• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

"Man refuses to drive bus because it 'promotes homosexuality'"

Status
Not open for further replies.

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,545
Location
Elginshire
When he refused to drive a safe and functioning bus because he didn't like the colour of the destination display?
Have we established that the colour of the destination display was actually directly linked to some Pride event, or was it just someone in the office playing with buttons and thinking "ooooh, shiny"?

You can't be forced to do something you disagree with. The company have altered a fundamental condidtion of his employment.
Bollocks. There will be nothing in the conditions of employment which dictates the colour, shape or otherwise of the bus being driven.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Last time I checked, freedom of religion was still a statutory right.
[if the driver was against driving the bus on religious grounds].
Goodnight.
As I said earlier in the thread, his freedom of religion ends at the point it negatively affects others. If someone is late to work because a bus driver was worried that his magic sky daddy would get angry about the colours of the destination blind, they'd be justified in complaining to the company.

If his God would punish him for driving that bus, then I question his sanity for still wanting to worship such a monstrous deity.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You can't be forced to do something you disagree with.

Yes you can. You can be forced to do anything that is in your Contract of Employment that is not illegal. Or if you don't like it, you can resign.

He could (and should) refuse to drive an unroadworthy bus. He cannot refuse to drive a bus conveying a message he doesn't like.

The company have altered a fundamental condidtion of his employment.

Rubbish.
 

scosutsut

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2019
Messages
932
Location
scosutsut
The majority of the responses on this thread have restored my faith in humanity.

I think the fundamental issue here is the bus, as far as I can decipher, did not "promote homosexuality"

Now if it had a sign down the side that said "try intercourse with a partner of the same gender as you" then I'd say it could be argued that the bus promoted homosexuality.

However it did not. Thus rendering his presented argument for refusing the vehicle invalid.

Training course if he's lucky, books if he's not.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The majority of the responses on this thread have restored my faith in humanity.

I think the fundamental issue here is the bus, as far as I can decipher, did not "promote homosexuality"

Now if it had a sign down the side that said "try intercourse with a partner of the same gender as you" then I'd say it could be argued that the bus promoted homosexuality.

However it did not. Thus rendering his presented argument for refusing the vehicle invalid.

Training course if he's lucky, books if he's not.

It doesn't matter whether it said "eat British beef" and he was a veggie, or "Vote Tory" and he preferred Labour, or "Drink Duff beer" and he was teetotal. He's paid to drive the bus provided by his employer, and buses usually carry advertising, the only criteria for which tend to be (a) that the advertiser pays up, and (b) that the advertisement is not illegal. The only case for him not to do so would be if it were illegal for him to drive it, i.e. unroadworthy or similar.
 

scosutsut

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2019
Messages
932
Location
scosutsut
It doesn't matter whether it said "eat British beef" and he was a veggie, or "Vote Tory" and he preferred Labour. He's paid to drive the bus provided by his employer. The only case for him not to do so would be if it were illegal for him to drive it, i.e. unroadworthy or similar.
Agree 100% - his refusal wasn't justifiable in any context.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Now if it had a sign down the side that said "try intercourse with a partner of the same gender as you" then I'd say it could be argued that the bus promoted homosexuality.

Stonewall buy bus advertising, and he'd still be wrong to refuse to drive a bus because he disagreed with the advert.

Religious freedom is the freedom to have religious beliefs, not the freedom to pick and choose your work based on what you think your God thinks. See also the Muslim Virgin Traims staff member who was fired for refusing to serve alcohol and trim his beard.
 

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
3,169
I'd have to admit to not having attended a Pride event so, as an outsider, I've always associated them with being a celebration of inclusion (for instance the T bit of LGBT dosent preclude being straight). UKIP dosent project quite the same image to most people!

The worst thing about the incident that started the thread is that the connection to Pride is tenuous at best (Somebody in the company has spent 10 minutes playing around with the settings on some technology as apposed to the Lothian example where a serious amount of cash has changed hands to produce the vinyls).

