to the article, it was actually the whole gate and flight crew coming to an agreement, not one person. And Jet Blue didn't apologize, but did pay for the replacement outfit she had to buy, as well as offering her a flight voucher for a future flight.

Reading the story I read sounded like one person decision that was just enforced by others, but I can see it both ways. She should apologize for the hideous outfit she wore

This story headlined that they apologized but I couldn't find the apology in the statement, guess that's what I get for just reading the headline. http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2016/0...te-outfit.html

[Reeve]

Reading the story I read sounded like one person decision that was just enforced by others, but I can see it both ways. She should apologize for the hideous outfit she wore

This story headlined that they apologized but I couldn't find the apology in the statement, guess that's what I get for just reading the headline. http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2016/0...te-outfit.html

Yeah, I always have to wonder if the person who writes these headlines even reads the articles, let alone writes the articles.

[shadowmouse]

How does that make you any different than the stuffy social conservatives who wanted to ban gay marriage?

At this point in our discussion? Possibly because I have at least a vague awareness of how laws and businesses function, as well as some sense of what happens in the news. I do, however, start to see you as a kind of Ouija board that is allowing me to talk to Trump.

You want to tell people what they can wear to travel. I'm firmly on the side that one should probably wear clothes. If you want to drag gay marriage into it, I supported that on the idea that the government was extending marriage benefits in a selective way that could not be supported without reference to religion. Sexuality is a banned topic for a reason, if you wish to continue this particular side issue PM me. Should you choose to do so, explain (since you have brought the gay rights example into it) how you are not effectively supporting the stance that would allow a bakery to refuse service to gay customers -- because that is part and parcel of where you're going.

When a person makes an agreement with an airline, they lay out the reasons they can opt to refuse service, including for attire.

You are *still* dodging the facts.

She was already in transit. Fact. Yes or no, answer it directly or you admit that you have no clue.
She had flown that day, in those same clothes. Fact. Yes or no, answer it directly or you admit that you have no clue.
She was offered a chance to continue on in those same clothes, on that same airline. Fact. Yes or no, answer it directly or you admit that you have no clue.
She was not offered a refund or transfer to another airline at the time of the incident. Fact. Yes or no, answer it directly or you admit that you have no clue.

You are hiding behind an illusion to avoid a point you make later -- they didn't offer her real money back, and as you say that is theft. I say that since their standards are unknowable, they sold something that wasn't real and that amounts to fraud.

She can try to sue them, but won't likely end up winning a decision.

Wonderful! Please state your legal theory. Throw out a couple of cases. Do me the favor of rebutting the cases and theory that I've cited. I look forward to a scholarly rebuttal instead of channeling the Donald.

She doesn't deserve less protection, she deserves the same.

I'm addressing the actual state of the law, you are addressing your dream. She did not get the same protection.

According to the article, it was actually the whole gate and flight crew coming to an agreement, not one person

Although I agree with many of the points you've raised -- ah, how I miss the old uniforms -- in fairness, other articles (I linked one) do say that she was told by an attendant that it was a call by that particular pilot. She had flown that day, in that outfit. She was offered the opportunity to fly on another flight, with the same airline, with no stated requirement that she change -- simply a later flight that would presumably have a different pilot. JetBlue claims differently, of course.

[Machismo]

At this point in our discussion? Possibly because I have at least a vague awareness of how laws and businesses function, as well as some sense of what happens in the news. I do, however, start to see you as a kind of Ouija board that is allowing me to talk to Trump.

You want to tell people what they can wear to travel. I'm firmly on the side that one should probably wear clothes. If you want to drag gay marriage into it, I supported that on the idea that the government was extending marriage benefits in a selective way that could not be supported without reference to religion. Sexuality is a banned topic for a reason, if you wish to continue this particular side issue PM me. Should you choose to do so, explain (since you have brought the gay rights example into it) how you are not effectively supporting the stance that would allow a bakery to refuse service to gay customers -- because that is part and parcel of where you're going.



