Slashdot Mirror
Overzealous AirTran Boots 9 Passengers Off
An anonymous readerwrites "On Friday the wonderfully customer centric AirTran decided to remove a family of 9 US born Muslims after a comment between two family members regarding how close to the Jet engine they had been seated. The wonderful part is that after the FBI cleared the family 2 hours later, AirTran refused to fly the family, and refused to rebook them on their way from Washington to Orlando, Florida. The family purchased additional tickets on US Airways later that day, after AirTran requested that the irate father be escorted from their booking podiums by security. This whole story highlights the pathetic customer service we are getting from the Airlines these days — they actually treat us like criminals first and ask questions later. Just don't get me started on Delta." It's nice to see that stupidity still knows no bounds.
Apparently, they have now received a refund:
Linky
AT&ROFLMAO
I'm glad the summary specifies that they were born in the US. Because otherwise it would be okay to treat them like dirt, right?
The only reason not wanting to fly next to the engine is a "security issue" is BECAUSE they were Muslim. If anyone else brought it up, the attendant would have sold them earplugs for $5.
That should be AirTran, not AirTrans.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It just shows how much of what we go through is security theater. If they were really secure harmless comments about the engines or even bombs wouldn't matter as you couldn't get one on anyway. It's like signs at malls saying "no guns". Like some nutjob is going to see that and decide not to go kill a bunch of people. Real terrorists aren't going to make jokes.
Laissez-faire types will hate me for suggesting this, but this is exactly the sort of thing that should lead to anti-discrimination lawsuits. We make a big deal out of prohibiting racial discrimination in employment and housing, so why not in transportation? It's because Muslims are all terrorists... innit?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
..that the "real terrorists" didn't succeed in their plots to "terrorize" Americans.
I bet the xenophobic idiot who reported their 'suspicious comments' is pleased with themselves, having delayed their flight by 2 hours.
Be careful what you say at airports and on planes. Never get irate or argue at airports and on planes. My mother who is white, has made both mistakes and ran in to similar reactions from airline and airport employees.
Actually, you misread. The article at CNN explicitly stated: "The conversation did not contain the words "bomb," "explosion," "terror" or other words that might have aroused suspicion, Atif Irfan said."
See linky: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/02/family.grounded/index.html
Not to mention that merely saying the word bomb and attack is not cause for concern. Are we really less capable than the various chat bots for understanding context?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I just dread the day terrorists start pulling bombings of buses or trains or truck weigh stations or busy freeways or malls or what-have-you in the US. Because that day, all the stupidity we see in airports and airplanes will be copied into those venues too.
Unless, of course, we as a people finally pull our heads out instead.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
How so? Most registered gun carriers I know completely ignore those signs that say 'no guns'. These are law-abiding citizens.
My blog
The article does not say that the airline paid for the other flight. It says that the airline offered to pay for the other flight. I'm guessing that the offer requires the family to release the airline of all liability.
Also, other reports stated that the airline was refusing to pay the family's extra cost of taking the other flight, which implies that the offer only came after this became a national news issue. In other words, the offer of a refund only came about because people did not get over it.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I'm reasonably sure in Europe you could be sued if you refused to carry someone based on their religion or racial background - I have a feeling this is true in the US also ? If so, I hope they take this stupid airline to the cleaners. Even setting the obvious discrimination aside, there was no excuse for denying them travel given that the FBI had cleared them.
Is there any indication if the decision to not let them back on the plane after the FBI okayed them was made by a low or high level employee?
If some clerk/pilot made the call, then there's no indication it's "systemic" with the airline, and they can be fired and we can see if the problem goes away. However, if a higher-up in AirTran made the decision, there may be a real reason for backlash from the Muslim community (or anyone that disapproves of racism).
I was born in the 80s so I don't know what the days were like in this country when "blacks" had to sit at the back of the bus, but man this whole anti-muslim thing, while not believed by a majority of Americans, is still prevalent enough for me to not want to be a Muslim living in this country. And a race of people not wanting to live in this country due to prejudice is the opposite of the American Way, and is the opposite path to us maintaining our world strength.
