05/08/2007
Ft. Lauderdale Skycap Fired for Anti-gay Bible Broadcast
Superior Aircraft Services Monday took action and fired Jethro Monestime, a 23-year-old employee who last week played an anti-gay passage from the Bible's Book of Leviticus over the PA system at the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport twice. Coincidentally (or not so coincidentally) Anthony Niedwiecki (left) and his partner Waymon Hudson had just arrived at the airport's baggage claim, where they heard the message.
According to what Niedwiecki told Towleroad shortly after the incident, "It was a recorded message and basically said that 'a man who lies with another man as he would a woman is subject to death.'"
In a letter, Monestime's employer Superior Aircraft Services, apologized to the couple as well as to the Broward County Aviation Department, the Broward Sheriff's Office, United Airlines and the South Florida community.
The Miami Herald: "Because he worked for a private contractor, Broward officials could not fire him. But his employer, Superior Aircraft Services, did. 'This action in no way reflects the views of Superior, its owners nor its employees,' said a statement from the company. He will not face criminal charges, BSO said. The recording played over the PA system was actually a verse from the Old Testament book of Leviticus, condemning homosexuality. Monestime told BSO he downloaded the message to his cellphone and played it over the loudspeakers -- not once but twice -- about 1 a.m. May 1."
Although the company declined to give specific details about how they discovered it was Monestime behind the 'prank', they did tell the paper that his possession of a security badge, an employee code, and knowledge of his location in the airport at the time made him the prime suspect.
Background...
Gay Couple Receives Biblical Threat at Florida Baggage Claim [tr]
Ft. Lauderdale Airport Biblical Broadcast Under Investigation [tr]
Breaking: Ft. Lauderdale Anti-Gay Airport Broadcaster Caught... [tr]
Anti-Gay Ft. Lauderdale Airport 'Prankster' ID'ed as Skycap
Posted 9:00 AM EST by Andy Towle in Florida, News, Religion, Transportation | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Once again, the correct thing was done (as I previously posted regarding this minor infraction). The employee has been fired; and promptly.
Shall we move on to more important issues and problems in which we can focus our energy and time?
Posted by: Stephen | May 8, 2007 9:29:01 AM
Yes, more important issues like keeping that young man away from eyebrow waxers for at least 2 weeks at a time.
Posted by: nycredneck | May 8, 2007 9:35:21 AM
He was rightfully canned. Is there nothing in the Bible about not being an ignorant jackass?
Posted by: Marco | May 8, 2007 9:36:17 AM
Last night I turned the tables and gained access to the PA system at Heathrow in the baggage claim area. "Message to baggage personnel. There's an obvious homosexual who has been waiting 40 minutes for his LV wheelie to arrive so move your fat breeder asses pronto. Thank you. Kylie rules."
Posted by: Stewart | May 8, 2007 9:47:15 AM
some folk truly believe religious freedoms translate as the right to force personal beliefs onto others.
why do atheists have no extended rights ???
Posted by: A.J. | May 8, 2007 10:09:00 AM
"Is there nothing in the Bible about not being an ignorant jackass?"
There's my favorite passage from Job: "Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."
Posted by: Mike B. | May 8, 2007 10:16:47 AM
Oooh! Oohhh! We have to have a wingnut demonstration at that airport! It's the war against the Bible! Put this guy on O'Reilly and make him a superstar!
We have to have Bible verses playing in EVERY public area and prayer in schools!
Posted by: bambambam | May 8, 2007 10:28:45 AM
I owe them both an apology as it turned out to be true. Sorry guys.
It's nice to see the employer not hesitating to take the appropriate action. Losing his job strikes me as an appropriate response. Let's hope he finds it in himself to apologize and they find it in themselves to forgive him.
