Couple told to go to back of the bus

[Jaskalas]

and as for what I said about the driver's ethnicity? If you honestly don't think that Huffington and similar outlets LOVE a story like this much more when it's a white guy being intolerant, you're being naive... they don't like conflicts between one of their agendas (open borders, cultural diversity) and another of their agendas (LGBT issues)

Right: Anger and outrage if a Muslim did it.
Left: Anger and outrage if a Red Neck did it.

 

[Texashiker]

Right: Anger and outrage if a Muslim did it.
Left: Anger and outrage if a Red Neck did it.

Middle of the road - dont care either way.

I am in the middle of the road. Someone got their feelings hurt, big freaking deal.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Since when does a company get to impose its morals and values upon its employees?

That is like a company firing an employee for going to church, or reading the news, or serving on a jury. Oh, you watch CNN, your fired.

A company always gets to impose its moral values on its employees. They determine their public image, not you. And immoral act? Two consenting adults holding hands is immoral? Or is it that only people like you should get to project their morality onto others?

Because I have news for you. Most of the population doesn't view it as immoral any more.

 

[WelshBloke]

The article's allusion to black civil rights abuse is pure BS. It's an insult to blacks to frame this incident in such a dishonest manner...

In what way is it dishonest? The thread title is exactly what happened with no embellishments. Even the article is playing it factually.

 

[zsdersw]

A company always gets to impose its moral values on its employees. They determine their public image, not you. And immoral act? Two consenting adults holding hands is immoral? Or is it that only people like you should get to project their morality onto others?

Because I have news for you. Most of the population doesn't view it as immoral any more.

No no, don't you get it? Companies can only impose restrictions on employee behavior when it is in a way that Texashiker agrees with. /sarcasm

As I said, and Texashiker conveniently ignored, it is probably a general politeness/courtesy requirement that the bus driver violated... not some provision specifically for how you're supposed to treat gay people. But that's not sensational enough for him, apparently.

 

[xBiffx]

 

[nehalem256]

No no, don't you get it? Companies can only impose restrictions on employee behavior when it is in a way that Texashiker agrees with. /sarcasm
.

You mean like when a company imposes a restriction on selling cakes for gay weddings?

Oh wait, that is when you get butt-hurt instead.:hmm:

 

[Texashiker]

A company always gets to impose its moral values on its employees.

Not when it comes to an employees civil rights.

The employee has as much right to disagree with the gay lifestyle as the couple as the right to live the gay lifestyle.

 

[zsdersw]

You mean like when a company imposes a restriction on selling cakes for gay weddings?

Oh wait, that is when you get butt-hurt instead.:hmm:

No, I really didn't have a problem with that. As I recall, my remarks in that thread were more on whether or not it violated WA law and that the court would have to decide.

 

[WelshBloke]

Not when it comes to an employees civil rights.

The employee has as much right to disagree with the gay lifestyle as the couple as the right to live the gay lifestyle.

Yeah but he doesn't get to set up the seating plan in the bus based on it.

That's why he got in trouble not because he disagrees with the gay lifestyle.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The driver will most likely receive diversity training and life will go on.

 

[nehalem256]

No, I really didn't have a problem with that. As I recall, my remarks in that thread were more on whether or not it violated WA law and that the court would have to decide.

Sounds like a convenient way to sit on both sides to me.

 

[zsdersw]

Sounds like a convenient way to sit on both sides to me.

... which is not, as you'd like to believe, being "butthurt" about it.

 

[Geosurface]

The driver can have whatever thoughts he wants to about gays in the privacy of his own brain. Or about gingers being creepy or tattoos making women gross who would have otherwise been hot.

But when he's on the clock he's obligated to represent his employer in the way they wish, and in a way which won't bring lawsuits down on them.

Don't tell the ginger or tatted up lady to get to the back of the bus and don't tell the gay guys either. Hold your tongue, be polite, get a tip hopefully, and collect your paycheck.

 

[xBiffx]

The driver can have whatever thoughts he wants to about gays in the privacy of his own brain. Or about gingers being creepy or tattoos making women gross who would have otherwise been hot.

But when he's on the clock he's obligated to represent his employer in the way they wish, and in a way which won't bring lawsuits down on them.

Don't tell the ginger or tatted up lady to get to the back of the bus and don't tell the gay guys either. Hold your tongue, be polite, get a tip hopefully, and collect your paycheck.

