Comments on: Airline Tells Immodest Women to Cover Up http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/ Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:35:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Edwin Vogt http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/comment-page-1/#comment-77996 Edwin Vogt Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:20:33 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/#comment-77996 The way a woman wears her apparel depends on her own sense of proprietty. If she has no convictions in regard to modest display, then the question has no relevance to her. Her intent may be to seduce, attract, or merely draw attention to her personal idea of beauty. What we may see as disgusting or improper, she may have no such appraisal. This is the problem we are faced with in public life. Because we are a free people and not of the Islamic persuasion which places strict codes of behaviour on both men and women, we are forced to tolerate exhibitions which are both annoying and not respectable. What is in question here is one's dignity. If a woman has no scruples or has no thoughts as to right taste, then there is absolutely no solution to the problem.Except of course a complete change wrought by accepting the Person of Christ in her life (Romans 10:9,10). The way a woman wears her apparel depends on her own sense of proprietty. If she has no convictions in regard to modest display, then the question has no relevance to her. Her intent may be to seduce, attract, or merely draw attention to her personal idea of beauty. What we may see as disgusting or improper, she may have no such appraisal. This is the problem we are faced with in public life. Because we are a free people and not of the Islamic persuasion which places strict codes of behaviour on both men and women, we are forced to tolerate exhibitions which are both annoying and not respectable. What is in question here is one’s dignity. If a woman has no scruples or has no thoughts as to right taste, then there is absolutely no solution to the problem.Except of course a complete change wrought by accepting the Person of Christ in her life (Romans 10:9,10).

]]> By: You’re Violating My Rights at MInTheGap http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/comment-page-1/#comment-76634 You’re Violating My Rights at MInTheGap Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:00:52 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/#comment-76634 [...] thing with the topic from the other day about what the women wore on the airlines. It’s the airlines’ planes, not ours. They have the right to tell the guests which [...] [...] thing with the topic from the other day about what the women wore on the airlines. It’s the airlines’ planes, not ours. They have the right to tell the guests which [...]

]]> By: Arthur http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/comment-page-1/#comment-76571 Arthur Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:10:34 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/#comment-76571 MInTheGap Writes: That’s why they can mandate that you don’t go to the restroom within 30 minutes of descending, that you should leave your seatbelt fastened when taking off or descending, and that you have to have your seatbacks up and tray-tables stowed. Aren't these examles, not of 'comfort' rules, but of safety rules? MInTheGap Writes: Airlines and other businesses have the right to enforce family-friendly atmospheres. It’s up to them to decide if it’s part of their core beliefs, and how it effects them business-wise. And besides, if you don’t like their rules– take your business elsewhere. (Which is what I would do if they told me to stow my Bible– not cause a stink so I can get 15 minutes of fame looking silly. Welcome to the mystery of babylon. I agree MIn, that our focus as Christians should not be to press our rights... but on the same coin, it just seems like here we are talking about the culture of the world and 'how it ought to be' but we are forgetting that how it ought to be went out the window with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Now the world is under the control of it's own god, who is presently working to bring the entire globe under one government and religion. Sometimes I wonder if concerning ourselves with influencing society, trying to Christianize it or make it 'family friendly' isn't just playing into the hands of the enemy, neglecting the Gospel and therefore our main purpose on this earth. I ask, "So, modesty is still an external value?" because I wonder seriously if you've considered it at all through our previous exchanges regarding modesty and apparel. MIn, have you seriously considered whether modesty is an external, physical attribute, or whether it is a heart condition? Because the language you use in this article still puts the focus of 'modesty' on the particulars of women's garments. It is as though your whole appeal here is to convince people, not to be modest inwardly, but to support a business's right to insist upon a dress code or even a subjective standard of apparel. Well, I appeal to you sir, examine your heart and the Word and see if you are perhaps missing something very special, something... set apart... We are living in the last age, and the return of the King is close at hand. We ought to live as though he were coming this very day. If He were, would you be worried about the clothes people are wearing or would you be concerned with their souls? I don't come to this blog just to be a heckler or to draw people to my own (lonely) blog, I came with a genuine interest. The things you write about have made me think and question some of my assumptions. Nevertheless, this is my sincere challenge to you: consider your focus (meaning, of course, within the context of this blog) ... is it on the things of this world, or is it on the things of the Spirit? MInTheGap Writes:
That’s why they can mandate that you don’t go to the restroom within 30 minutes of descending, that you should leave your seatbelt fastened when taking off or descending, and that you have to have your seatbacks up and tray-tables stowed.