So let me get this straight, you get on a plane and share your opinion that you'd rather not sit next to the engine, because it's not a safe spot in an accident, and you expect to be taken off of the flight, reported to the FBI, and embarrassed by being refused to be allowed back on or to take another flight later on despite the fact that you've been screened a second time and cleared by the FBI.
That, according to you, is a level headed response? An appropriate response?
Are you one of those folk who complain that rape victims had it coming, they should have known not to do whatever it was that caused them to catch the rapist's eye?
The passengers were at fault for being racists and reporting a non-issue. The airline was not at fault for handing the matter over to the FBI when the issue was reported. The FBI did the right thing by clearing the family. However, the airline WAS at fault for refusing to let the family fly on any future flight even after they had been cleared by the FBI. There's no legitimate (non-discriminatory) reason to do that given the circumstances.
These people likely had their whole vacation planned, and this incident screwed up their plans. One article said they were going to a religious conference, and it's unlikely that conference was delayed while they tried to make other travel arrangements. On top of all of that, they were made to feel like second-class citizens simply because they were brown and Muslim.
They have good cause for a lawsuit against the airline, and I think they should file one. I'm not talking millions of dollars here, but the airline needs to get slapped in court to make them think twice next time a situation like this crops up.
The fact that incidents like this keep happening show that bin Laden and his cohorts succeeded beyond their wildest dreams on 9/11.
Not always. In many cities, it is illegal to carry firearms into certain places by city ordinance even if you would otherwise be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Typically these are places such as hospitals, schools and bars.
On a more on-topic note, I think AirTran deserves a hefty lawsuit. This was very clear cut racism. There was no indication any one of the 9 persons were a threat to anyone. Just a refund doesn't seem to fully compensate them for the harm done.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Minnesota Public Radio's "The Story" show with Dick Gordon did a piece on Mohamed Fikry, an almost 5 million mile customer with American Airlines... and they pulled the SAME CRAP. Twice! Once because a customer heard him speaking "a foreign language on the phone" (it was Spanish) and once because a flight attendant thought she'd seen him "backstage". 5 Million Miles! with the same airline... And to top it off, they had the FBI pull him from the plane AFTER they flew to the destination! If he were such a threat, why let him fly at ALL... Gotta love airline customer service. Link to the story http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_669_Business_Class_Terrorist.mp3/view
All being born in America means to me is that it was more likely this family escalated this incident, rather than remaining calm and going through the indignities we all have to face sooner or later with air travel. I love the US and defend it from the usual haters here, but let's face it; "But I'm an American, you can't do this" is a cliche. Part of it is the freedom we enjoy (yes, relatively, we do, despite the constant barrage of YRO scare stories here). Another part is arrogance and ignorance caused by a lack of travel by the average American. And I do see a change in America in the last decade from "question authority" to "challenge it at every turn." Americans increasingly do not like authority, and I include myself in this.
One thing working for the legal office of a major city defending police lawsuits taught me is that there are often two sides: That which the media reports, invariably the plaintiff attorney's version (a role I have played as well), versus the rest of the facts that come out once the dust has settled. Often, the potential defendant does not comment to the media for liability reasons, letting the plaintiff side dominate the news cycle.
If the airline in fact acted as the article portrays, F them. But let's hear all the facts before we call this a vast racially-based evil act by the airline. My experience tells me that sometimes that can take years and a civil trial that ends with a defense verdict before all the facts come to light. And I say this as someone who has sat in a conference room with people literally screaming to tell their side to the media, only to be muzzled by counsel in anticipation of litigation.
Now once again mod me troll for a well-reasoned, informative post that dares dissent from the racist airline meme du jour.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
If the law-abiding citizens enter somebody else's property with a gun against the owners wishes, I don't want to know what the criminals do.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
These are law-abiding citizens.
Except that they enter private property in direct violation of the posted conditions for entry. IANAL, but I think that makes 'em trespassers.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Our intervention in the middle east over the past 200 years has bread suicide bombers who want us the fuck out of their lives. Not the religion.
Got a reference, bub?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_violence
There are many terrorist organizations which are not religious.
In fact, one could argue that a majority of the religious terrorism in the middle east is actually nationalist terrorism disguised as religious extremism. If you look at the causes which drive people to the al-qaida bootcamps: oppression (by US forces or otherwise - AQ was not active in Iraq before we had a military presence there), lower standards of living, and so forth. People turn to religion when times get tough. Other people use that to twist the religion. They convince people at the end of their rope that the only thing that will make things better for them, their family, and their country is to go blow up the people fucking them over.
