this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
62 points (95.6% liked)

News And Current Events

80 readers
19 users here now

For everything that is in the news and what's going on in the world.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - A woman was escorted off of a Delta flight after she was told her clothing was "too revealing." Now, she's calling for change.

In January, Lisa Archbold was flying out of Salt Lake City to San Francisco when she was told to get off the plane after everyone was boarded and quiet.

She claims she was told by flight staff that she needed to "cover up" due to her clothing.

"She came to my seat and loudly asked to speak to me in private and escorted me off the plane as though I was a criminal," Archbold said. "I felt it was a spectacle aimed at punishing me for not being a woman the way she thought I should be a woman."

Archbold, who identifies as queer, says she was dressed like a little boy in baggy pants and a shirt.

She posted on "X," formerly known as Twitter, a photo of her outfit.

Archbold says Delta told her it's their policy that women need to cover up. She was told if she put on a jacket, she could fly. So, Archbold complied.

Now, she and her attorney are calling on the airline to change their policy.

"Delta's contract of carriage says that Delta may remove a passenger when reasonably necessary for the ‘comfort or safety of passengers.’ For example, when ‘the passengers conduct, attire, hygiene, or odor creates an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance to other passengers,'" said Archbold. "Please explain how wearing a t-shirt without a bra causes ‘an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance.’"

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 58 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Don't you love it when articles talk about an outfit and a picture of the outfit, but they don't fucking show it?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

They know what they're doing. They're a bunch of assholes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

It might've been too revealing

[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago

Bras are not required to fly. You're thinking of doors.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (34 children)

As a note, I couldn't find this woman's Twitter post after a brief look and I did see other sites say she was apparently not wearing a bra.

The woman is also apparently a DJ.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Thank you, but the lack of bra and occupation of DJ was easily inferred since she was flying to San Francisco.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

That and the 1970s style rose sunglasses.

Methinks she was wearing little boy sized clothes.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (4 children)
[–] tigeruppercut 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

OK seriously, how tf does twitter work? I went to her profile and found a post that's labeled as a reply, but when I click on it there's no way to see what she's replying to. Why did anyone ever use such a shitty platform?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Because the @(name) was the first thing in the tweet, it's labeled as a reply. Usually people put a period - or other similar punctuation - in front of that, in order to prevent this.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

OK, so really it's because the shirt is fucking see through.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Thank you - I remember looking for this just really quick but I couldn't find it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Weird. Why isn't it head-on to actually give us a good view of what the supposed problem was?

load more comments (32 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want this young woman to wear a bra.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Some people hold the regressive belief that anyone who identifies as femme must wear a bra because femme nipples are "lewd". Alternatively, there are also people out there that believe a woman's body is for men to look at and must meet certain standards.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Well that's the thing ... I want to look at it, hence the agreement that she should go braless should she so desire.

Edit: oh, that's over the line?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Stop being on her side! lol

Make up your damn minds. If the nip is out, I'm going to look. I will fight for your right to go braless! Free the nipple!

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't care what people wear, but everyone is saying she's in trouble for wearing a T Shirt without a bra as if the mere outline of a nipple was the problem, but it looks like in the picture that her shirt is pretty see through. I think that's the issue.

Again, I don't think she should have been kicked off the plane over it, but a see through shirt in Utah? That seems like an unreasonable risk of offense to me. Utah is crazy conservative. Delta isn't taking a moral stance, they're just protecting their profits in a Conservative state by enforcing a pretty reasonable dress code. You have to have coverage over your body.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't see where the shirt looks see through. It's just an off white shirt.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure it's a white shirt and the reason it looks off white is because it's so thin you can see her skin underneath. The color of the shirt is thicker fabric, and you don't see the skin color underneath.

I think that you probably could have put 99 more t-shirts on her, and not one of them would have invoked this policy, because most t-shirts are not designed to be see through.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not convinced that's the case honestly. To me the color looks too uniform for it to be caused by her skin underneath. But even if that is the case her nipple is not at all visible. Their justification makes 0 sense to me. This lady is fully clothed. I don't see how she could possibly cause any kind of danger or disruption.

Fucking Utah.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Their policy isn't an unreasonable risk of danger or disruption, it's an unreasonable risk of offense. You're not allowed to wear clothes that offend other customers. They can kick you off the plane for wearing a shirt that has an image of giving the middle finger or a curse word. You can tell it's see through because the collar is fully opaque where the fabric is rolled over itself.

Plus it sounds like they gave the woman the option of changing her shirt or adding a jacket and she wasn't willing to do that

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago

Thank God Delta is doing their part in battling the nipple scourge that has plagued this fine nation

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Show nipple, no fly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Hahaha, Gloria Allred.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

ragebait article lol

load more comments
view more: next ›