Posted by: Mitch | May 8, 2007 10:40:00 AM
One of our "more important issues and problems" is getting dizzy queens to understand that our public demonization is NEVER a "minor" thing. It is a treacherous balancing act separating speech that is simply free from that which should be actionable because of its potential consequences because of or in addition to the circumstances in which it occurs. There is no law that says that 10,000 people cannot march down the street yelling "lynch the 'niggers'" but it is unlikely you will ever see that happen again in the US and that is a good, the right thing, libertarians be damned. As Bayard Rustin observed, the effort to pass a federal law against lynching never passed BUT the Black civil rights movement did change society's attitudes enough that lynchings stopped by the force of public disapproval. The same must be pursued for such instances as this unique one represents. Three cheers for Niedwiecki for following through with this.
Oh, and, NYCREDNECK, heard any good AIDS jokes lately? Wait, you are a joke.
Posted by: Leland | May 8, 2007 10:46:42 AM
Stephen, I asked this question on the other thread but, as usual, you didn't respond.
If the announcement had been made by a person with an Arabic accent and had said, "non-Muslims should surely be put to death" would you have considered that a minor infraction?
What if he said it was just a prank?
What if he pointed out that he was only quoting a passage from the Qur'an that called for killing infidels (non-Muslims)?
I'm not making grand proclamations as to what should and should not be done with him (as you have). I'm just asking relevant questions and making what I think are relevant analogies.
I would be interested in hearing responses from all people who think this was a non-event.
Would it be a non-event if the group being targeted with an announcement calling for death had been Americans, Republicans, African-Americans or Christians?
Would we be as quick to dismiss it if the verse had come from the Qur'an rather than the Bible?
I think these are reasonable and non-sensationalistic questions to ask.
Posted by: Zeke | May 8, 2007 10:51:42 AM
Any christian who actually believes the ridiculous and severe laws of Leviticus SHOULD be put to death. Stupid fucker.
Posted by: Nikko | May 8, 2007 11:38:11 AM
Zeke,
The person acted immaturely, for whatever reasons, I don't know. He was fired promptly. Correct action.
As for a minor infraction, I stick to my opinion.
As for your hypotheticals, whatever slur (your ex. included) this person chose to broadcast, short of yelling "Fire!" et al., would be a joke and should be (in fact, was) punished. The punishment fit the crime.
Asked and answered.
Posted by: Stephen | May 8, 2007 12:01:11 PM
And he was probably earning the minimum wage and tips. Ouch!
Posted by: anon | May 8, 2007 12:05:26 PM
What "slur" are you referring to Stephen? Who mentioned a "slur"?
You didn't answer my question. You set up a strawman question (that was never asked) and then proceeded to answer it. My actual questions, as usual, have gone unanswered.
Asked and Answered?
It's really creepy that you should use that phrase. I just watched the BBC documentary on the Westboro Baptist "God Hates Fags" Church a few days ago. That is EXACTLY the response Fred Phelps gives every time he gives a crazy non-answer to a reasonable question.
Watch the BBC documentary on "The most hated family in America" at YouTube. Phelps arrogant answer to every question the reporter asks is, "Asked and answered!".
Great minds think alike.
Posted by: Zeke | May 8, 2007 12:14:44 PM
i'm sure they'll still sue.....
Posted by: alan brickman | May 8, 2007 12:42:06 PM
Zeke,
If I called a shirt purple, you'd argue with me that I was wrong, the color is violet.
Why then, should I devote any more time to your posts?
Posted by: Stephen | May 8, 2007 12:53:25 PM
Leland, great point
Zeke, nice try but I think you are waisting your time with stephen. Far be it from me to positively quote the bible BUT "None are so blind as those who refuse to see..." Stephen falls into that category. ;-) "Do not cast your pearls before swine" ouch that kind of hurt utilizing bible quotes. ouch ouch ouch :-)
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 8, 2007 1:06:14 PM
Dumb Haitians. Can't even control himself and behave at his airport job.
Posted by: Joe T. | May 8, 2007 1:18:44 PM
Here's another one POB:
Turn and walk away from a fool for the capacity for understanding truth is not in him.
