I don't see what the big deal is here. How many of the busses actually have the advertisements on them? I guess I don't really know. This isn't infringing on anyone else's rights. People are still going to be able to get to work, doctors appointments, and the movies on time whether this guy is driving a "gay" bus or not.

One thing that gets me in this "rights" arena though, is pharmacists who will not dispense birth control. I suppose the issues aren't that far apart. Lots of women do use birth control for birth control purposes. But there are those women out there who use birth control for medicinal purposes (and I was one of them before I got married). Where does that pharmacist get off not giving me something that will keep me from severe pain? And s/he can't really ask me for what purpose I'm using it for, either. Refusing to dispense medication is an infringement on MY rights, where the bus driver really isn't doing anything like that.

where the bus driver really isn't doing anything like that

no wymoo there is a similarity - the driver does not want to promote gayness in the same way the pharmacist does not want to promote birth control.

Both object to promotion of it - the driver by driving the bus with the ad on and the pharmacist by dispensing it - it is their moral choice to either do it or not to do it.

thats way way I see it. in my humble opinion

no wymoo there is a similarity - the driver does not want to promote gayness in the same way the pharmacist does not want to promote birth control. Both object to promotion of it - the driver by driving the bus with the ad on and the pharmacist by dispensing it - it is their moral choice to either do it or not to do it.

Very good analogy.  And as long as the company that HIRED him is willing to accomodate his beliefs, that should not be a problem.  But they are not obligated to.  In this case they went along, but I think they are asking for trouble as now the Religious are going to come out of the wordwork!

Pandora's box has been opened in the Twin Cities.

In this case they went along, but I think they are asking for trouble as now the Religious are going to come out of the wordwork!

We are having some issues over here about working women wearing the veil - a school insisted that a muslim teacher not wear her veil she took them to the tribunal and lost the case of descrimination (sp) against her and her religion.

But who's rights is the bus driver infringing upon? No ones. He just hops on a bus in the morning that doesn't have the "offending" advertisement.

When a pharmacist refuses someone their medication due to their personal beliefs, they could be endangering their health. What if a Christian Scientist pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for amoxicillian? Would that be okay? It's the same principal. The one pharmacist doesn't believe in birth control, and the one pharmacist doesn't believe in antibiotics. According to what you're saying its okay for either pharmacist to deny their patients their medications because of their personal beliefs.

I say if you can't perform all the functions of your profession, don't sign up for the job.

On the other hand, if these pharmacists were not the only employees at the pharmacy, and another employee could dispense my medication, I would have no problems with the pharmacist exercising his or her beliefs at work. But when it comes to getting my medications, I need them, and I need them when I need them, not when it's convenient for a pharmacist's beliefs to get them for me.

But who's rights is the bus driver infringing upon? No ones. He just hops on a bus in the morning that doesn't have the "offending" advertisement.

You have a point but it is also your right to find a pharmacist that will dispense your prescription.

Change pharmacists?   

The issues of whats right and whats wrong can be areal minefield especially if Pcorrectness comes into it.

This issue of the medicine dispensing would make a good blog on its own.

no wymoo there is a similarity - the driver does not want to promote gayness in the same way the pharmacist does not want to promote birth control.

I disagree. It might be analogous if the bus driver refused to drive homosexuals and they had to find a gay-friendly bus or taxi driver.

Matters of public health and safety are hardly the same as who gets to advertise where.

Re: the driver, The bus driver is hired to drive the bus. The bus doesn't belong to him, and I doubt very seriously he had any agreement that allowed him to okay ads. He should be forced to drive the bus and fired if he doesn't.

re: the ads, Homosexuals aren't promoting their agenda with ads. Businesses are either exploiting the recent fad of gayness in mainstream media, or trying to sell their products to the gay community. Either way, the gay people aren't the ones instigating it.

re: pharmacists, that has always been a confused issue. Some people believe that pharmacists who work for a chain and don't own the store itself have some right to not sell the morning after pill or birth control as employees. That's idiotic, and the pharmacist should be fired.

