05/03/2007
Gay Couple Receives Biblical Threat at Florida Baggage Claim
I received an interesting email this morning from Towleroad reader and law professor Anthony Niedwiecki about an incident that occurred at the Fort Lauderdale Airport on Tuesday. He and his partner Waymon Hudson had a jarring experience upon their arrival:
Niedwicki: "At approximately 12:45 am, my partner and I were in the baggage claim area in terminal 3. We had just arrived from Chicago and were waiting for our bags when an announcement came over an intercom. 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.' We couldn't believe what we heard, and then it came over the intercom again a few minutes later. We were shaken by the announcement because it specifically said 'subject to death'.
...We called the airport and after five call transfers (including the sheriff's department), we got an airport manager. He seemed disinterested and more interested in the exact bible verse than taking care of the problem. He simply said 'sorry for the inconvenience.' I sent an email to United/Ted (our airline) because I could not get anyone on the phone. I was told by some person at the airport (during my 'phone shuffle' yesterday afternoon) that only airline employees have access to the intercom.
...As of today, I have not heard back from the airport or United. NBC6 news, our local channel, aired a story about this yesterday and today. The airport spokesperson said that anyone could have made the comments, which should give us all pause in a time of terrorism (anyone can use the PA system of an airport?)."
Here's the writeup from NBC6 in South Florida. According to airport representative Steve Belleme, they are attempting to uncover who might be reading passages from Leviticus over the airport intercom: "So far we don't think we can identify the location but that's what we're trying to do."
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 10:11 AM EST by Andy 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.
What a surreal experience that must have been.
Publicly made death threats in an airport (even biblical ones) should be prosecuted. After all, the 9/11 highjackers were reciting from the Koran right before impact.
But somehow, I have a feeling that homeland security won't be interested in this particular case.....
Posted by: Zlexar | May 3, 2007 10:29:29 AM
Andy. Can you publize Fort Lauderdale Airport's phone number, or the Florida Travel Commission's number for the manager/director/president? I think we should all make calls voicing our dissatisfaction about Florida in general and how we should refuse to travel to Florida.
Posted by: Landis | May 3, 2007 10:31:28 AM
Christopher Hitchens is right, religion does poison everything. It is not surprising Canadian courts have found in some cases the bible to constitute hate speech. It is hard to read or listen to such verses and not to draw this conclusion.
Posted by: BIbleBasher | May 3, 2007 10:31:49 AM
Sorry, Andy, but I think that "receives" is incorrect in the headline.
They didn't receive it. It wasn't directed at them specifically. It was a statement that they overheard. "Witnesses", or "witness to" or "overhears" is more accurate and not as sensationalistic. This is different that those who you've posted about who had their cars or houses painted. If this had been someone standing on the side of the road, speaking, or had been a bunch of placards posted in yards on the way out of town or down the street, would it be "receives" or would it be "observes"?
I think "receives" is poorly used here. While I agree it's unnerving and made them uncomfortable, it doesn't excuse sensationalisim on the part of the media, any media.
Posted by: Marcus | May 3, 2007 10:34:35 AM
...marcus. Point made. Again, and again, and again and aga....
Posted by: midnight lounge | May 3, 2007 10:40:26 AM
I read the article and I know it was 1 a.m. But does anyone find it strange that no other witnesses heard this over the PA in the whole airport. The article doesn't say if anyone else heard the threats or maybe it was omitted. It would be interesting to know if there were other witness accounts to give more credibility to this story.
Posted by: Matt | May 3, 2007 10:47:15 AM
I agree with you Marcus. I think "receives" is poor word choice as well. We have no clue if it was directed towards them or someone else in the airport. To make that assumption is erroneous. I love the blog but even Andy can go a little gay vigilante sometimes.
Posted by: Matt | May 3, 2007 10:50:30 AM
Oh for fvck's sake - if I'm in a public arena and something like this is directed at gay people and I hear it, I've "received" the message loud and clear. That's what terrorism is all about - threatening whole groups of people without necessarily targeting 1 person in particular.
Some of you Pollyannas need to stop being so contrary.
Posted by: Rey | May 3, 2007 11:06:25 AM
Exactly, Rey. Whether or not it was directed specifically at those two guys, it was obviously directed at gay people. It was a threatening message for gay people and these two gay people received it. Threats from fundamentalist Christians are always soft-pedaled. Sickening. This certainly doesn't make Andy a "gay vigilante." I believe it makes him realistic.
I guarantee you that Bush's Homeland security will do nothing about this.
Posted by: sam | May 3, 2007 11:16:22 AM
I was wondering how long it would take for Matt to show up to question the integrity and credibility of the men.