Aren’t these examles, not of ‘comfort’ rules, but of safety rules?

MInTheGap Writes:
Airlines and other businesses have the right to enforce family-friendly atmospheres. It’s up to them to decide if it’s part of their core beliefs, and how it effects them business-wise. And besides, if you don’t like their rules– take your business elsewhere. (Which is what I would do if they told me to stow my Bible– not cause a stink so I can get 15 minutes of fame looking silly.

Welcome to the mystery of babylon.

I agree MIn, that our focus as Christians should not be to press our rights… but on the same coin, it just seems like here we are talking about the culture of the world and ‘how it ought to be’ but we are forgetting that how it ought to be went out the window with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Now the world is under the control of it’s own god, who is presently working to bring the entire globe under one government and religion. Sometimes I wonder if concerning ourselves with influencing society, trying to Christianize it or make it ‘family friendly’ isn’t just playing into the hands of the enemy, neglecting the Gospel and therefore our main purpose on this earth.

I ask, “So, modesty is still an external value?” because I wonder seriously if you’ve considered it at all through our previous exchanges regarding modesty and apparel. MIn, have you seriously considered whether modesty is an external, physical attribute, or whether it is a heart condition? Because the language you use in this article still puts the focus of ‘modesty’ on the particulars of women’s garments.

It is as though your whole appeal here is to convince people, not to be modest inwardly, but to support a business’s right to insist upon a dress code or even a subjective standard of apparel. Well, I appeal to you sir, examine your heart and the Word and see if you are perhaps missing something very special, something… set apart…

We are living in the last age, and the return of the King is close at hand. We ought to live as though he were coming this very day. If He were, would you be worried about the clothes people are wearing or would you be concerned with their souls? I don’t come to this blog just to be a heckler or to draw people to my own (lonely) blog, I came with a genuine interest. The things you write about have made me think and question some of my assumptions. Nevertheless, this is my sincere challenge to you: consider your focus (meaning, of course, within the context of this blog) … is it on the things of this world, or is it on the things of the Spirit?

]]> By: Michael http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/comment-page-1/#comment-76567 Michael Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:59:44 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/#comment-76567 In response to musicman's concern over a businessess' option of providing or declining product or service based on gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc... I believe that is covered in The Civil Rights Act of 1964 as are later and other protected classes such as individuals with disabilities. It is similar to employment law. For example, an employer may terminate an employee in an "at-will" state if the employee likes a different baseball team than the owner of the company. But the owner cannot hire or fire based on protected classes unless it is a bona fide occupational qualification. An employer is allowed to hire a person based on gender or race if it can be shown that those attributes are necessary for the job. In short, musicman, you can be rest assured that the list of classes you have given are protected and no business can discriminate based on the criteria you suggest. Any business is well within its right to deny product or service for any reason with the exception of those protected. Wearing whatever you want, whenever you want, is not protected. It is however, common sense. Something I hope we are able to avoid legislating. In response to musicman’s concern over a businessess’ option of providing or declining product or service based on gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc… I believe that is covered in The Civil Rights Act of 1964 as are later and other protected classes such as individuals with disabilities. It is similar to employment law. For example, an employer may terminate an employee in an “at-will” state if the employee likes a different baseball team than the owner of the company. But the owner cannot hire or fire based on protected classes unless it is a bona fide occupational qualification. An employer is allowed to hire a person based on gender or race if it can be shown that those attributes are necessary for the job. In short, musicman, you can be rest assured that the list of classes you have given are protected and no business can discriminate based on the criteria you suggest. Any business is well within its right to deny product or service for any reason with the exception of those protected. Wearing whatever you want, whenever you want, is not protected. It is however, common sense. Something I hope we are able to avoid legislating.

