Guess what.
I don't like it.
If the TSA is going to pursue an insane policy of not profiling, I am not going to fly to any place within 1200 miles.
When every other airline in the country is out of business, I guess the TSA is going to have to start laying off airport screeners.
That has been the case for quite a while and is what airlines and any other business are allowed to do - create stipulations for doing business. But things might be different now that the feds have taken over security. Federal government agents are bound by constitutional provisions that businesses can sometimes ignore, since the constitution was written as a limitation on the government, and not among consenting adults (no, not that kind of business). I beleive there have been court decisions that support constitutional limitations on government employees, but I'm not sure how they apply to this type of situation. I'm sure that there will be a test case at some juncture.
As for the present case - a lot depends on what the author actually went through v. what he wrote. We as readers tend to fill in the blanks when there are missing pieces in a story or when the story doesn't match what we perceive, based on our own experience, to be realistic. I've seen a good deal of that here. I think we all ought (and I'm guilty as well) to qualify our posts with the "if..." statement (such as "if what he says it true...") just to show where we are coming from.