Metro bus driver excused from driving buses with gay magazine ad

[kevinbgoode]

Well, as if it isn't enough to have to wage war in your local pharmacy with evangelical nutcases professing to have "deeply held beliefs" (that are, selectively CHOSEN) which dictate what prescriptions YOU are allowed to have, we now have a growing number of cases of Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to take fares from people with wine in their luggage and some religious bus driver in Minneapolis who demands she be excused from driving any city bus that has an advertisement for a magazine targeting the GLBT community.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with the advertisement - no swearing, no nudity, no sexual images. . .but that doesn't matter, as the Metro Transit officials deemed it was a "reasonable" accommodation of someone's deeply-held religious beliefs to exempt her from driving any bus which carries the ad on the BACK of the vehicle. Of course, the MTA expects passengers to have to give their lives over to some Rapture-driven superstitious nutcase who is driving, but apparently no one else is entitled to "accommodation" except those "religious" organizations which exist to hate gay Americans.

These are exactly the kinds of special rights these people demand:

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/kshb/news/article/0,1925,KSHB_9418_5075174,00.html

So do you think it is a reasonable accommodation to excuse someone from driving a bus because they are "offended" by an ad? What if the bus company is publicly owned? What if the ad appeared on EVERY bus?

[msongs]

1. they have the right to choose not to work if they wish, no problemo.

however they have no right to demand an alternate bus instead.

of course this means that all non-christians can refuse to drive a bus with christian themed ads as well.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[kiahzero]

2. That actually is a reasonable accommodation

Title VII requires employers to make such reasonable accommodations. If all of the buses had the ad, that would be a different situation. As it stands, there's really no difference except for scheduling - this one driver just takes different buses out is all. It's not like doctors or taxi drivers refusing clients.

[kevinbgoode]

5. How, exactly, is it reasonable?

She doesn't own the bus. . .the city does. It's public transportation. How does an advertisement exactly violate her right of religious expression? Does this really mean that an atheist driver, or a Catholic driver...could refuse to drive a bus with any ad for an evangelical protestant church?
Can customers lobby the MTA and protest being forced to ride with someone whose religious statements against an AD may translate to violence or refusal to accommodate someone of that group in person?

What part of accommodation allows the city bus driver to use public property as a vehicle for personal religious expression?

[kiahzero]

6. It's reasonable because it's easily accomplished (n/t)

[kevinbgoode]

10. I would imagine the gay community in that city will suddenly

not believe it is comfortable or accommodating to ride one of the city buses, especially not knowing which one she might be driving.

And how interesting...for example, if I was a white bus driver in an almost white town, I could refuse to drive the one bus that goes through the black neighborhoods because I'm a member of the KKK and my "religious" belief dictates I not come into contact with "inferior" people.

[Gormy Cuss]

3. How does the ad violate her religious beliefs?

She's not being asking to hand out Lavender flyers or otherwise participate in an activity promoting LGBT organizations or activities. For that matter, unless she makes a habit of circling the bus at every stop she's unlikely to even see it more than a couple of times a day. Is she afraid that people will think she personally approves the ads on the bus?

I wish the article explained why they thought there was any need for this accommodation. It's an ad, not something imposed on the driver's person. How does the presence infringe her in any way?

[MrCoffee]

4. It's a reasonable accommodation.

[bryant69]

7. If the ad is on every bus it's not a reasonable accomidation

assuming that the ad only appears an a smallish percentage of busses - say under 50% it's probably not unreasonable.

I guess it would depend on how much money you would piss away by making this accomedation - if it's a few moments of a dispatchers day - well, that's not a big deal. If it's hundreds or thousands of dollars of overtime and what not, well that's unreasonable.

Of course the other question is whether or not christian bus drivers (or any bus driver who would find this material offensive, I gather some Jews and Muslims would as well) should be forced to accomdate themselves on general principlel.

There was a townhall article earlier this week - on the Muslim Menace (Townhall is a very conservative Website, and they regularly publish articles about how we are really at war with Islam and should be beating the hell out of them). This one was by Dennis Prager --> http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2006/10/17/some_sobering_lessons_from_muslim_taxi_drivers

"I am referring to news reports not about Muslim terrorists but about the far more mundane group of religious Muslims who happen to be taxi drivers. In Britain and Australia, Muslim taxi drivers refuse to pick up passengers who have a dog with them -- even when the passenger is blind and the dog is a Seeing Eye dog. Nearly all religious Muslims believe that Islam forbids them to come into contact with dogs. Therefore, Muslim taxi drivers will even drive by a blind person standing in the cold, lest they come into contact with the dog.

And in Minneapolis, Minn., Muslim taxi drivers, who make up a significant percentage of taxi drivers in that city, refuse to pick up passengers who have a bottle of wine or other alcoholic beverage with them.

. . . there is no analogy between a Muslim not allowing a non-Muslim to bring a bottle of wine or a dog into a Muslim-driven taxi and Christians trying to convince a democratic society to outlaw most abortions.

There is no comparing ritual prohibitions with moral prohibitions. Christians argue that taking the life of a human fetus where the mother's life is not endangered is immoral. And so do religious Jews (and Muslims) and many secular individuals -- because the issue of abortion is a moral issue. Contact with dogs, on the other hand, is a ritual issue, not a moral issue. Which is why non-Muslims do not consider it immoral -- unlike the many non-Christians who consider most abortions immoral. "

Interesting to see the arguments reflected here in a wierd way. Not meaning to equate you with Dennis Prager of course, just that the situations are somewhat similar.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[kevinbgoode]

8. So, perhaps I'm missing something.

How exactly is an advertisement for a non-sexual GLBT community magazine on a city bus violating the "moral" beliefs of a bus driver? Shouldn't there be some kind of specific religious directive which dictates one must not be near any acknowledgement of the existence of these people? What kind of principle is driving the bus violating?

[bryant69]

9. I couldn't answer that - I'm not one of them

But yes I suspect it would be along the lines of such ads promte the "falsehood" that being Gay is ok. One supposes if they were ads for "Homosexuality leads to Hell Quarterly" they'd have no problem with them.

Bryant

[woo me with science]

16. don't forget that CHILDREN ride the bus....

wouldn't want any of them getting converted. we all know there would be subliminal mind control recruitment in ads like that.

[Richard Steele]

11. Well, then they certainly can't expect her to allow any gays ON her bus!

How would that not be more offensive to her "deeply held beliefs"?

Which is worse for this bigot- an innocuous external ad on the rear of the bus,
or a real live "gay" breathing the same air as her?
What "reasonable accomodation" will be made for the way she feels
about THAT?

[bluedogyellowdog]

12. It's prolly a good thing

after all we can't have fundies driving a bus when the Rapture happens, there'll be a big wreck and a lotta people'll get hurt :rofl: :sarcasm: :rofl: /snark

[woo me with science]

15. ROFL!

We need at least one sinner heathen riding shotgun for safety purposes.

[VeggieTart]

13. Great, then veg*an bus drivers should refuse to drive buses...

...with McDeathburger and Murder King and all the other dead animal joints on them.

[woo me with science]

14. LOL and rabid anti-SUV-ers can refuse to drive buses with SUV ads. nt