Posted on 01/11/2022 11:57:53 AM PST by GrandJediMasterYoda
Woman rips Delta for refusing to let her buy gender ‘X’ ticket for nonbinary child
An Arizona woman has accused Delta Air Lines of discrimination after she was unable to buy a gender “X” ticket for her nonbinary child due to the company’s booking tools.
Dawn Henry, 52, slammed Delta in a lengthy series of tweets last week, saying she wanted to buy her 21-year-old a surprise ticket for Christmas when she discovered the carrier only provides male or female options.
But her child identifies as neither exclusively male nor female — and has an “X” marker on their birth certificate and Washington state driver’s license.
Delta “is discriminating against #nonbinary individuals and not allowing them to fly despite legal ID issued by states that allow X on birth certificates and state-issued IDs,” Henry said in the first of 19 tweets Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
When is a 21 year old considered a child?
insane woman. should not be raising a child!!!
Alternate headline: Crazy b*tch rails at Delta for not supporting her delusions
I can’t wait until Delta pushes back and confirms they will not cave to this ridiculous idea.
*sigh* Yes, i know. They’ll be caving shortly.
The Madness is spreading.
No child deserves to be under the care of this woman(?).
Insanity.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the security scanners? The TSA is required to choose a sex when you walk in. If the generals don’t match what the choose, it creates an alarm and a private search.
In other words, she likely has a son, but wanted a daughter, so she raised her son as a fag.
“When is a 21 year old considered a child?”
Agreed
Yep. That kinda jumped right out at me.
I assume she is calling her offspring a “child” because she doesn’t want to use “son” or “daughter”.
I never remember buying an airline ticket by sex before?
It’s her 252 month baby.....
I’ve come to the conclusion that every “Karen” I read about is democrat.
If the plane ever crashed, besides going over dental records they also ID bodies through gender and they aren’t going to be scanning brains for imaginary “nonbinary” psychopaths.
Wouldn’t be surprised if Mom is actually a man. Or she’s a lesbian and the child is adopted. Or she’s a single beast of a woman with no man around.
“X” = you “self-identify” as a nut job.
My new doctor took the easy way out on one of those forms new patients fill out and had a blank line for “SEX:”. I wrote, “Occasionally”.
If you thought that you have heard it all, consider the following.
If you think that being dumber than a rock is impossible, this poor excuse for a human being just proved you wrong! Guess what party she is affiliated with, and you think there is still hope?
Subject: Fwd: : No, you can’t make this stuff up
If this broad can get elected anyone can… and she was elected in Texas.
You Can’t Just Make This Stuff Up
*Is it possible for someone to be* *dumber than AOC?*
[image: Image of Terry Meza]
In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196.
Her bill would repeal the state’s “Castle Doctrine.” This doctrine allows a
homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his
home.
Now listen to what she has to say...
“I’m not saying that stealing is okay,” Meza explained. “All I’m saying is
that it doesn’t warrant a death penalty. Thieves only carry weapons for
self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate.
They just want to get their loot and get away. When the resident tries to
resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will
be killed.”
Meza was quick to reassure that her bill would not totally prevent
homeowners from defending themselves.
Under her new law, “... the homeowner’s obligation is to flee the home at
the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible, he must cooperate
with the intruder. But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner’s
responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt. The best way to achieve this
is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be
able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner.
“In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does,”
Meza reasoned. “The homeowner’s insurance reimburse his losses. On balance,
the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution
of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much
the better.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.