]]> By: Musicguy http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/comment-page-1/#comment-76564 Musicguy Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:57:38 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/#comment-76564 "mandikaye, since you pay for the privilege to ride their airline (they have the right to refuse you passage, just as they have the right to limit the number of carry-on items you bring, what you store where, …) it is their decision what is appropriate." I guess that also means that an airline could refuse passage to african-americans, gays, women, jews, muslims, etc, etc. Your line of thinking leads to some scary consequences. “mandikaye, since you pay for the privilege to ride their airline (they have the right to refuse you passage, just as they have the right to limit the number of carry-on items you bring, what you store where, …) it is their decision what is appropriate.”

I guess that also means that an airline could refuse passage to african-americans, gays, women, jews, muslims, etc, etc. Your line of thinking leads to some scary consequences.

]]> By: MInTheGap http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/comment-page-1/#comment-76553 MInTheGap Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:31:59 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/#comment-76553 Colleen, the question then becomes "to what end"? Should every business have to have a documented list of what is appropriate in their store? Should they have to employ receptionists whose sole purpose is to make sure that they hand out the "Common Decency" card to new clients? Perhaps a system where logos are affixed to doors on the way in? And who would enforce this? I agree with Michael that we have to have a better education in common decency because more documentation just leads to more mess and more litigation. Loc, good illustration. If the airline steward/stewardess asked me to put away my Bible I would comply. Why? Because it's their airline. They have the right to do whatever it takes to make the trip the most comfortable for the most people. That's why they can mandate that you don't go to the restroom within 30 minutes of descending, that you should leave your seatbelt fastened when taking off or descending, and that you have to have your seatbacks up and tray-tables stowed. However, a more appropriate illustration would have been if you had brought a Playboy on the plane and opened it and the steward/stewardess asked you to stow it. Because that's what was the problem here. Not a Book that is nothing but words and no one could see what exactly you are reading, but an open invitation to gawk at someone's body. Airlines and other businesses have the right to enforce family-friendly atmospheres. It's up to them to decide if it's part of their core beliefs, and how it effects them business-wise. And besides, if you don't like their rules-- take your business elsewhere. (Which is what I would do if they told me to stow my Bible-- not cause a stink so I can get 15 minutes of fame looking silly. Arthur-- no idea how to respond to your question. Colleen, the question then becomes “to what end”? Should every business have to have a documented list of what is appropriate in their store? Should they have to employ receptionists whose sole purpose is to make sure that they hand out the “Common Decency” card to new clients? Perhaps a system where logos are affixed to doors on the way in? And who would enforce this?

I agree with Michael that we have to have a better education in common decency because more documentation just leads to more mess and more litigation.

Loc, good illustration. If the airline steward/stewardess asked me to put away my Bible I would comply. Why? Because it’s their airline. They have the right to do whatever it takes to make the trip the most comfortable for the most people. That’s why they can mandate that you don’t go to the restroom within 30 minutes of descending, that you should leave your seatbelt fastened when taking off or descending, and that you have to have your seatbacks up and tray-tables stowed.

However, a more appropriate illustration would have been if you had brought a Playboy on the plane and opened it and the steward/stewardess asked you to stow it. Because that’s what was the problem here. Not a Book that is nothing but words and no one could see what exactly you are reading, but an open invitation to gawk at someone’s body.

Airlines and other businesses have the right to enforce family-friendly atmospheres. It’s up to them to decide if it’s part of their core beliefs, and how it effects them business-wise. And besides, if you don’t like their rules– take your business elsewhere. (Which is what I would do if they told me to stow my Bible– not cause a stink so I can get 15 minutes of fame looking silly.

Arthur– no idea how to respond to your question.

