Couple told to go to back of the bus

[Texashiker]

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

Is the couple going to receive "suck it up and deal with it" training?

 

[zsdersw]

Is the couple going to receive "suck it up and deal with it" training?

The couple didn't do anything their employer(s) deemed inappropriate, so no.. they won't, and shouldn't.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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

The driver received sensitivity training and continues to work for the bus company.

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/features/gay-couple-forced-to-back-of-bus

A Standard Parking manager told KRQE News 13 that the driver was inappropriate and got carried away, although he did not consider it discrimination.
The driver in question is still working for Standard Parking.
The manager said he has worked for the company for more than 10 years, and they have never had problems with him in the past.
The company will now require all drivers to take sensitivity training.

Obviously that wasn't that the end of the story for you or you wouldn't have posted it in here.

 

[xBiffx]

The driver received sensitivity training and continues to work for the bus company.

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/features/gay-couple-forced-to-back-of-bus

Seems appropriate given his tenure and lack of incidents with the company. Glad no one lost their job over this.

 

[Texashiker]

The couple didn't do anything their employer(s) deemed inappropriate, so no.. they won't, and shouldn't.

Welcome to liberal land.

When someone gets their feelings hurt it makes the nation news.

 

[zsdersw]

The driver received sensitivity training and continues to work for the bus company.

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/features/gay-couple-forced-to-back-of-bus



Obviously that wasn't that the end of the story for you or you wouldn't have posted it in here.

"End of story" was about the private bus/private company thing, not the literal end to the whole story.

 

[zsdersw]

Welcome to liberal land.

When someone gets their feelings hurt it makes the nation news.

It was a local story.

 

[WelshBloke]

Says who.

Well me and common sense. If he's that distracted just by two people holding hands then he isn't fit to drive a bus. He's going to come across a lot of things much more distracting.

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.

I'm not the one suggesting that the guy would be so distracted by people holding hands that his driving would become dangerous, that was you.
I'm happy with the outcome. He just needed someone to tell him to stop pissing off the passenger's and to keep his opinions to himself on company time.

Also, this wasn't a public vehicle.

Yeah, if you're relying on that as your argument you haven't really got one.
It's a vehicle that carries the general public.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It was a local story.

Not now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/03/gay-couple-back-of-the-bus_n_3700584.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-holding-hands--day-Gay-Pride-week-began.html

 

[Texashiker]

It was a local story.

You thought it was important enough to post here.

 

[woolfe9998]

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. It appears that there are a few others that could use a little sensitivity training if you ask me.

Perhaps. I was making a suggestion about why some people may find the incident significant, i.e. because "back of the bus" has become culturally iconic. I'm not suggesting that gays are being subject to the same systematic segregation that was going on in Alabama in the 1950's.

 

[xBiffx]

Well me and common sense. If he's that distracted just by two people holding hands then he isn't fit to drive a bus. He's going to come across a lot of things much more distracting.

Distraction is subjective as are many things that don't prevent a driver from having his job.

I'm not the one suggesting that the guy would be so distracted by people holding hands that his driving would become dangerous, that was you.
I'm happy with the outcome. He just needed someone to tell him to stop pissing off the passenger's and to keep his opinions to himself on company time.

What exactly are you arguing with me about here? Plain and simple a distraction is whatever the driver says it is. His opinion, in that case, needs to be made public.

Yeah, if you're relying on that as your argument you haven't really got one.
It's a vehicle that carries the general public.

Hardly relying on that as my argument. Just simply correcting an error on your part. Keep thinking that I don't have an argument, however. Since you fail to acknowledge that the driver's opinion on a distraction, whether you like it or not, can change where you sit on the bus. Driver doesn't even have to let you on the bus if they are inclined to deny boarding for reasons of safety.

Not saying that is what this particular driver did but he easily could have and not much could have been done about it. Even in this case, not much was done about this incident after all.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

Suppose the bus driver is afraid of black people because he thinks they may hijack the bus at any time, so he doesn't want them sitting anywhere near him, and he tells all black people to get to the back of the bus. Your "distraction" logic also holds up perfectly well in that scenario.

"Distraction" when we're talking about gay hand holding is just a code for "I don't like these people." I think his employer has a right to not want to be represented to the public in that manner. If the man is too distracted to drive properly because it bothers him that much to see two men holding hands - in this day and age - maybe he shouldn't be driving a bus. Presumably, being a driver for public transit subjects you to viewing all manner of things, some of which you may not approve. None of it is any excuse for not being able to do your job.

 

[nehalem256]

Suppose the bus driver is afraid of black people because he thinks they may hijack the bus at any time, so he doesn't want them sitting anywhere near him, and he tells all black people to get to the back of the bus. Your "distraction" logic also holds up perfectly well in that scenario.

Someone obviously hasn't ridden a city bus lately. Black people already sit in the back of the bus.

Not that I can blame them since those are the premium seats :thumbsup:

 

[xBiffx]

Suppose the bus driver is afraid of black people because he thinks they may hijack the bus at any time, so he doesn't want them sitting anywhere near him, and he tells all black people to get to the back of the bus. Your "distraction" logic also holds up perfectly well in that scenario.