It's likely that the first thought of anybody seeing the display in question is going to be 'oh thats pretty', 'oh that looks like it's broken' or 'somebody has made an LED display even harder to read', not 'I must go off and do stuff that's not allowed according to some of earth's many religions'.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'd have to admit to not having attended a Pride event so, as an outsider, I've always associated them with being a celebration of inclusion (for instance the T bit of LGBT dosent preclude being straight). UKIP dosent project quite the same image to most people!

The full abbreviation is LGBTQIA+ - the + is the point they "gave up" adding new ones (and basically means "all the others"), but the A can mean Asexual but can also mean Allies, who can be straight if they like! :)
 

riceuten

Member
Joined
23 May 2018
Messages
510
"If a train driver were to refuse a liveried unit, for what it represents and promotes, and their personal values conflicted with that of the company, the driver is more than entitled to raise this issue with their management. What happens then is down to the company procedure, whichever procedure that may be"

He is, and so is the bus driver, but if they refused to drive them because of this, then they are breaking their contract of employment, with ensuing misconduct proceedings and possibly the push.
 

AndyW33

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
534
Perhaps this driver would do well to avoid seeking employment with Trent Barton who have an entire route called Rainbow 1, or Arriva Derby who have the Park and Ride contract for the Pride Park parking area. Neither the route nor the car park names have any connection with homosexuality, but when does prejudice not knock common sense out the window?
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,811
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
The company have altered a fundamental condidtion of his employment.

In what way!?

Since when did he refuse to do his job? That bus, he refused to take. He requested / attempted to swap it for another.

This. He refused to drive the bus.

If a train driver were to refuse a liveried unit, for what it represents and promotes, and their personal values conflicted with that of the company, the driver is more than entitled to raise this issue with their management. What happens then is down to the company procedure, whichever procedure that may be.

Yes, do your job, drive the thing and then raise the issue when you have finished your shift. But if I was your manager and you told me you didn't want to drive a bus/train because it displayed adverts for Man U when you support Spurs, or Heineken beer when you drink Becks - I would tell you where to go
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
I can't agree with this drivers actions but I can't help wondering what if it had been one of the LGBT community refusing to drive a bus because they didn't approve the livery?
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
What an individual driver thinks about homosexuality, religion, politics, the size of their pay packet or anything else is no concern of mine, the passenger. I have my own views on all these things, but have no reason to communicate them to the driver. I might even have a view about what's advertised on the side of a bus, but I'm not sure I'd refuse to get on it if I objected to a particular ad, and there have been a few over the years that I've found slightly distasteful, I suppose. For the driver to object to driving a bus he/she has been allocated because of an ad/message on the outside of it is unacceptable in my eyes, except in the very unlikely event that said ad/message is so provocative that the driver or bus might get attacked by outraged members of the public. Now, if the driver had been asked or told to wear a badge or teeshirt bearing the message he objected to, then I believe he'd have cause to say 'no.' This wasn't the case here, so he's wrong.
 

Qwerty133

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2012
Messages
2,453
Location
Leicester/Sheffield
It doesn't matter whether it said "eat British beef" and he was a veggie, or "Vote Tory" and he preferred Labour, or "Drink Duff beer" and he was teetotal. He's paid to drive the bus provided by his employer, and buses usually carry advertising, the only criteria for which tend to be (a) that the advertiser pays up, and (b) that the advertisement is not illegal. The only case for him not to do so would be if it were illegal for him to drive it, i.e. unroadworthy or similar.
Basically this. I don't, however, see the need to try and suggest that the Ashers bakery case is at all similar as was suggested by another poster. The Ashers' case was more like a Vegan bus company owner refusing to display an advert for beef or a labour party supporting owner to refuse to advertise the tory party on the side of their buses and in those examples I see absolutely no reason why the owner should not do so. I think some people have forgotten that the message in question wasn't simply 'congratulations Adam and Steve' which the owners should print if they are willing to print 'congratulations Adam and Eve but rather a message about supporting gay marriage which whether we agree should be or not was still very much a political issue at the time*.
*personally I am very much in favour of marriage between any consenting adults regardless of sex but think the original ruling against Ashers' was rather dangerous in that it may have made other businesses feel forced to accept orders with messages that no one should be forced to print on issues such as abortion.
 

chubs

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2012
Messages
656
Have we established that the colour of the destination display was actually directly linked to some Pride event, or was it just someone in the office playing with buttons and thinking "ooooh, shiny"?