]]> By: Arthur Eiss http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/comment-page-1/#comment-76540 Arthur Eiss Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:03:53 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/#comment-76540 So, modesty is still an external value? So, modesty is still an external value?

]]> By: Loc http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/comment-page-1/#comment-76517 Loc Sun, 23 Sep 2007 02:05:11 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/#comment-76517 I don't currently have the specific article (I'll make an effort to find it then post it), but in one article they said the other passengers near her said her outfit was fine and that they did not complain about it. There is a lot of concern with this story that a man in a place of authority chose to abuse his powers to push his own belief. Because of the clothing she wore and many people's personal feelings we don't see it in this light, but if we just look at it another way it all makes sense. Say I walked onto an airplane tomorrow carrying a bible. Say then a flight attendant stopped me and told me that this was a multi religious airline and the bible I was carrying is offensive to some of the passengers. Then the only way I may continue my flight is if I agree to hide the bible from sight. People would be in an outrage about the event then. Not because it would be any less the airlines right to say I can't carry a bible on their plane, but because a flight attendant would have abused his authority to enforce his own morals. I don’t currently have the specific article (I’ll make an effort to find it then post it), but in one article they said the other passengers near her said her outfit was fine and that they did not complain about it. There is a lot of concern with this story that a man in a place of authority chose to abuse his powers to push his own belief. Because of the clothing she wore and many people’s personal feelings we don’t see it in this light, but if we just look at it another way it all makes sense.

Say I walked onto an airplane tomorrow carrying a bible. Say then a flight attendant stopped me and told me that this was a multi religious airline and the bible I was carrying is offensive to some of the passengers. Then the only way I may continue my flight is if I agree to hide the bible from sight.

People would be in an outrage about the event then. Not because it would be any less the airlines right to say I can’t carry a bible on their plane, but because a flight attendant would have abused his authority to enforce his own morals.

]]> By: Colleen http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/comment-page-1/#comment-76516 Colleen Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:16:05 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/#comment-76516 I'm a big propionate of having things in writing. I feel it's easier to hold people accountable that way, so there is not confusion of what is acceptable. Great dialogue and post, thanks Min. I’m a big propionate of having things in writing. I feel it’s easier to hold people accountable that way, so there is not confusion of what is acceptable. Great dialogue and post, thanks Min.

]]> By: MInTheGap http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/comment-page-1/#comment-76505 MInTheGap Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:02:44 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2007/09/21/airline-tells-immodest-women-to-cover-up/#comment-76505 Colleen, there's definitely a difference between an offensive saying on a shirt and a sexually charged outfit. Although I get your point, I don't think many would find a request to cover up a team shirt something worth the time. mandikaye, since you pay for the privilege to ride their airline (they have the right to refuse you passage, just as they have the right to limit the number of carry-on items you bring, what you store where, ...) it is their decision what is appropriate. Just as a business owner can say "no shirt, no shoes, no service" the airline could say "if you dress provocatively, or like you're on the beach, or they could go so far as to say if you went in Alanta Falcon #7 we can refuse you passage. It's their right. It's their airline. However, I think the standards should be well published, and if they refuse you passage, you should get some if not all of your money back. You shouldn't be surprised when you get on to find that you're breaking the rules-- but the airline has the right to ask you to cover up or not to board. Colleen, there’s definitely a difference between an offensive saying on a shirt and a sexually charged outfit. Although I get your point, I don’t think many would find a request to cover up a team shirt something worth the time.

mandikaye, since you pay for the privilege to ride their airline (they have the right to refuse you passage, just as they have the right to limit the number of carry-on items you bring, what you store where, …) it is their decision what is appropriate. Just as a business owner can say “no shirt, no shoes, no service” the airline could say “if you dress provocatively, or like you’re on the beach, or they could go so far as to say if you went in Alanta Falcon #7 we can refuse you passage. It’s their right. It’s their airline.

However, I think the standards should be well published, and if they refuse you passage, you should get some if not all of your money back. You shouldn’t be surprised when you get on to find that you’re breaking the rules– but the airline has the right to ask you to cover up or not to board.

]]>