The fact that you ignorant asshats refuse to wake up from your delusional world of hate and bigotry, and perhaps read why people hate the US instead of believing the line "because we're not muslim" is why we've had muslim terrorist attacks on this country and its consulates. Look up the term blowback.
Who decided to 'pull the plane over' and kick them of? The pilot.
Who pays the pilot? The airline.
Who decided, once they were cleared by the FBI, that they couldn't get back on that plane? The airline.
Who decided, once they couldn't get on that flight, that they couldn't get on any AirTran flight? The airline.
Do I give a fuck about the other passengers or what they may or may not have started? No. The world is full of clueless twits. The difference between them and the airline's clueless twits is that they weren't the ones exerting their authority in the matter to make things worse.
First off, this WAS DISCRIMINATION and RACISM!...PERIOD
Second off, NOTHING that the airlines are doing accounts to a RATS ASS at improving ANY air security. NOT THE TSA, NOT THE FBI, NOT THE AIR MARSHALLS...NOTHING!
What HAS helped are two things: First the cabin doors are hardened and second, the pilots have to IMMEDIATELY put the plane on the ground in case of ANY hijacking or other problem!
If these two policies wewre in place on 9/11/2001, both planes from Boston would have landed in Providence or Hartford and NOTHING would have happened to the Trade Center towers! NOTHING would have happened to the Pentagon and the plane that crashed in PA would have landed in Pittsburgh safely.
The whole thing of 'airline security' is a money wasting bullshit facade-and the people involved take themselves WAY TOO SERIOUSLY!!
Don't fly next to an engineer. I constantly talk through failure modes. How much weight the joints have to handle.
And how C students usually get a job somewhere.
1) A white family of nine people get on a plane.
Well, I tossed an exception right there. White family of nine . . . that's actually really funny!
Wait,
PolygamousRanchKid doesn't know about Mormons?
It would have been worse if you were booked in the passenger cabin. Luggage usually makes it it's correct destination.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Unfortunately most of the security policies in place have been based on the knee-jerk reactions of the likes of TSA and FAA - remember the 2006 carry on liquids ban??? Until cooler heads prevail at these agencies (like that'll happen) we will all have to suffer the indignities they put on to us.
Seriously, what's with that comment? Democracy seems to me a bad hypocritical joke. Do we really need to pick on each race/ethnic/religious group at a time and "free" them after years and years of degrading them and destroying their rights (if they had them in the first place)? Why do people hate others so easily? Is it the media, the propaganda, what? Just get over it, there are a lot people out there which are different than you but guess what, they mean you no harm. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Disclaimer: I'm not perfect by any standards and I'm not prejudice proof (I'm pretty sure I have some really 'good' ones) but outright hate against a minority, a nation, a race, or a religion is disturbing and infuriating.
ics
A little OT, but I can't let this one go.
Medical insurance is so expensive because an entire industry of middle men has inserted itself into the health care process. These people provide no service, but siphon off billions of dollars that could otherwise pay for care. Where I live, the head of a medical insurance company has consistently been the highest paid person in the state.
Insurance companies are the Ticketmaster of our health care system. Enjoy those convenience fees.
Oh no, this type of argument again! "If only everyone there were armed, tsk tsk!" Because there are no unarmed psycho killers.
Would you rather hang out in a crowd of armed citizens who can't even punch holes in ballots correctly? What makes you think they can punch holes in anything else?
Your argument is simply not compelling; nobody is seriously going to worry about about being shot by a mentally-challenged psycho killer who is emboldened by the absence of a "NO GUNS" sign. You're probably more likely to get killed by a meteorite than a psycho killer standing near that sign. It might behoove you to keep the sign there; if a rock comes hurtling in from outer space you can rip the sign off the wall and hold it over your head for a little shielding.
You're absolutely right, and next time the 1.2 billion strong Muslim community gets together for its annual meeting where they discuss how to prevent any of them from acting in a way to reflects badly on the rest, it should totally be on the agenda.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
This is a US born family.