It is directly related. They do it every year, only on the P&R fleet and only for about a week either side of the main pride march in Norwich. They were all back to normal today.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
You can't be forced to do something you disagree with. The company have altered a fundamental condidtion of his employment.

I'm a republican. Didn't stop me organising the royal train when I worked on the railway. I disagreed with the policies of a particular political party (won't say which one). Didn't stop me organising a special train to their conference.

Because it was my job.

His job is to drive buses. By driving a bus with a rainbow destination blind he's no more endorsing LGBT rights than he's endorsing the car dealership on the back of the bus or the film on the side of the bus.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
This somewhat reminds me of the ongoing spat at that school in Birmingham where Muslims and Catholics are demonstrating towards having this LGBT stuff being taught to their kids. Fair enough everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what the driver should have done was to complain to his management rather than reacting the way he did. Better still he should have switched the display off and claim its faulty.

Are you really suggesting that telling a lie is the appropriate course of action?
 

GatwickDepress

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2013
Messages
2,284
Location
Leeds
Genuine question, how would this had played out of the bus driver was a Muslim?
It would have played out exactly the same, no matter if the driver was a Muslim, a Jew, a Pastafarian, or even one of those pesky atheist lot.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
The Ashers' case was more like a Vegan bus company owner refusing to display an advert for beef or a labour party supporting owner to refuse to advertise the tory party on the side of their buses

Agreed. The Ashers' case feels nasty, deliberately targeting a bakery with different political views. They didn't refuse to serve gay people, they refused to bake a political message they disagreed with. I think they should be allowed that freedom. I wouldn't bake a pro-Tory cake.

As for gay marriage, if a person doesn't like gay marriage they don't need to marry a gay person. And if they don't like gay sex they don't have to have it. It's none of their business.

I still howl with laughter at Stagecoach rocking up with rainbows and pride badges, mind. Such hypocrisy.
 

ChrisPJ

Member
Joined
26 Aug 2015
Messages
302
To be fair times have changed since Brian Souter was donating large sums to campaigns supporting the continued prevention of the promotion of homosexuality in schools. He doesn’t own Stagecoach outright now, and didn’t back then so I thought it a little unfair that some pink paint was poured over their buses, however if pressed on the matter now I’m sure he would be a bit more guarded.
 

NorthernSpirit

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
2,184
Are you really suggesting that telling a lie is the appropriate course of action?

Yes, if it multicoloured route number was upsetting the driver. He could have always used a sheet of paper and wrote the route number on, failing that bits of old ticket and self laminate ticket wallets to shape the route number.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
Agreed. The Ashers' case feels nasty, deliberately targeting a bakery with different political views. They didn't refuse to serve gay people, they refused to bake a political message they disagreed with. I think they should be allowed that freedom. I wouldn't bake a pro-Tory cake.

As for gay marriage, if a person doesn't like gay marriage they don't need to marry a gay person. And if they don't like gay sex they don't have to have it. It's none of their business.

I still howl with laughter at Stagecoach rocking up with rainbows and pride badges, mind. Such hypocrisy.
I agree absolutely with all that. When I owned a bookshop I refused to stock any Jeffrey Archer books, both because they're crap and because I didn't wish to add even an extra pound to his fortune, but I was prepared to order in any for a customer, which I did without comment on a couple of occasions. Similarly, unlike the other bookshop(s) in town I displayed posters for concerts, talks, etc, and only remember refusing to take two in all the years, one for a circus and the other for a talk being given by George Galloway, MP, a man I loathe with a passion.
 

NorthernSpirit

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
2,184
Where do I begin with this? Let's start with the very formal word "homosexual". It suggests that you distance yourself from, and are perhaps not comfortable with the concept of two people of the same sex being together. "A mate of mine who is homosexual" - I would have worded that as "a gay friend" or similar. "Straight left wingers ramming their ideology down others necks" - this is not inclusive language. And as far as Pride events not allowing homosexual members of UKIP to attend despite having a homosexual wing of the party... are you referring to David Coburn? I wouldn't have that despicable, misogynistic individual at any party I was holding.