True, but if you're going to be a distraction to the driver (intentionally or not) he can tell you to sit wherever he wants to make sure you aren't a distraction.

 

[Geosurface]

True, but if you're going to be a distraction to the driver (intentionally or not) he can tell you to sit wherever he wants to make sure you aren't a distraction.

I was thinking about that angle and I agree but I think they'd need to be making out, not just holding hands, to rise to the level of legitimate distraction.

Then again, I wasn't there. Maybe they were really fruiting it up.

 

[WelshBloke]

True, but if you're going to be a distraction to the driver (intentionally or not) he can tell you to sit wherever he wants to make sure you aren't a distraction.

If he's that distracted by two guys quietly holding hands that it makes his driving dangerous then he shouldn't be driving a public vehicle.

 

[xBiffx]

I was thinking about that angle and I agree but I think they'd need to be making out, not just holding hands, to rise to the level of legitimate distraction.

Then again, I wasn't there. Maybe they were really fruiting it up.

In the name of safety it really doesn't matter. If its a distraction to the driver it really does have to pass a litmus test.

Like your other examples, they could have just been in view to be a distraction.

Guarantee this isn't an issue when he tells a overly fat person to sit in the back of the bus.

 

[Jaskalas]

True, but if you're going to be a distraction to the driver (intentionally or not) he can tell you to sit wherever he wants to make sure you aren't a distraction.

I think we covered this subject in the 60s. One woman made a distraction and the country joined her in an uproar. Driver was most certainly wrong then, and is most certainly wrong now.

 

[xBiffx]

If he's that distracted by two guys quietly holding hands that it makes his driving dangerous then he shouldn't be driving a public vehicle.

Says who. Nowhere is there a qualification on what constitutes a distraction. But go ahead and take away people's livelihoods in the name of political correctness.

Also, this wasn't a public vehicle.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think we covered this subject in the 60s. One woman made a distraction and the country joined her in an uproar. Driver was most certainly wrong then, and is most certainly wrong now.

1955

But there is zero comparison.

 

[zsdersw]

In the name of safety it really doesn't matter. If its a distraction to the driver it really does have to pass a litmus test.

Like your other examples, they could have just been in view to be a distraction.

If the company's reaction is any indication, no, the "driver distraction" excuse doesn't apply to this case.

Guarantee this isn't an issue when he tells a overly fat person to sit in the back of the bus.

Being in the presence of an overly fat person would be much more common here in America than a gay couple holding hands and the driver probably wouldn't have even noticed.

 

[xBiffx]

I think we covered this subject in the 60s. One woman made a distraction and the country joined her in an uproar. Driver was most certainly wrong then, and is most certainly wrong now.

Guarantee that if the driver claimed he was being distracted then it won't matter. Discrimination takes a back seat (pun intended) to safety.

Again, would love to see the outrage when a fat person is told to go to the back of the bus because the driver can't stand to see them.

 

[zsdersw]

Also, this wasn't a public vehicle.

Right, it was a private vehicle owned by a private company. That company said the driver's actions were inappropriate. End of story.

 

[Geosurface]

Ideally if the driver tells you you're distracting him, your self-preservation instinct and respect for his job dealing with traffic, etc, should be enough to make you need no further explanation, and move to the back/quiet down.

But a lot of people go through life on a hair trigger, always looking for the white whale (the intolerant bigot they can juice for years of complaining stories to their friends and to Huffington Post) - and they'll often see it when it isn't there.

So if you do like this guy did, and call two guys holding hands a distraction, or imply that it is, there's liable to be a backlash of exactly this type.

For that reason, even if I was a homophobe (and I'm not) I would just deal with it. People aren't on these shuttles for long. Just ride it out, put up with it, and keep your job.

Because again, a lot of gay people or racial minorities go through life absolutely ready to interpret anything as a slight based on their status. Everything becomes racism, everything becomes homophobia. Some will even go out of their way to try to trigger a response, be extra loud/boisterous or play into stereotypes, to try to see if they can get a rise.

Perhaps these gentlemen were laying it on thick, perhaps not. Either way, it sounds like the driver was being legitimately homophobic. And if nothing else, his own self-interest should have kicked in - and certainly his desire to not cause problems for his employer.