US Born Muslims have been terrorists less frequently than Michigan rednecks. They're a middle class immigrant group very similar to Indians and Koreans. The only thing they're fanatical about is sending Ali Jr. to an Ivy and getting a Benz.
And this is also, coincidentally, the solution to terrorism. If we lifted the sanctions on Palestine and ended the prison-like occupation of the state, it would take 15 years tops for them to start caring more about cars and TVs than God and Jews. Has anyone heard from the IRA since the Irish GDP shot up?
Terrorism is for bored poor third worlders. Fix the third world and we fix terrorism.
Or we could just keep killing people and maybe they'll get less desperate and angry.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
There's a flip side to this: it goes both ways. As the material aspirations in the US start to dry up, now that this insane credit and housing bubble has popped and the manufacturing base is overseas, people will starting "clinging to God and guns" more in the US, whatever their religion is.
Except most of the people in this group (all but one) are native U.S. citizens. So you only have a point if the U.S. is a "cesspool of racism, hatred and violence."
Oh, wait.
An idiot with a car is vastly more dangerous than an idiot with a gun. The death statistics there aren't even arguable. If you don't consider people who brought a gun to the mall with the intention of shooting people (who presumably don't care about signs), then, for the remainder, to worry about whether some idiot is carrying is, frankly, stupid. The danger you placed yourself in by driving to the same place at about the same time as some idiot is *so* much larger than the danger involved with a gun that the gun danger is a round-off error.
Just because people ignore car deathes and react with great emotion to gun deaths doesn't make guns more dangerous than cars, or even worth considering as dangerous when there are also cars.
On topic: the same argument goes for our *stupid* obession with security theater at airports. Until the danger of terrorism is larger than the danger in drviing to the airport, why ar we wasting our time with this nonsense? It's emotion stomping all over reason, and nothing else.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Actually most terrorists, in practice, are can-do middle class people like engineers and doctors. It may be FOR 3rd worlders though, but it's mostly the middle class that actually does it. As I understand it, the Irish problem largely went away with 9/11. Suddenly a lot of "well meaning" (?) Irish Americans sympathetic to terrorism discovered that ... um ... terrorism is bad, and funding ceased.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Blowing up a crowded security checkpoint at an airport would have a nice irony to it, in addition to the overreaction as all other airports shut down causing massive travel problems.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Airtran used to be ValuJet... anybody remember them?
"The fact that you ignorant asshats refuse to wake up from your delusional world of hate and bigotry, and perhaps read why people hate the US instead of believing the line "because we're not muslim" is why we've had muslim terrorist attacks on this country and its consulates. Look up the term blowback."
So American consulates were attacked by muslim extremists because of blowback. Why were Danish consulates attacked by muslim extremists? Blowback as well? Making political caricature cartoons is an act of war now?
Why was Theo van Gogh killed by a muslim extremist?
Since you might be Canadian(inferring from GYBE! mention), maybe you'll appreciate this one. Why was Tarek Fateh attacked by muslim extremists? Being an apostate from Islam in an act of war now?
My opinion is that there are plenty of muslim extremists who do use violence on people pretty much just "because [they're] not muslim."
If you read Sayyid Qutb's Milestones, which at least Wikipedia, citing something, calls a "major influence" on Islamic terrorism, there is this message that violence should be used to destroy non-muslim institutions which output vulgarities like pornography, blasphemy, and other haram things.
From Milestones:
"But any place where the Islamic Shari'ah is not enforced and where Islam is not dominant becomes the home of Hostility (Dar-ul-Harb) for both the Muslim and the Dhimmi. A Muslim will remain prepared to fight against it, whether it be his birthplace or a place where his relatives reside or where his property or any other material interests are located.
And thus Muhammad - peace be on him - fought against the city of Mecca, although it was his birthplace, and his relatives lived there, and he and his Companions had houses and property there which they had left when they migrated; yet the soil of Mecca did not become Dar-ul-Islam for him and his followers until it surrendered to Islam and the Shari'ah became operative in it."
I would say that such an interpretation of Islam is basically the same for Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups: Use any means necessary to establish the rule of God.
As reported by the Associated Press (via yahoo.com) (via fark.com)
What is exactly this "terror" thing? Suppose an extended family of nine Norwegians board a plane and make comments about the relative safety of each seat. Will anybody have a feeling of terror upon hearing those comments? No.