It wasn't David Coburn. I forgot who the blokes name was but he was deputy under Paul Nuttall's leadership, had grey hair was was also an athiest.

It doesn't bother me is someone is straight, homosexual, bisexual, indigo with orange spots we're all human.
 

Roilshead

Member
Joined
2 May 2017
Messages
172
I'd love to see Translink Foyle/Metro/Ulsterbus promote Pride. But why does LBTGCastrolXYZ need promoting anyway? I don't see much promotion of heterosexuality. Just let things develop over time, as they have done since the 1960s. Ah but, homophobic assaults have increased over the last couple of years, so we need to push the agenda . . . but perhaps your agenda is counterproductive? So take things softly-softly, eh??

Whatever, a chap seems to have lost his job, and potentially his family's house, here . . . over what is a deeply held belief - all of which has nothing to do with how he conducted his job as a bus driver. Some of you need to develop some intellectual faculties and realise that the "if a bus ain't broke take it out" rule is a little bit unrefined for our times.

Bus companies don't need to be promoting Pride, they just need to concentrate on their business of transporting the spectrum of life from A to B.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,545
Location
Elginshire
I'd love to see Translink Foyle/Metro/Ulsterbus promote Pride. But why does LBTGCastrolXYZ need promoting anyway? I don't see much promotion of heterosexuality. Just let things develop over time, as they have done since the 1960s. Ah but, homophobic assaults have increased over the last couple of years, so we need to push the agenda . . . but perhaps your agenda is counterproductive? So take things softly-softly, eh??

Whatever, a chap seems to have lost his job, and potentially his family's house, here . . . over what is a deeply held belief - all of which has nothing to do with how he conducted his job as a bus driver. Some of you need to develop some intellectual faculties and realise that the "if a bus ain't broke take it out" rule is a little bit unrefined for our times.

Bus companies don't need to be promoting Pride, they just need to concentrate on their business of transporting the spectrum of life from A to B.
Why would heterosexuality need promotion? It's already seen as the "normal" way. Nobody who is straight has to hesitate before talking about their relationships, or feel embarrassed about it. A man talking about their girlfriend, or a woman talking about their boyfriend doesn't raise eyebrows. It raises no questions because it's seen as part of the natural order of things. Straight people don't have to think about this, while a gay man or woman has to constantly think about how others may react to their sexuality.
If I was to have random conversation with a stranger in a pub, or any other public place, I may be asked if I'm single, married or whatever. I'm quite content to be single, but some people see this as a bit of a disability and they'll go on to say "I'm sure the right lass is out there". Then there follows that awkward moment when you have to weigh up the pros and cons of the situation and decide whether or not you want to correct them and say "well, the right lad hasn't come my way so far". In most cases like that I've usually had positive responses and people are usually quick to realise that they shouldn't make assumptions but, depending where you are, the decision to disclose can be the difference between having your head kicked in or not.
I would agree that bus companies don't need to be promoting Pride. But the whole Pride movement wouldn't exist if people who happen to fancy the same sex were accepted into "mainstream" society. While acceptance may be the case in certain parts of the world, there are other places where people still feel the need to suppress their true selves for fear of the stigma that still exists, and very often the very real threat of physical violence towards them.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,434
Location
Yorkshire
You can't be forced to do something you disagree with. The company have altered a fundamental condition of his employment.
That's one of the most bizarre claims I've ever heard.

To say you are clutching at straws is a huge understatement.


It's quite clearly incorrect to say that changing the livery of a bus (or a train or any other vehicle) is not a fundamental condition of employment and the fact anyone suggests otherwise raises all sorts of questions and sets alarm bells ringing.
... all of which has nothing to do with how he conducted his job as a bus driver...
This is a false statement. The truth is he refused to conduct his job as bus driver by refusing to drive the rostered bus!
Bus companies don't need to be promoting Pride, they just need to concentrate on their business of transporting the spectrum of life from A to B.
Perhaps the driver should have concentrated on transporting people from A to B?

The reason the passengers were delayed was due to the driver not concentrating on this; surely you can see that?
You and I can certainly judge him for it, but we can't tell him he is wrong.
He was wrong and the company was right to sack him.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top