That's a favorite of mine.
Stephen, to clarify, my question was, "would it be a minor incident, unworthy of investigation and possible further action, if the PA announcer had said "Americans/Christians/Jews should surely be put to death" or "women who fornicate should surely be put to death".
Would a claim of "prank" suffice to absolve such statements from being considered threats?
Would pointing out that these are verses from the Bible or Qur'an make a difference?
In case you are unaware saying "gay men are fairies" is a slur, saying "gay men are pedophiles" is a slur, saying "gay men are freaks" is a slur. Saying "gay men should surely be put to death" is NOT a slur.
When you claim to have answered my question by saying that "a slur against any group" is no grounds for punishment, you set up a straw man by acting like you answered my question when in fact you answered a question that was never asked.
Are you incapable of understanding that?
As for your purple shirt vs. violet shirt jab, that is just ludicris and YET ANOTHER straw man distraction. I would not quibble over if a shirt is purple or violet or magenta or lavender. However, I will continue to challenge you EVERY time you try to sell a purple shirt that is green and NOT EVEN a shirt. Don't try to convince me that your green with orange polka dots trousers is a purple shirt and then cry foul when I challenge you.
Posted by: Zeke | May 8, 2007 1:26:18 PM
You're right Stephen, we should get around to more important things like making gay marriage legal.
Posted by: Daniel | May 8, 2007 1:27:15 PM
And if you are trying to say that my challenging you when you tell me that my relationship with my husband is less than a heterosexual relationship and that my family isn't "natural" because we actually had to put some thought into having our son, and when you tell me that my son doesn't deserve to have married parents because he wasn't created "naturally" that is NOT a purple shirt vs. violet shirt difference.
Stop acting as if my issue with you is based on nothing more than a personal dislike of you. That isn't the case at all and you know it.
Daniel, that was clever. I love it! : )
Posted by: Zeke | May 8, 2007 1:40:41 PM
"Why then, should I devote any more time to your posts?"
When you are unable to address a reasonable question with a thoughtful response (which you clearly cannot do), then you shouldn't.
Asked and answered.
Posted by: mark m | May 8, 2007 2:01:57 PM
zeke, that is a good one.
I seem to remember stephen always siding with the fa right and homophobic view in almost every post he has posted here at towleroad
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 8, 2007 2:12:49 PM
I don't think Stephen is far right or homophobic.
I believe he is misguided on some things and too often bases his opinions on ethereal rhetoric (like "straight couples are different than gay couples" and "gay couples can't produce children "naturally"" as his reason for being against marriage equality) rather than being open to thoughtfully considering the first hand stories of those who actually have a horse in any given race. This is why he gives the same reasons that were given to justify segregation and anti-miscegenation to justify heterosexual-only marriage, but fails to see the irony.
He supports civil unions but is against marriage equality because he still believes that you can have separate but equal rights. I see that to be no different than claiming that separate water fountains for Blacks and Whites are OK as long as they provide the same amount and quality of water.
I would grudgingly agree with him if he supported civil unions as a step or if he supported changing all partnership licenses (gay and straight) to "civil unions" and leave it to churches to decide who they will and will not "marry" but that's not what he says. He says that civil unions and marrigae should be different, gays should be excluded from marriage and it should always be that way.
Then he acts shocked when I, a man who is married to another man, raising a son that we jumped through hoops to have, challenge him for claiming that two straight strangers who get drunk and conceive a child "naturally" in the back of a pickup truck are somehow more sacred and more deserving of marriage than my "unnatural" family.
Even still, I think it is unfair to call him far right or homophobic.
Posted by: Zeke | May 8, 2007 3:18:56 PM
It's always amusing that by the time I get to the end of the personal attacks -er- comments, I always have to scroll back up to find out what they hell the post was about in the first place.
Then I sigh, "oh".
Tangent.
Much.
Posted by: mark | May 8, 2007 3:31:47 PM