Are Homosexual Rights Now Infringing On Christian Rights ?

This story bothers me, some here will call this progress.
But this is really a litmus test for two groups rights.

Pride Bus

So you have a Christian who is saying driving this bus all day, crosses that line and violates his conscious, does he have the right to say, can I drive another bus ?

To me this represents the coming battle of two groups rights.
At least in Canada there is this Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

As I read this it seems there is legitimate conflict that the courts will need to decide.
In this case if you are charge of the Calgary bus transit you apply the law and and assign the bus driver to another bus.
If your an idiot you purposely assign him to that bus. Both can co-exist if both are respectful of the others belief structures.

My problem starts when people say you have to do this, when really they don't, they are just trying to make a point, and a problem.
And I have to be honest, if I was that bus driver, I would be saying no too, even at the cost of my job.

So Christians what would you do ?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

He drives a bus every day. That's his job. The color of the bus does not infringe on his freedom to practice his religion. He can still go to church, pray, read his bible, raise his children in the church, etc. Driving that bus DOES NOT infringe on his religious rights.

If they painted all the buses different colors, and he didn't like the purple one, should he be allowed to drive the red one instead?

Doug Morgan, director of Calgary Transit, says drivers can only refuse to work based on safety issues.

This is not a safety issue. He should quit his job if he cannot perform it.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
And I have to be honest, if I was that bus driver, I would be saying no too, even at the cost of my job.

Why?

Driving a bus doesn't mean you support every ad printed on the bus...

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Yes, they are infringing, tail wag dog 101. The bus driver should be reassigned without penalty. In the case of personal rights that don't infringe other's personal rights, any law that uses extortion is an unjust, immoral and unethical law.

Cheers - Dave

If everyone agrees that a caterer who is Muslim
MUST cook and serve pork if requested by a non-Muslim,

and Muslim taxi drivers can not refuse customers
with alcohol

and caterers who are Muslim must provide alcohol
if requested by a non-Muslim by law or be heavily fined

If a vegan caterer is asked to cook a Brazilian
4 meat meal if requested by a meat eater
and may not refuse by law or be heavily fined

If a Black caterer, baker, florist, photographers must
serve a KKK event and can not refuse
by penalty of law and fines

If a Jewish caterer, baker, florist, photographer must
serve a Nazi event and can not refuse by
penalty of law and fines

If a pro choice caterer, baker, florist, photographer must
serve an anti-abortion event
and can not refuse by penalty of law and fines

If a gay caterer, baker, florist, photographer must
serve an anti-gay event
and can not refuse by penalty of law and fines

If a transsexual caterer, baker, florist, photographer must
serve an anti-transexual event
and can not refuse by penalty of law and fines

If no caterer, baker, florist, photographer can refuse anyone
for any reason other than being already engaged with another
client; or being out of town at the time;
and can not refuse by penalty of law and heavy fines regardless
of how they "feel" about an event, be it a KKK, Nazi, Anti-Abortion,
Anti-Gay, Anti-Transsexual or any other event they personally
object to.


If you think all of the above should be forced by
law to serve all of these events, then Christians
are being treated equally.

If you say no to any
(even one of the above for any reason at all)
then Christians are not being treated equally
and are being discriminated against.

If one feels that one group may force another group
to engage in activity that goes against their personal
values that they have held for a lifetime. Then you
are by default for discrimination.

If you feel all of the above are true
then and only then are you not for
discrimination.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

So Christians what would you do ?

Your job.

But the company should recognize that some may have issues with this. So they should reassign the person, in my humble opinion.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
If everyone agrees that a caterer who is Muslim
MUST cook and serve pork if requested by a non-Muslim,

and Muslim taxi drivers can not refuse customers
with alcohol

and caterers who are Muslim must provide alcohol
if requested by a non-Muslim by law or be heavily fined

If a vegan caterer is asked to cook a Brazilian
4 meat meal if requested by a meat eater
and may not refuse by law or be heavily fined

If a Black caterer, baker, florist, photographers must
serve a KKK event and can not refuse
by penalty of law and fines

If a Jewish caterer, baker, florist, photographer must
serve a Nazi event and can not refuse by
penalty of law and fines

If a pro choice caterer, baker, florist, photographer must
serve an anti-abortion event
and can not refuse by penalty of law and fines

If a gay caterer, baker, florist, photographer must
serve an anti-gay event
and can not refuse by penalty of law and fines

If a transsexual caterer, baker, florist, photographer must
serve an anti-transexual event
and can not refuse by penalty of law and fines

If no caterer, baker, florist, photographer can refuse anyone
for any reason other than being already engaged with another
client; or being out of town at the time;
and can not refuse by penalty of law and heavy fines regardless
of how they "feel" about an event, be it a KKK, Nazi, Anti-Abortion,
Anti-Gay, Anti-Transsexual or any other event they personally
object to.


If you think all of the above should be forced by
law to serve all of these events, then Christians
are being treated equally.

If you say no to any
(even one of the above for any reason at all)
then Christians are not being treated equally
and are being discriminated against.

If one feels that one group may force another group
to engage in activity that goes against their personal
values that they have held for a lifetime. Then you
are by default for discrimination.

If you feel all of the above are true
then and only then are you not for
discrimination.

Fully agree, one law fits all or the law doesn't exist.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: beezzer

I agree just reasign him and we wouldn't have all this needless bother BUT It is his job is driving a bus.
Would a racist be allowed to not drive a bus full of white people about believing they are inferior to them? (rastas).

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: beezzer

I agree just reasign him and we wouldn't have all this needless bother BUT It is his job is driving a bus.
Would a racist be allowed to not drive a bus full of black people about if he asked?.

True.

The company doesn't have the obligation to do so, but if they recognize and respect his religious beliefs, then they should move him.

Driving a bus in no way, encourages, endorses homosexuality.

a reply to: beezzer

I edited because I have been talking to a proper rasta today who thinks we are all devils lol.
Nice chap though.

a reply to: grandmakdw
Instead of going through your ridiculous examples one by one, if a business person ALREADY provides a service to the public (such as cooking pork or serving alcohol, making wedding cakes, catering events) they should do it for everyone.

On the other hand, if they DO NOT provide a service (such as cooking meat, providing KKK or dead baby decorations) they should not be forced to do it for anyone.

So, if the bus driver drives a city bus, he should drive ANY city bus, regardless of the color.

It's really simple. People shouldn't be permitted to refuse service to someone simply because they don't approve of them.

a reply to: boymonkey74

This is a city bus. It's not going to be full of gay people... It's just another week with regular people going to work on the bus.

If a bus driver refused to drive a bus because it had a banner celebrating "75 Years of Civil Rights" on the side, would that be OK? Should the city take his "beliefs" into account and not assign him that bus?

Religion is a Belief, you have a right to practice your belief and not "Forced" into a certain Religion, that is why Laws can't and shouldn't be created or enforced based on Religious Belief because that infringes upon the rights of everyone.

Homosexuality (or any Sexual Orientation or Gender-Identity) is something you are Born with,it's not a "Belief system" so our rights should be the same as any other Human Being

So "Homosexual Rights" do not infringe upon anyone's Religious beliefs because no matter what anyone does you still have the right and Freedom to believe what you want

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: grandmakdw
Instead of going through your ridiculous examples one by one, if a business person ALREADY provides a service to the public (such as cooking pork or serving alcohol, making wedding cakes, catering events) they should do it for everyone.

On the other hand, if they DO NOT provide a service (such as cooking meat, providing KKK or dead baby decorations) they should not be forced to do it for anyone.

So, if the bus driver drives a city bus, he should drive ANY city bus, regardless of the color.

It's really simple. People shouldn't be permitted to refuse service to someone simply because they don't approve of them.

Caterers provide meals, and if they have a specific written menu that they do not vary from for anyone, then yes they may refuse and be non-discriminatory. However if they personalize menus for clients or allow a variance from the preset menus then they must provide pork (regardless of their religious beliefs) if requested or be fined and penalized for discrimination.

If a baker has a set of decorations that people may choose from and not vary from those decorations, then no they don't have to do anti-gay or dead baby decorations, that would not be discriminatory. However, if the baker does personalized decorations of any kind or routinely varies from the "book" decorations, then the baker must by law under penalty of being heavily fined, make anti-gay or dead baby decorations, because it would be discriminatory not to do so. Same for florists.

I think that allowing the bus driver
to drive a bus
that does not promote homosexuality
would be considerate,
the right thing to do,
and humane and thoughtful.

But the company has the right to be inconsiderate,
inhumane, and
completely disregard
the drivers deeply held convictions,
yes they have a right to do it.

It is inconsiderate,
inhumane,
thoughtless and cruel,
but yes they can do it legally,
but that is the way governments operate these days.
"You will accede to thought control or lose your job"
That is typical of especially liberal/progressive governments.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Here in Australia, thanks to overwhelming overkill of workplace QHSE requirements, Unions have now recognized that "mental anguish" is a safety issue simply because said anguish results in that individual having diminished concentration in the work place.

So, if he's forced to Drive, then drive. There after, because he is "stressed and can't concentrate properly because his boss insists he drive the rainbow bus which goes against his core values, and now it's effecting his marriage" all he needs to do is go see a doctor and get signed off for paid stress leave.

I have one such case right now because of a lack of internet on one of my vessels led a seafarer to not be able to complete personal (and critical) financial transactions resulting in back fines and account closure and a bank threat of repossession of his house - this caused significant stress on the individual and I had to get him off the vessel asap before he went fully tropo.

He has been on paid stress leave for 4 months so far, thanks to the mental duress he suffered during the period that the vessels comms were down. It was deemed by Fair-work Commission as a work place safety related issue resulting in mental trauma on the individual.

and of course, once Calgary Transit have to cough-up this $$, they may decide it's cheaper to have him drive another bus.

So, there is a free lesson for the bus drive and transit company - talk to each other and sort your ship out - there are buses that need driving, employees to keep happy and company profits to be made (and not thrown away on possible compensation claims).

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: beezzer

I edited because I have been talking to a proper rasta today who thinks we are all devils lol.
Nice chap though.

That's weird. Most of my studio clients are rasta (zionists). I hang out with them socially, too. Even followed Richie Spice around with a camera for a week. They don't seem to have any problems with any race. Just anyone who displays "babylonian" traits. Even then, they don't "bun dem" or "fling stone". They're just skinny loud mouths, like the majority of the world.

I would record gays, too. If they weren't so scared of rastas (zionists).

Is my business being discriminated against?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

He should just quit his job if he's that hateful of a person. Jesus would be so proud.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I agree dude I do.
Must admit I complety read the details wrong because of some major pain killers and I have had scotch (oops).
I would have given him a #ty bus or one advertising Will and Grace reruns.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
Religion is a Belief, you have a right to practice your belief and not "Forced" into a certain Religion, that is why Laws can't and shouldn't be created or enforced based on Religious Belief because that infringes upon the rights of everyone.

Homosexuality (or any Sexual Orientation or Gender-Identity) is something you are Born with,it's not a "Belief system" so our rights should be the same as any other Human Being

So "Homosexual Rights" do not infringe upon anyone's Religious beliefs because no matter what anyone does you still have the right and Freedom to believe what you want

Homosexuality is a belief system.

It says that sexual relations where no procreation can take place is normal and normative despite being harmful to the survival of the species and promoting procreative activity where no procreation can occur.

I'm not making a judgement here. Really.
I don't care at all what people do in private, live and let live as
far as I am concerned. Go ahead and "do" whoever you want,
fine with me.


But yes, calling it normative goes against basic biology
especially Darwinism and evolutionary theory, as it
is harmful to the survival of the species.
So yes, it is a belief system that goes against basic
biology and natural science and evolution and Darwinism.

Even if someone feels they are born that way, it still defies
the basic tenets of what is good for the species on a biological
level.

But again, I don't care who you bed, fine with me,
but it is a belief system that opposes survival of the species
and evolution in general.

a reply to: shefskitchen

Only met him at the bus stop and had a ride into town with him he was very very stoned and I just asked him what being a Rasta was about and he went on about us white devils and how the black man are the real Israelites but he did say he still loved us even though we were evil beggars.
He offered me a magic cig also.
Like I said nice chap.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Gay folk have always been around and is at the same levels as thousands of years ago..There are 7 billion of us so your view on it being bad for the survival of the species is just wrong.
How is it harming the species?.
You do not choose to be gay, it is not a belief system.