If he states his reason for doing so as safety then there probably isn't going to be an issue, legally that is. Of course, many of the patrons are probably going to exit the bus at that time and take another one. Also guessing that a driver in that scenario isn't going to stay one for very long. But then you picked a pretty lame brain one to make an argument and the likelihood of something going down just like that is probably extremely low.

"Distraction" when we're talking about gay hand holding is just a code for "I don't like these people." I think his employer has a right to not want to be represented to the public in that manner. If the man is too distracted to drive properly because it bothers him that much to see two men holding hands - in this day and age - maybe he shouldn't be driving a bus. Presumably, being a driver for public transit subjects you to viewing all manner of things, some of which you may not approve. None of it is any excuse for not being able to do your job.

I agree, someone so easily distracted probably shouldn't have a job like this. Problem is, he does have the job and he can do as he wishes (legally) as far as distractions go in the name of safety. Until his employers consider him as a liability and not fit in his current job, that is.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Perhaps. I was making a suggestion about why some people may find the incident significant, i.e. because "back of the bus" has become culturally iconic. I'm not suggesting that gays are being subject to the same systematic segregation that was going on in Alabama in the 1950's.

Agree. It seems to me that many LGBT activists want to frame the LGBT civil rights movement as somehow comparable to the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. Gays are not suffering anything close to what blacks suffered and to attempt to compare these movements is the epitome of disrespect and insensitivity IMO.

 

[Retro Rob]

It seems to me that many LGBT activists want to frame the LGBT civil rights movement as somehow comparable to the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. That dog don't hunt. Gays are not suffering anything close to what blacks suffered and to attempt to compare these movements is the epitome of disrespect and insensitivity.

Thank God someone has some common sense.

And the blatant dishonest/misleading title in that huff post link made me laugh; "gay couple FORCED to move to the back of a bus....." Sure, that will strike up outrage on the title alone, especially when the couple moved really without incident -- nothing was "forced" as we're being led to think.

Lol gay baiting....

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

It's funny all the frothing to make this seem like it was overplayed when it entirely wasn't... makes you all look like a bunch of twats really.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's funny all the frothing to make this seem like it was overplayed when it entirely wasn't... makes you all look like a bunch of twats really.

Ah...you're no fun.

The bus on which Rosa Parks was riding before her arrest on December 1, 1955 in downtown Montgomery, AL.

The bus on which McCoy and Bowers were asked to move to the back of on June 27, 2013 in Albuquerque, NM.

 

[sourn]

If this bus driver told a black couple that, I bet there would be a lot more outrage from some of these posters.

 

[woolfe9998]

Agree. It seems to me that many LGBT activists want to frame the LGBT civil rights movement as somehow comparable to the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. Gays are not suffering anything close to what blacks suffered and to attempt to compare these movements is the epitome of disrespect and insensitivity IMO.

Well, they aren't *currently* suffering that degree of discrimination, but then again, neither are black people any more.

The LGBT experience in America is certainly different in many ways from the black experience. Principally the distinction is that homosexuality is not overtly visible, and for a very long time it was hardly acknowledged as a sexual preference. The popular notion of it was defined by the behavior, which is why gays were referred to as "sodomites" at one time - because the idea of it as a sexual preference wasn't recognized. Essentially, all of LGBT America was in the closet for hundreds of years.

The consequence was that if you were say a gay man in the 1950's - when Rosa Parks famously bucked segregation in Alabama - you had spent your entire life pretending to be something you were not. You never told any of your family or friends that you were gay. You may have been in an unhappy straight marriage, which was also unfair to your wife, or no marriage at all. All the while you worried that if you were found out that you'd be shunned or jailed.

After gays started gradually coming out of the closet in the late 1960's, they did for a time face some discrimination in housing, employment and other areas not dissimilar to what blacks had faced. This has been turned around in the last 2-3 decades. To be honest, I'm not sure which was worse - to be openly gay and face some discrimination or to be forced to lie to everyone you know for your entire life. It's difficult to compare the two.

Either way, both groups are faring considerably better now than either did in the past.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's funny all the frothing to make this seem like it was overplayed when it entirely wasn't... makes you all look like a bunch of twats really.

The words "forced", and "back of the bus" used in the same sentence is good fodder for anti-gay baiters....using "forced" is clearly misleading, though the "back of the bus" is appropriate.

It's wrong to tell someone to move becaus they're holding hands, but they clearly weren't forced -- not in a place with good anti-discrimination laws.

Fail.

 

[himkhan]

Wowzers! Should I be surprised that some of the most active posters in a 70,000 post thread are also intolerant of gays, too? Wowzers! To be a black, gay male posting here must really get the free republics crosses burning rainbow colors

 

[Retro Rob]

If this bus driver told a black couple that, I bet there would be a lot more outrage from some of these posters.

Replace "black couple" with either Jewish couple or "Hispanic couple"...the point is they're playing on people's over-sensitivities, regardless the oreintation/race/ethnicity.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If this bus driver told a black couple that, I bet there would be a lot more outrage from some of these posters.

This isn't about outrage...it's about stupidity...LBGT activists being hypersensitive on one hand while being incredibly insensitivite to the black community on the other.