You are *still* dodging the facts.

She was already in transit. Fact. Yes or no, answer it directly or you admit that you have no clue.
She had flown that day, in those same clothes. Fact. Yes or no, answer it directly or you admit that you have not clue.
She was offered a chance to continue on in those same clothes, on that same airline. Fact. Yes or no, answer it directly or you admit that you have no clue.
She was not offered a refund or transfer to another airline at the time of the incident. Fact. Yes or no, answer it directly or you admit that you have no clue.

You are hiding behind an illusion to avoid a point you make later -- they didn't offer her real money back, and as you say that is theft. I say that since their standards are unknowable, they sold something that wasn't real and that amounts to fraud.



Wonderful! Please state your legal theory. Throw out a couple of cases. Do me the favor of rebutting the cases and theory that I've cited. I look forward to a scholarly rebuttal instead of channeling the Donald.




I'm addressing the actual state of the law, you are addressing your dream. She did not get the same protection.



Although I agree with many of the points you've raised -- ah, how I miss the old uniforms -- in fairness, other articles (I linked one) do say that she was told by an attendant that it was a call by that particular pilot. She had flown that day, in that outfit. She was offered the opportunity to fly on another flight, with the same airline, with no stated requirement that she change -- simply a later flight that would presumably have a different pilot. JetBlue claims differently, of course.

Trump is also an authoritarian, you two should get along just fine. I fully support the legalization of gay marriage, and I also fully support the freedom for a business to refuse to serve a gay person. On top of that, I fully support someone who does not wish to serve the KKK, Nazis, or the Werstboro Baptist Church. Logical consistency is a wonderful thing.

If you think she will win in court, feel free to represent her. The airline is going to win. Just as schools are allowed to have dress codes, so can private businesses.

What you are actually doing, is showing that there is a protected class (a premise I find to be discriminatory by its creation). In that case, the discrepancy in protection is brought on by the government, not by the airline. Take it up with the feds.

I never said the airline policy was not subjective, it most certainly is. I simply have no problem with it. I think they should be able to operate however the hell they like, since it's their business. Freedom is awesome, why do you hate it so much?

[Demsi]

rofl, my boxers cover more than her "shorts", personally i dont care, i wouldn't call it lewd tbh, but if it's a private company, then it's their rules i guess.

[shadowmouse]

Freedom is awesome, why do you hate it so much?

Because being a good bit older than you, I remember how we got here. I distinguish freedom from anarchy, and I frame my arguments within the law as it exists.

If you think she will win in court, feel free to represent her.

That line probably works better with someone who hasn't done similar things. Thanks, but I retired from practice heading for twenty years ago. <bungee checks Macho's reply> Ah, I see you admit you have not clue. Cheers!

In that case, the discrepancy in protection is brought on by the government, not by the airline. Take it up with the feds.

Well, Grasshopper, you see ... I don't have to. I'm addressing things as they are, you're addressing your dream. I have little doubt that she has already been contacted by a good number of firms. They'll spin it into a class action if they follow the usual pattern. Would I take the case? Were I still in practice, I'd view it as mana from heaven. Will that protected class get brought up in court? I'd pretty well bet on it, but it will be JetBlue trying to defend an unpopular position. Since settlement agreements usually contain a nondisclosure clause, I doubt we'll hear the rest of the story.

[Detritivores]

Yeah, I always have to wonder if the person who writes these headlines even reads the articles, let alone writes the articles.

The headline writers 100% don't write the articles. I give it a 50/50 shot that they read them first.

On topic, what the fuck kind of flight was this that the Pilot got to weigh in on what the passengers were wearing??? I've only met the pilot once in all my travels, and that was because I was fighting with the personnel at the gate about letting me on an "overweight" plane. Aside from the obvious stupidity and impending coldness of wearing shorts on a plane, who cares?