On the other hand the store owner in a free society should be allowed to sell whatever they want, and opt not to sell whatever they want. These new laws in some states say that if you run a pharmacy you may not discriminate in what kind of drugs you sell, and that is a fascist law that should be struck down.

Re: the driver, The bus driver is hired to drive the bus. The bus doesn't belong to him, and I doubt very seriously he had any agreement that allowed him to okay ads. He should be forced to drive the bus and fired if he doesn't.

I can kind of see your point, Baker, ESPECIALLY if the advertising were on ALL the busses. But the advertising isn't, and its easy to "fix"...he just has to grab another bus in the morning when he gets to work.

I agree with Gene's statment more, however:

It might be analogous if the bus driver refused to drive homosexuals and they had to find a gay-friendly bus or taxi driver.

The driver isn't refusing to transport people who are gay or lesbian, he just doesn't want to drive a bus that has advertisement for that.

I do, however, agree wholeheartedly with you on the pharmacist/pharmacy issue. I wouldn't be offended if I knew in advance that a particular pharmacist was on duty and wouldn't dispense my medications, or if it was public knowledge that the pharmacy didn't dispense the "offending" medication at all. I *would* be offended if I had called in for a refill and walked up to the window and the pharmacist refused to hand over the white bag because of his/her beliefs. I pay for the product, so I should receive it. It's like...someone being against shampoo or something. I'm okay with the pharmacist believing whatever they want, but I need my medication and that's all there is to it. If I know that my medication won't be dispensed by a pharmacist who works Monday thru Friday from 9-6, I'll pick up my medication another time, no problem, but if I have NO notification whatsoever, I'd be pissed.

You have a point but it is also your right to find a pharmacist that will dispense your prescription. Change pharmacists?

What if I live in a small town with one pharmacy? And one pharmacist? In Alaska's Alleutian Islands? Then what? I just don't get my medications because the town's ONE pharmacist doesn't believe in the usage of my medication? that's bunk.

I agree with you Bakerstreet on all points.

As for the pharmacy if the pharmacist thinks it's good business practice to refuse to stock popular products then they can expect to get bought out eventually by someone with better business practices.

What if I live in a small town with one pharmacy? And one pharmacist? In Alaska's Alleutian Islands? Then what? I just don't get my medications because the town's ONE pharmacist doesn't believe in the usage of my medication? that's bunk.

Buy online. Canadian pharmacists will ship practically anywhere.

...now the Religious are going to come out of the wordwork!

My feelings exactally Doc.

First, busdrivers dont have to drive busses based on religious beliefes. Next thing you know it, the bus lines wont let gays on the bus based on religious beliefes. Heck. Maybe the auto industry will get into the fray by not selling cars to gays based upon religious beliefs.

Where will it end. I do not support homosexuality, but by God, this could get out of hand.

The only good thing about this news article is that the bus line never refused services to anybody. But the decision based on religious beliefs is straight up contradictory to the separation of church and state. Honestly, this is the core of our political system.

We are having some issues over here about working women wearing the veil

I'm guessing you do not live in the USA Jen?

But who's rights is the bus driver infringing upon? No ones. He just hops on a bus in the morning that doesn't have the "offending" advertisement

See what happened here is the bus driver said I do not want to drive busses with gay adverts. based upon her religious beliefs. Then the bus line actually made the same statement but with a larger voice when they allowed her the bus driver to not drive those particular busses by accenting her/their religios beliefs.

While this event did not directly attack the gay community, it did in fact do so indirectly. IMHO, it became an issue when the busline brought religion into the picture to ajudicate the bus drivers complaint.

Matters of public health and safety are hardly the same as who gets to advertise where.

Gene, the point is where will it end? Will it end in adverts, or will it sneak up like you say to prohibit gays from riding certain busses.