I believe in having a healthy level of skepticism with these stories but when there’s a gay person’s testimony involved, Matt (and a few others here), always spring forward with questions about the integrity and credibility of the gay person. It’s like clockwork.
I don't know if the story is accurate or not but, from what I've read, no one is denying it happened; they're just dismissing the importance of such an incident and trying to explain how "anyone" could have done it.
As for no one else hearing the announcement, I know from personal experience that non-gay people, even pro-gay non-gay people, often don't notice homophobic statements and actions. I go to church with VERY liberal, very pro-gay straight people who expressed shock and surprise at a recent power point presentation on homophobia perpetrated by "Christian" churches and organizations. When we showed actual clips from Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Phelps, Perkins etc., they claimed they didn't know things were so bad. In fact they said they had never heard of Phelps and “God Hates Fags”. Frankly, I’m not buying it.
Just because no one else reported it doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen.
Posted by: Zeke | May 3, 2007 11:16:53 AM
Marcus and Matt: I agree that word choice matters but you are both so wrong regarding the accuracy of "receive" that one must wonder why. Worse than your preschool understanding of grammar is your obvious if unconscious self-castrating, self-loathing mental state, the kind of little girl passivity that has stunk up Towleroad like a field of cow shit more and more of late. Yes, Pollyannas, they and this means YOU.
Niedwiecki and Hudson are romantic/sexual partners. Therefore, each is "a man who lies with another man as he would a woman" and, therefore, per the speaker, each of them "is subject to death." The statement was about a group. They are members of that group. Therefore, it did, and was meant to, include them. One need not use a specific name when saying, "the 20-something guy who's always writing really dumb, willufully uninformed things about global warming and politics and subscribes to the belief that gays should just shuck and jive through life taking whatever abuse thrown our way because we really deserve nothing better—and generally just posts the first jejune thing that pops in his head" for regulars to know that one means "Matt."
Put more simply, you're both retarded. Receive that!
Posted by: Leland | May 3, 2007 11:27:03 AM
How long before the "free speech" brigade shows up to inform us that this is a matter of First Amendment rights.
I'm sure the American Family Association and the Traditional Values Coalition have already released action alerts about this blatant attempt by radical homa-sek-shul activists to limit the free speech of Christians. This will be the latest story that will make the rounds of the fundamentalist web-ring decrying the ongoing persecution of Christians by the homa-sek-shul agenda.
Posted by: Zeke | May 3, 2007 11:36:45 AM
Oh, wow. I got called "retarded." I'm sure offended by that. And I didn't completely overlook the poster's substance of his comment because he reduced himself to name-calling, shit-stiring, grammar-picking or verbose, inflated statements.
Let me completely rethink my position on the word "receive" simply because someone called me "retarded." Yup, that's the way to contribute to an discussion. To insult the other person. That's maturity right there, in a nice little package. With a big pink bow.
But, yes, Leland, since you used my name and directed it specifically at me, I "received" your comment. I still maintain that the verse said over the addresss system, however, was not. The way the headline now reads the same way it would for if someone were mailed one in the postal system. Or a bomb threat over the phone. But hearing soemthing on a loud speaker in a public place? Nope, sorry. Still say they were witness to it, not the recipients of it.
Posted by: Marcus | May 3, 2007 11:37:56 AM
Marcus, you are flat-out wrong.
I wish you well in your future endeavors.
Posted by: Rey | May 3, 2007 11:40:33 AM
...given the debacle the posts' semantics has incited, the message remains: Fort Lauderdale (a burgeoning gay mecca) is the site of anti-gay mongering.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Posted by: midnight lounge | May 3, 2007 11:41:59 AM
Zeke, I'm not sure first amendment rights would be affected here. Unless the airport is owned by the government, and not a private entity.
Remeber a few years ago, when John Rocker was saying all those crappy things about blacks, Jews and gays? A lot of people were decryign the Rangers' organization when he was with them, saying their fines and mandates that he shut his mouth was an infringment of speech. Only problem is, the Rangers aren't part of the government, and only the government is restricted from restricting someone's speech.
So, the airport, if it cared more, which it doesn't seem that it does, it could and totally should have control over what's said on its public address system. However, it could also decide that employees could say what they want.
But if the airpot were to find, presumably, for argument's sake, the emmployee who did this, they could certainly fire him, fine him or repremand him, and, in my opinion, there would not be a First Amendment issue, because the airport is not a government entity cracking down on free speech; it's just a private employer telling an employee what it can and cannot say on company time with company resources.