People born in Norway don't fit the model people associate with terrorists. Norwegians are Lutherans and Martin Luther never told his followers to kill people who don't follow Martin Luther's teachings. No one who was born in Norway and raised the Norwegian way believes he will have seventy virgins to serve him in Paradise if he blows himself up killing infidels.
Sure, the *vast majority* of Muslims don't believe that bullshit either. It's a highly debatable matter if the teachings of Mohammed can be interpreted that way. But you don't see Muslims protesting against suicide terrorists. And that's the big problem with Islam.
Islamists are at a delicate point. I knows some people who are so-called "moderate" Islamists, they are much like "moderate" Christians, they interpret the teachings of their religion in a rational way. I'd rather be a friend of a moderate Islamist than a fundamentalist Christian.
The big problem with Islam, IMHO, is that the moderate Islamists are so reluctant to make a stand against the fundamentalists. You won't find any Christian who's afraid to criticize David Koresh or Jim Jones, but how many Islamists are ready to make a critical comment about Mohammed Atta?
That's the big problem with Islam, there's a small but significant minority that accepts the more radical interpretation of their religion. And that's something that causes terror in people....
Kaffiyeh. They're fairly fashionable at the moment round where I am (Manchester UK).
And I wore a shemagh (same thing) I got from an SAS guy for two years in Afghanistan as a soldier in the US Army. I also sported a full beard and mustache* while there. You can bet your ass I shaved, got a haircut, and put that head-rag in my bag before flying home on commercial airliners. Everyone has the right to practice whatever damn fool religion they want, but the rest of the world should be under no obligation to ignore your chosen flavor of irrational belief in a magic sky man. It ain't Buddhists or Methodists strapping dynamite to their waists and blowing up people in crowded markets. If you want to avoid being seen as a threat, it might behoove you to not dress like one. Granted, it's idiotic to think a real terrorist would dress the part to get on an airplane (rather than showing up in a button-up shirt and slacks) but steadfastly sticking to your dang fool religious costume in the face of known public perception is asking for trouble.
Perhaps it's just my firm belief that organized religion is a dangerous habit that by all logic should be treated with the same disdain as any other self-indulgent delusion; that getting your lessons on morality and ethics from a 2000 year old book is as wise as getting your chemistry knowledge from writings of the same era; that the "bathwater" of religious dogma has long since drowned the "baby" of spiritual fulfillment. But whatever the reason, I think "tolerance" of religion is as silly a demand as tolerance of a belief that RED means GO and GREEN means STOP in traffic.
It'll be interesting to see how the mods go on this post. Most people here seem to agree that religion is bad when it says schoolbooks should contain christian fairy tales, but from the look of the mods so far here, it appears Islam is seen as some sort of underdog against the forces of ChimpyBUSHitler**.
* Locals don't take you seriously if you shave. Lack of facial hair symbolizes ignorance due to being young or female. Says a lot about their level of cultural sophistication, really. Most of those folks are the local equivalent of backwoods hillbillies.
** I won't pass on my full opinion of my former commander-in-chief, but I will say "not my favorite president"...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
You have such a damn easier time than I do at airports even being a born Canadian. I avoid US travel and airlines now, except when absolutely necessary. One time in Chicago I got thrown in a windowless room for "observation" for four hours because they believed I was on a no fly list. Needless to say I missed my flight, and the connection I was to make after that, and I lost 36 hours in the process. Naturally they acted like releasing me for having done no wrong was equal to doing me a huge favour, which left compensation as a distant dream. It's a shitty time to be young, male and Muslim. Even a liberal, clean-shaven one. My full sympathy is with this family, and if I were them, I'd take advantage of the good ol all-'merican tort system and slap those people with a lawsuit.
I firmly believe that the type of people who are recruited to fill the positions in American customs and transport security(both TSA and airline staff) are some of the lowest, least human scum available. None of the other countries I've ever traveled to have so consistently hired such uncouth assholes, and this experience is culled from many tens of thousands of kilometers of travel. As a matter of fact, some of those countries actually had people who were *courteous*, that really surprised me considering the duffers I was used to seeing at US border crossings in NY and Michigan state.
