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.

Mr Baker- Well said. The situation got a bit more convaluted when the busline made public the reason why they allowd this busdriver her wishes based upon her religious beliefs.

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.

If no laws are broken, whats up? I would think a law suit may be coming up between Lavender and the busline. The busline has a conflict of intrest now, and is adversely advertizing the advertizement Lavender paid for.

Why do homosexuals try to ram their lifestyles down my throat?

As ever, I am amused - and mildly irritated - by this daft, but common expression. In fact those perhaps rather unfortunate words 'ramming it down our throats' seem to be the standard mantra for making this complaint, which suggests to me that it is what Richard Dawkins calls a meme, a "unit of cultural information transferable from one mind [sic] to another."WWW Link

Heterosexuality is hugely visible in society, whether being used as the energy behind advertising, or as a cultural referent in TV and movie plots. Only a few homosexuals complain about this, and those that do are just as daft as Xythe here. What Xythe means is not that s/he can't turn a single street corner without being confronted by graphic (homo)sexual representations of one sort or another, but that s/he is offended by any gay visibility whatsoever. Put this in another context: "why do those disabled people shove their lifestyles down our throats, blatantly flaunting their wheelchairs! Yuck, I want to live in a world where I don't have to see that kind of crap!"

So, the answer is that no-one is ramming anything down your throat. The 'threat' is entirely in your own mind and is an inevitable consequence of having such daft views as "homosexuality is in fact contradictory to life itself." Unless you are arguing that all homosexuals are in fact dead, this sentence has no meaning, and that sloppy thinking should be expressed in sloppy language is certainly no coincidence.

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.

Your missing the point. The decision was made in the bus drivers favor based upon religious beliefs.

As ever, I am amused - and mildly irritated - by this daft, but common expression.

I'm glad you were admused as this as far as I am concerned a pretty serious issue.

What Xythe means is not that s/he can't turn a single street corner without being confronted by graphic (homo)sexual representations of one sort or another, but that s/he is offended by any gay visibility whatsoever.

You have stepped over the line here my friend. How on earth do you propose to know what I mean? Besides, your statement is flawed because I walk around many street corners without gat adverts. I get more miffed when gay people try to corrupt the morals of my childeren with their abomative lifestyle let it be by advertizement or any other media (such as a mouth peice...tee hee). But this is not the scope of this thread. So kindly plese stay on topic, or your posts shall disappear.

Ste rest of your comment uses similar slippery-slopes and deserves no more attention than this.

I agree with you Bakerstreet on all points.

That makes 3 of us.

The decision was made in the bus drivers favor based upon religious beliefs.

So? Companies are supposed to try and accomodate the religious beliefs of their employees so long as it doesn't disrupt their business. There is nothing wrong with it and personally I think it's being made a bigger deal than it actually is.

The company didn't do anything wrong. The driver didn't do anything wrong. The company hasn't refused the advertising (which they actually have the right to do), so I really don't see why this is such a big issue for some people.

The company could have just said drive the bus or you're fired, but they chose instead to accomodate their employee. So what? I'm willing to bet they have even employees who are willing to drive the bus with the ads that it doesn't do them any harm either way, or they wouldn't have made the decision to accomodate that person.

Nobody is harmed here, and it's a bit of a fuss over nothing. If it opens a can of worms, well they'll just have to deal with it.

So? Companies are supposed to try and accomodate the religious beliefs of their employees so long as it doesn't disrupt their business. There is nothing wrong with it and personally I think it's being made a bigger deal than it actually is.

What I am seeing here Mason, and what concerns me most is the indication that the matter was adjudicated using religion as a basis for making a political statement.

While the private sector will do whatever it can to please its clients, they are in fact prohibited from certain discriminitory pratices. There are also many laws in place that prohibit businesses from doing many things whether it disrupts their business or otherwise.

I think theres a little bit more to this event that meets the eye. If you look a little deeper, setting aside whatever bias concerning homosexuality you may have as I have attempted to do, you might just see the same?

The company could have just said drive the bus or you're fired, but they chose instead to accomodate their employee. So what? I'm willing to bet they have even employees who are willing to drive the bus with the ads that it doesn't do them any harm either way, or they wouldn't have made the decision to accomodate that person.

What would happen should all the busdrivers come out and say they dont want to drive busses containing gay adverts? No people driving busses? Think about it.

Nobody is harmed here, and it's a bit of a fuss over nothing. If it opens a can of worms, well they'll just have to deal with it.

Nobody is harmed here, and it's a bit of a fuss over nothing. If it opens a can of worms, well they'll just have to deal with it.

Come on now Mason, this is a little past you. I know your not making the statement for everybody on their behalf here...are you? How do you know that anybosy other than yourself has been hurt or otherwise?

The company didn't do anything wrong. The driver didn't do anything wrong.

Well so far it seems as the company has not done anything unlawful, that much I can agree upon. However, wrong is in the eye of the beholder. One persons wrong could be another persons right. I dont expect to see this in any part of the legal system, but the civil system is another matter.