Posted by: Marcus | May 3, 2007 11:42:54 AM
PS: What most unfamiliar with the "evangelical" mentality don't get is that they think it is both their right and their duty to be "evangelists," to "spread the word" uninvited, even in places that are supposed to be "neutral territory." Think of those cute-but-deluded Mormon missionary boys around or Jehovah Witnesses waving their absurd "Watch Towers." Most have enough common sense to realize that it is not only inappropriate in many places but can get them into trouble like the woman who works in the same office as a friend of mine who repeatedly complained that his posting a pro gay marriage sticker in his cubicle offended her religious beliefs.
I actually had a somewhat similar experience to the couple above on the underground in San Francisco a couple of years ago when the train conductor/whatever [they're actually run—and poorly—by computers] came on the PA and began quoting Scripture. I arrived at my stop before it went beyond general "God is good blah blah blah" but I fully expected, given that/even tho I live in Sodom by the Sea, to hear something antigay. Even without it, it was inappropriate and I regret not having complained to MUNI at the time. Shove your religion up your ass not in my face.
Posted by: Leland | May 3, 2007 11:43:09 AM
About questioning my story:
Why would I put my professional reputation on the line and lie about something like this? I am a law professor at the main univerisity in Fort Lauderdale and serve on the planning and zoning commission of my city, so I do not want to do anything to kill my credibility in this town. I wanted to get this story out because of the message and the place it was played.
Did you expect me to go around and get names and numbers? We just wanted to get out of there. We have been interviewed by several local papers and news stations, so hopefully someone else will come forward. I could see how this message would easily pass without notice by passengers who were arriving later than expected and at 1 am. I didn't even pay attention to it at first. It was not until my partner said something and then I heard it a second time.
Posted by: Niedwiecki | May 3, 2007 11:43:37 AM
...just to add a little levity to the situation:
Imagine the chub that geek behind the mic got after spewing his hatred o'er the loudspeaker, at 1am. He was *so* proud of himself!
By day, he's a mild-mannered, baggage checking Sim-head. But as night falls, he's an anti-gay militant, intent on ridding Lauderdales' airport of guy on guy action. Unless, of course he's included in on it all.
Posted by: midnight lounge | May 3, 2007 11:46:15 AM
I think this MAY be a different Matt; though the resemblances make me question.
Of course our not-so-friendly, homophobic, neighborhood troll Matt goes by so many aliases who can tell any more.
Posted by: Zeke | May 3, 2007 11:48:24 AM
Well put (once again), Leland. One of the men is a lawyer and I do not see him pulling a stunt like this to damage his credibility
Having lived for a time in South Florida I think a boycott of the Fort Lauderdale area would be detrimental to the very people that you would not want to hurt-the LGBT businesses in Fort Lauderdale, but also remember that there is a very large and vocal group of radical right religious extremists in Broward County like the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. There is also a large KKK presence in places like Davie, just west of FTL. The Broward Sheriff's department has a long history of gay-baiting. I could see something like this happening there easily.
Posted by: Gary | May 3, 2007 11:51:31 AM
Why are people arguing semantics about this? In a public airport, regardless of the time of day or night, a blatantly offensive statement was made over the institution's PA system (lending it authority and credibility) about a demographic group of people. The fact that those two individuals weren't called by name doesn't mean it wasn't directed to them. Had I been there I would have been just as incensed as they were. Because I would have "received" the insult.
Posted by: Daniel | May 3, 2007 11:53:59 AM
Marcus, Marcus, Marcus. You've proven your limited mental faculties by criticizing me for "grammar-picking" about your grammar-picking, and your juvenile understanding of reality by denouncing absolutely "name-calling" when adults understand it can serve a purpose.
And none of the above is to defend myself to you. I feel no need, any more than I need defend cutting down crabgrass. When perspectives like yours and Matt's repeatedly demonstrate that you are more a part of the problem of homohatred than the solution then you render yourselves nothing but an intellectual weeds to me.
Posted by: Leland | May 3, 2007 11:54:50 AM
If there's no need to defend yourself, then why do you keep doing it?
Posted by: Marcus | May 3, 2007 11:57:07 AM
NIEDWIEKI, don't think twice about it buddy. We have a person here named MATT that ALWAYS questions the credibility and integrity of gay people who speak up against harassment, discrimination or violence. Like I said, it's like clockwork.
I for one appreciate your coming forward with this information. I hope it is taken seriously. Thanks to you and your partner.
Marcus, for the record, I wasn't claiming that this WAS an issue of freedom of speech. I was simply pointing out that some on the religious right, AND SOME COMMENTERS HERE, will.
People always have a right to free speech. That right comes with responsibilities and consequences. I always find it laughable when people bitch and moan when people respond negatively to hateful speech; especially when it is uttered through mass media. They will pop a vein defending the hate speech but they seem to be oblivious to the fact that the reaction (outrage, letter writing, boycotts and negative responses) are ALSO FREE SPEECH.
Posted by: Zeke | May 3, 2007 12:03:50 PM