I agree with most of your post in a pragmatic sense, but it does raise some issues in an idealistic sense.
If you want to avoid being seen as a threat, it might behoove you to not dress like one.
This sounds an awful lot like "if a woman doesn't want to be raped, it might behoove her not to dress provocatively". On the surface there is some logic to it: if a potential rapist happens across a woman dressed in particularly attractive or revealing attire he may decide to attack her. So from a purely pragmatic point of view, it does make some sense. On the other hand, there's a good reason why "but she looked really, really hot" has never been considered a valid excuse for rape, and "blame the victim" mentalities in general are considered very poor form.
As you said yourself, it's idiotic to think a real terrorist would dress the part to get on an airplane. Yet for some reason it's okay to expect people to dress differently purely because lots of people have some idiotic notions about "what terrorists look like"?
Perhaps it's just my firm belief that organized religion is a dangerous habit that by all logic should be treated with the same disdain as any other self-indulgent delusion
It probably is. To find out, try a thought experiment: what if this discrimination wasn't occurring against people wearing clothing that implied a particular religious faith, but instead that they supported a particular sports team? Would you then say, "well supporting the Chicago Bulls is a dangerous habit and if you don't want to get kicked off planes you should keep your interest in basketball to yourself"? Or would you say "that's fucking ludicrous and I feel kind of embarrassed to be part of a society that tolerates such ridiculous and obviously ineffectual 'security' measures"?
Also, I think your comment about the mods here being pro-Islam and anti-Christian is a strawman. People aren't being persecuted and treated like terrorists because they wear a cross necklace or are dressed like a nun. Islamists aren't trying to get their religion's creation myth taught alongside evolution in schools. Apples and oranges.
As I understand it, the Irish problem largely went away with 9/11. Suddenly a lot of "well meaning" (?) Irish Americans sympathetic to terrorism discovered that ... um ... terrorism is bad, and funding ceased.
I'm assuming that the specific Irish problem you refer to is the IRA (and others) campaign to reunite Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland. We do have other issues ...
9/11 had nothing to do with the IRA's cessation of hostilities: they realised a long time ago that violence wasn't going to achieve their objectives and decided to take the democratic route. I am in no way a fan of the IRA or Sinn Fein (their political wing), but I give them credit for realising that democracy and negotiation was the way to go.
UK border installations (watch towers, armoured checkpoints on roads) were being dismantled in the early 1990s. I remember crossing the border in 1987 or thereabouts and seeing bunkers and machine gun posts. 5 years later, no installations at all.
I think your a little off on this. Getting kicked off a plane or refused service isn't really comparable to actually violating a woman's body. They weren't strip searched with their body cavities checked. It's more akin to if you don't want to get mugged, then don't flash your money, don't wear two hundred dollar shoes and don't load up with jewelry, Ipods, cell phones and such when going into certain places. You know, don't leave the $1500 camera on the dash of the car when parking on the side streets in downtown big city USA. It's true that it's the behavior of others that you are trying to control but it just isn't on the same level as rape.
I'm not the original poster but I think it is appropriate that if you expect people to treat you with respect, you can't dress like a hoodlum gansta when applying for a job or you can't dress in a $2000 three peace business suit while working at the unemployment office. People for whatever reasons, have impressions of others and what they should be like. You won't see someone dressed and talking like a pimp from a movie being elected as president of the US. If you dress in a way that instills fear into people, expect people to be scared in your presence. It really doesn't matter what rights you have or think you have, you know your dress and actions will cause issues when around strangers. You have to be willing to accept it or dress differently.
If fans of the Chicogo Bulls where know to blow themselves up or hijack air planes and crash them into buildings, I would say yes, it would be the same. There has been more then one incident where a Bulls fan or some other sports fan has been beaten or assaulted because they were wearing a shirt of the opposing team in an area of other fans. It used to be common to hear on the news about bar room brawls breaking out during the Ohio State- Michigan games where someone would wear a Michigan jersy into a bar in Ohio or vice versa and some of the locals didn't like it.
So yea, given different situations and scenarios, I think it is perfectly valid to expect people not to wear certain items at certain times. It doesn't matter if it is religious in nature or a sport logo or whatever.