Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Northwest refuses gay couple's award tickets
PlanetOut Network ^ | Sat Feb 11, 8:01 PM ET | Staff

Posted on 02/12/2006 5:39:39 PM PST by Paleo Conservative

SUMMARY: Northwest Airlines took heat from the ACLU on Thursday for refusing to honor award tickets that a gay couple in Los Angeles tried to use for a trip to Florida.

Northwest Airlines took heat from the ACLU on Thursday for refusing to honor award tickets that a gay couple in Los Angeles tried to use for a trip to Florida.

In a letter to Northwest, the legal advocacy group said the airline's action violated California's nondiscrimination laws.

Rob Anders, a longtime airline industry employee, won the tickets at a holiday party in December. When he tried to redeem the tickets for a trip with his registered domestic partner, the airline refused, saying it would only recognize a spouse, another airline employee or a dependent child as a suitable "companion" for the award ticket.

"What happened to Mr. Anders and his partner violates California law and is clearly discriminatory," said Christine P. Sun, ACLU of Southern California staff attorney. "We are asking that the company not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status and honor Mr. Anders' ticket for him and a companion."

The ACLU cited the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which mandates "full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever" without regard to sexual orientation or marital status.

Anders, 60, said he had been planning to use the tickets to see his 89-year-old mother in Florida until Northwest's refusal.

"I felt terrible," he said. "I thought what they were doing was unfair." If you'd like to know more, you can find stories related to Northwest refuses gay couple's award tickets.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; US: California; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: ab1400; aclu; airlines; deviants; discrimination; domesticpartner; homosexualagenda; northwestairlines; nwa; perverts; rectumrigths; registeredpartner; rumprangers; sickpeople; sodomites; sphinctersex; turdburglars; unruhcivilrightsact
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: RadioAstronomer

I agree. I wouldn't be eligible either--no dependents,no spouse,not an airline employee.


21 posted on 02/12/2006 6:40:41 PM PST by Mears (The Killer Queen-caviar and cigarettes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Act) provides that all persons, regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations,

I wonder if somebody could argue that it's a disability? That would almost be acceptable - an example of using the left's "dialectic" against it. ;-)

22 posted on 02/12/2006 7:29:28 PM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
What happened to Mr. Anders and his partner violates California law and is clearly discriminatory,

It wasn't before the Wilsonegger gang took office and signed the legislation that empowers the ACLU.

23 posted on 02/12/2006 8:55:54 PM PST by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
, Assembly Bill 1400

AB205, also signed by Schwarzenegger, is the guiding principle in this case.

24 posted on 02/12/2006 9:02:36 PM PST by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag

Doesn't AB1400 just build their case nicely, though? Since it was cited in the article, I assumed it was the center of their argument.

I believe AB205 became effective under AS, but was signed right before he took office:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_0201-0250/ab_205_bill_20030922_chaptered.html


25 posted on 02/12/2006 9:43:18 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag; glorgau; calcowgirl
What happened to Mr. Anders and his partner violates California law and is clearly discriminatory,
It wasn't before the Wilsonegger gang took office and signed the legislation that empowers the ACLU.

But according to the initiative passed by the voters of California, isn't marriage defined as only being between one man and one woman? Since under California law these two aren't allowed to marry, how is it discrimination to disallow them from using a ticket that is only avaiable to spouses, dependent children, or other airline employees? A non-married heterosexual couple would also be denied that ticket.

26 posted on 02/12/2006 10:14:10 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

This makes me dizzy, I think I am being spun.


27 posted on 02/12/2006 10:24:37 PM PST by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
you're right about the date of the legislation it was davis the matter revolves around the rigths of a legal couple not two deviant individuals
28 posted on 02/12/2006 10:28:44 PM PST by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Theresawithanh
"Northwest refuses gay couple's award tickets"

"I think there is more to this story than is being told."

There always is. Most of these "discrimination" cases are contrived and do not just come about. Meaning, the leftist group conspires with the ACLU in a way such that almost guarantees a situation that will require a lawsuit.

Unless you want to hear the details, suffice it to say that the Lawrence case that the SCOTUS decided in favor of the constitutionality to engage in homosexual relations was totally contrived by the pair of men caught in the, ahem, "act."

29 posted on 02/12/2006 10:43:56 PM PST by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; Carry_Okie

Prop 22 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman was statute and amended the family code; it wasn't a constitutional amendment (BIG mistake!)

I'd have to track back through the various bills to remember the ins and outs. But basically, between AB 205 and AB 1400, it pretty much hands all of the rights of married people to those registering as domestic partners. I believe AB 1400 equates "spouse" to "domestic partner" so that anything short of pure "equality" is discrimination. Don't quote me on that as the specifics are fuzzy. My general conclusion after seeing all of the Pro-GLBT legislation signed this year, combined with AB 205, was that the homosexual lobby was successful in achieving Homosexual Marriage in all but name.


30 posted on 02/12/2006 11:13:10 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Sorry, but tickets are tickets...

My husband and I once worked as doctors at the same institution...so we could not take vacations together (or we would leave the place short staffed, since we only had 6 docs working)...so I usually went with a girlfriend...

If he was given a reward, the friend he takes with him should not matter...


31 posted on 02/12/2006 11:13:18 PM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Prop 22 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman was statute and amended the family code; it wasn't a constitutional amendment (BIG mistake!)

Especially considering the judiciary in California. In Texas the newly ratified amendment prohibits any local government from recognizing any non-marriage relationship as a marriage. This means Austin won't be allowed to give benefits to "domestic partners" of city employees or issue marriage certificates to any couple that does not meet the criterion of one man and one woman.

32 posted on 02/13/2006 12:23:39 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Kudos to Northwest for resisting the Marketing of Evil (David Kupellian's book title)


33 posted on 02/13/2006 4:21:58 AM PST by RoadTest ("- - a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people." - Richard Henry Lee, 1786)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; AFA-Michigan; AggieCPA; Agitate; AliVeritas; AllTheRage; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!

FReepmail if you want on/off the ping list.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search

34 posted on 02/13/2006 9:13:26 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K ("Ye shall know them by their fruits" ;-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Dumb move.

And FReepers rejoice that gay people are refused service on an airline.


35 posted on 02/13/2006 9:21:15 AM PST by Lunatic Fringe (North Texas Solutions http://ntxsolutions.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I think the airline prints those terms very very clearly.

Besides are not airlines regulated by FEDERAL LAW?

In 1996 Clinton signed the DOMA. These homosexuals fetishists were traveling between states and thus interstate commerce was involved.

What was the airline going to do, transport them to the CF bordern and pitch them out?

FL has no such recreational sex recognition. FL thanks NWA.


36 posted on 02/13/2006 9:27:39 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc

These were not "tickets as tickets" this were some form of promotion.

I have used frequent flyer miles to have tickets directly issued in the other person's name.

There is more to this story.

It is also important to remember that most all these airlines have been seriously curtailing freebie friends and families. At some point, as long as you just were friendly with an airline employee they could do something for you. (free upgrade if not a freebie)

Sorry but these homosexuals need to realize that one man playing iwth another man's penis does not make them special, it just makes them deviant.


37 posted on 02/13/2006 10:00:34 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: xrp

NWA? What is Dr Dre the pilot or something?


38 posted on 02/13/2006 10:02:44 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Haha. Well, it certainly isn't Eazy-E.


39 posted on 02/13/2006 10:05:01 AM PST by xrp (Every time Chuck Norris sneezes, a third-world country is annihilated from the face of the Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc

So, who makes the chicken soup?


40 posted on 02/13/2006 10:10:47 AM PST by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson