Anti-Pride Bus Driver Fired

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by chemgear

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/09/11...hes-been-fired

You repeatedly suggested that The City was requiring you to operate the Pride Bus and that you would lose your job if you refused.

No one ever asked you to operate the Pride Bus and you were specifically advised that you would not be assigned the Pride Bus as part of your work.

You identified yourself as a Calgary Transit employee in connection with your Facebook profile page where you have posted Nazi-related content which is abhorrent and contrary to the values The City promotes,” states the letter.

It was a depiction of a rainbow flag with a swastika in the centre and the word “homofacism” written on it, he said.

He also posted a second photo referencing Nazism, meant to convey a similar message, he said.

More people need to pay attention to this as the argument still seems to be going in circles. The guy was obviously soapboxing (I guess I'm making that a word) and probably wasn't even asked to drive the bus. Moreover, he identified himself on his Facebook page as a CT employee while at the same time using Nazi imagery (even if he claims he was just doing it in an ironic way). His version of events is suspect at best as his own Facebok page outed him for the guy he is, and dragged CT into the battle. They had no option but to terminate him after that.

He was very justly fired and I'm not sure how anyone can argue that.

Secondly, for those that think 'hating Christians' is a thing now, give your head a shake. No one hates Christians and no one is preventing them from practicing their beliefs. They are only protecting the rights of others. If your religious viewpoints encourage taking away or limiting the rights of others, than maybe you should take a look at just how good or fair your viewpoints are. And if your freedom of speech outs you for being an intolerant asshat, everyone else has the freedom of speech to tell you just that. Works both ways.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The guy was obviously soapboxing (I guess I'm making that a word) and probably wasn't even asked to drive the bus.

According to the termination letter he posted, he was actually told he wouldn't have to drive that bus. So yeah, he was definitely soapboxing. Seems like he wanted to be a "martyr" like that fool in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

If he'd just kept his trap shut we would never have heard of him, he would have got his way, and he'd still have his job. Tough break for him that bus drivers in Calgary aren't elected.

I do have to wonder though if a bus driver refused to drive a bus with an ad for a church on the side, would the religious folks among us be standing up to defend his job and "freedom of speech".

[Rhettzky]

Not only that but he was in his probation period, what did he think would happen here?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

According to the termination letter he posted, he was actually told he wouldn't have to drive that bus. So yeah, he was definitely soapboxing. Seems like he wanted to be a "martyr" like that fool in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

If he'd just kept his trap shut we would never have heard of him, he would have got his way, and he'd still have his job. Tough break for him that bus drivers in Calgary aren't elected.

I do have to wonder though if a bus driver refused to drive a bus with an ad for a church on the side, would the religious folks among us be standing up to defend his job and "freedom of speech".

I would say yes, if the person refusing to drive the bus was doing it for a deeply held spiritual belief and not because they wanted to make a statement then yes I would suspect most people religious or not would be okay with reasonable accommodation.

The problem with the argument is that it is a strait pride parade argument. The hypothetical you are giving just doesn't exist and if it did exist for the same reasons no one would have an issue. Its a terrible strawman.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would say yes, if the person refusing to drive the bus was doing it for a deeply held spiritual belief and not because they wanted to make a statement then yes I would suspect most people religious or not would be okay with reasonable accommodation.

The problem with the argument is that it is a strait pride parade argument. The hypothetical you are giving just doesn't exist and if it did exist for the same reasons no one would have an issue. Its a terrible strawman.

Thankfully history provides us with a better comparison......

"Your" beliefs, hell my beliefs, don't trump an individual's basic human rights.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would say yes, if the person refusing to drive the bus was doing it for a deeply held spiritual belief and not because they wanted to make a statement then yes I would suspect most people religious or not would be okay with reasonable accommodation.

The problem with the argument is that it is a strait pride parade argument. The hypothetical you are giving just doesn't exist and if it did exist for the same reasons no one would have an issue. Its a terrible strawman.

What is a "strait pride argument"?

There are buses that have pro-life and churchy ads on/in them right now. sAs nice and smiley as you seem to think churchified people are, I goddamn guarantee they wouldn't be rallying for an atheist's "right" to not drive it because of his/her deeply held non-belief. And they'd be right, because it would be pretty stupid for anyone to refuse to do the job he was hired to do based on something so frivolous. Luckily this moron got fired, so case closed.

I wonder if he has a deeply held belief that the lunatic church he's attached to will pay his bills. I have a deeply held belief that they won't.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Roast Beef

I wouldn't fall for this. I personally think Pope Francis is running a shell game here. He knows the winds of change are blowing, so he's altering the "message" to make it more appealing to that mindset, without actually altering the core beliefs. He's a very dangerous individual and should not be taken at his word in any way shape or form. In the immortal words of the great Admiral Akbar: "It's a Trap!"

Given the history of the Catholic Church, being skeptical is certainly the proper attitude to take. But even if he doesn't believe it in his heart, that Francis has gone from clearly anti-LGBT to publicly non-committal (at worst) does resonate. If the Pope chooses not to preach a message of intolerance, that will ultimately filter down. It is a small step forward in the end, but at the same time, a far larger step than idiots like this guy who got fired are willing to take.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would say yes, if the person refusing to drive the bus was doing it for a deeply held spiritual belief and not because they wanted to make a statement then yes I would suspect most people religious or not would be okay with reasonable accommodation.

lol

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by calf

It's not that people hate Christians. They just don't like what they preach in certain circumstances. Plus, everywhere you go Christianity is put on display. Who wants to see that? Hey, I have plenty of friends and co-workers who are Christian and I have no problem with them. But what they do doesn't align with my beliefs, so I don't think they should do it.

I would love to go one day... just ONE DAY without hearing about christians and their nutty shenanigans. I think it's literally impossible.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I would love to go one day... just ONE DAY without hearing about christians and their nutty shenanigans. I think it's literally impossible.

Yeah, those nutty shenanigans.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle26322617/

[Matata]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given the history of the Catholic Church, being skeptical is certainly the proper attitude to take. But even if he doesn't believe it in his heart, that Francis has gone from clearly anti-LGBT to publicly non-committal (at worst) does resonate. If the Pope chooses not to preach a message of intolerance, that will ultimately filter down. It is a small step forward in the end, but at the same time, a far larger step than idiots like this guy who got fired are willing to take.

Catholic religious dogma explicitly states that one must reach out to their fellow man in the spirit of love and acceptance, if conflicting ideologies exist between you and your fellow man, then love is the primary tool that must used to understand that disagreement.

It constantly amazes me how quickly people disregard Jesus' primary focus and teachings in lieu of a few lines poorly understood Old-testament that they are explicitly told not to follow (the old-testament is only reference material, it is no longer the 'rule of law'). So the Pope promoting tolerance of homosexuality is more a case of practicing what he preaches, I know we've all gotten used to the pope being a medium for anachronistic hatred, but the new pope is actually doing it right (well, right-er).

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, those nutty shenanigans.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle26322617/

There are good and bad in everything.


You can find stories of the Hell's Angels doing charity work. They are still bags of poop.

I have no issues with Religion per se, but I have an issue when religion is used to substantiate hate or oppose Human Rights.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

There are good and bad in everything.


You can find stories of the Hell's Angels doing charity work. They are still bags of poop.

I have no issues with Religion per se, but I have an issue when religion is used to substantiate hate or oppose Human Rights.

Tolerance star!

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by peter12

Tolerance star!

expand please.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What is a "strait pride argument"?

There are buses that have pro-life and churchy ads on/in them right now. sAs nice and smiley as you seem to think churchified people are, I goddamn guarantee they wouldn't be rallying for an atheist's "right" to not drive it because of his/her deeply held non-belief. And they'd be right, because it would be pretty stupid for anyone to refuse to do the job he was hired to do based on something so frivolous. Luckily this moron got fired, so case closed.

I wonder if he has a deeply held belief that the lunatic church he's attached to will pay his bills. I have a deeply held belief that they won't.

The straight pride argument is that if you have a gay pride parade why don't I have a straight pride parade. The answer is no one has ever organized one to celebrate being straight and any that have bee organized have been about being anti gay rights.

The same can be said for this atheist who refuses to drive a bus with anti abortion or church ads on it. This person doesn't exist and any person who did object would not be doing it based on a deeply held belief but doing to be anti-religion.

[Resolute 14]

The problem with a "straight pride" parade/day/week is that it would be no different than a "white pride" parade/day/week. When you are a member of the privileged majority, you don't need any events like that, and a desire to host or participate in one is essentially only a shining "I'm a bigot" beacon.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, those nutty shenanigans.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle26322617/

They do good things too, yes I know. I don't mean to paint all individuals with the same brush. I know some christians that are perfectly nice people that embody what I would envision a true follower of Christ to be. I don't think caring about the suffering of others is limited to religious people though, hopefully that's not what you're implying. I say this because I also know several people who believe that morality is derived from being a christian and anyone who doesn't believe is a hell bound, immoral sinner. As an atheist, they believe I am basically evil and a lost soul. I could be the exact same person I am right now, while claiming I am now a christian, and suddenly I would be all good in their eyes. My wife's family literally won't come into our house because we're atheists but that would change in a heartbeat if we converted. They literally won't let their kids play with their cousins (our kids) that are all the same age, because we don't believe in God and they think our kids will corrupt their kids. The kids are all under 8 BTW.

You can't deny that some of these crazies aren't really helping your cause. Perhaps they're the minority, I don't know, but they are very loud. I'm referring to people like Kim Davis and her supporters (or whoever the zealot of the week is) and even people like the guy earlier who who said that he disagrees with the 'lifestyle choices' of gays and equated being a homosexual to murdering someone (equal sins according to God I guess). But they're still his 'friends' lol. Have fun burning in a lake of fire for all eternity, 'friend'. I'm even refering to my wife's family as they believe in the same things and support people like the Duggars and Kim Davis. They all support varying degrees of the view that gay people aren't like them (to put it nicely) and they will burn for their 'sins'. Color it how you want, the great majority believe their God wants to torture people for all eternity for being gay, and they support that (though they do sometimes try to dance around it).

How many christians believe that crap? Just by personal experience I would say A LOT. Some aren't like that but I would say the poster earlier was holding very common views. Just because there is some good doesn't mean others are going to ignore a mountain of crap, especially when it's shoved down everyone's throat daily.

Out of curiosity, do you believe being gay is a choice? Not trying to put you on the spot but I am curious, feel free not to answer if you're uncomfortable. If your answer is no, if it isn't a choice, then what kind of god would damn his own people for it? He made them that way in the first place! Also if being gay is such a hot button issue for God, why doesn't JC have anything to say about it in the new testament? Or is it just one of those things that people pick and choose to follow from the old testament to suit their views? Seems to me, Christians would be better following the word of Christ rather than the old testament, especially when there are conflicts as Christ's message of unconditional love and forgiveness doesn't jive with hating gay people, or much of what's in the old testament for that matter. Yet christians seem to want to cling to what's in there before following the literal words of the man who the religion is named after.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The problem with a "straight pride" parade/day/week is that it would be no different than a "white pride" parade/day/week. When you are a member of the privileged majority, you don't need any events like that, and a desire to host or participate in one is essentially only a shining "I'm a bigot" beacon.

Yeah what exactly would a "straight pride" day be celebrating? Proudly rising against all the hardships straight people face?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The problem with a "straight pride" parade/day/week is that it would be no different than a "white pride" parade/day/week. When you are a member of the privileged majority, you don't need any events like that, and a desire to host or participate in one is essentially only a shining "I'm a bigot" beacon.

Exactly -- any attempt to create one is not genuine. It designed to promote intolerance. It's the same with the fictitious atheist who is objecting to drive the bus. It's point would only be to promote intolerance.

So until an athiest comes around with an objection to driving a bus based on a deeply and sincerely held belief the question of how Christians in this thread would react is pointless. The person doesn't exist.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by chemgear

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/09/11...hes-been-fired

You repeatedly suggested that The City was requiring you to operate the Pride Bus and that you would lose your job if you refused.

No one ever asked you to operate the Pride Bus and you were specifically advised that you would not be assigned the Pride Bus as part of your work.

You identified yourself as a Calgary Transit employee in connection with your Facebook profile page where you have posted Nazi-related content which is abhorrent and contrary to the values The City promotes,” states the letter.

It was a depiction of a rainbow flag with a swastika in the centre and the word “homofacism” written on it, he said.

He also posted a second photo referencing Nazism, meant to convey a similar message, he said.

One other quote of note in that article;
"Friday, the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 583 confirmed a grievance had been filed on Rau’s behalf."

I imagine that it's squashed, and rightfully so.