Driver who refused to take his passengers in 'pro gay' bus suspended from job

First topic message reminder :



A bus driver has been suspended for refusing to carry passengers on a vehicle adorned with Pride decorations because it "promotes homosexuality".

The man, who works for Norfolk-based company Konectbus, was said to be unhappy about the bus's number being multicoloured in a nod to the LGBT rainbow flag.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjgz4qF7YLkAhUEfBoKHXq6A1kQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2019%2F08%2F13%2Fbus-driver-suspended-refusing-use-vehicle-multicoloured-pride%2F&psig=AOvVaw2hqgYnNDPu8UojPLH2vEqZ&ust=1565888947564772



This man should not be persecuted for refusing to be forced to promote any political or politically correct agenda!!!


Good on him!

[quote="Tommy Monk"]

Tommy Monk wrote:Public transport is not a vehicle for the promotion of any political or politically correct agenda that may be favoured by some of the decision makers in management...!

Yes, unfortunately, it is, tommy. Any cause they deem as good.

Tommy Monk wrote:And employees are not there to be forced to participate in the promotion of such whims of those in positions of management...!

No, they are there to drive. It's none of their business what is written or advertised on the vehicle. They have no say. They can like it, or find another job.

Can you imagined they allowed him to do this? Any bus driver who took umbrage with whatever message was on the bus would have an excuse to start making demands.

A vegan bus driver opposing a meat ad.
A meat eater opposing a vegan ad.
A health nut opposing some fast food or sugary drink ad.
A prude or religious person opposing an ad for a violent/explicit TV show.
An atheist or non-Christian opposing a Christmas message.

And so on, and so on...

Oh well.

Cass wrote:Oh well.

i don't know why, but i just found that really funny


morning cass

This was not about legitimate advertising.

gelico wrote:

Cass wrote:Oh well.

i don't know why, but i just found that really funny


morning cass

Then my work here is done.

Morning m’lovely x

Tommy Monk wrote:This was not about legitimate advertising.

So, your complaint has been all for naught. Oh well, move on...

I bet he doesn't bank at Santander or use their cashpoints then - they support gay pride.

Raggamuffin wrote:I bet he doesn't bank at Santander or use their cashpoints then - they support gay pride.

I bet he buys loads of stuff from companies that actively support GAY pride.
Love this one...

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:This was not about legitimate advertising.

So, your complaint has been all for naught.  Oh well, move on...  

No... because this was not legitimate advertising!


Do try to keep up quill...

Tommy, it is not for you to say what is "legitimate advertising" if its legal then legitimacy is the province of the owner....

and on this as so many other issues you are consistently and irredeemably wrong.

The bus has designated spaces on it for legitimate advertising... which companies pay the bus company to put up advertisements on... and all regulated by the Advertising standards agency...


This was not legitimate advertising!

Tommy Monk wrote:

The bus has designated spaces on it for legitimate advertising... which companies pay the bus company to put up advertisements on... and all regulated by the Advertising standards agency...

This was not legitimate advertising!

It probably wasn't advertising, period.  You actually disclaimed any analogy to advertising:

Tommy Monk wrote:This was nothing to do with the advertising space on the bus.

Donno what you would call rainbow numerals...but I agree with Vic: without a law making it illegal, it ain't illegal. Move on...

This wasn't something that was on any of the designated advertising space on the bus... therefore it was not legitimate advertising... therefore it was nothing to do with the advertising space on the bus!


The bus driver employee is contracted to drive the bus... the employee will have accepted that the bus will have designated advertising space that will be displaying a variety of legitimate adverts for a variety of businesses/products/services/films etc...


The bus driver employee was not contracted to drive a bus that was displaying any overt symbols that were promoting homosexuality, and that were not part of any legitimate advertising campaign displayed on the bus on the designated advertising spaces!!!


And he is within his rights to refuse to be any part of it by refusing to drive the bus while it was being used in this way.

Tommy Monk wrote:This wasn't something that was on any of the designated advertising space on the bus... therefore it was not legitimate advertising... therefore it was nothing to do with the advertising space on the bus!

I agree.  It really wasn't something for marketing.

Tommy Monk wrote:The bus driver employee is contracted to drive the bus... the employee will have accepted that the bus will have designated advertising space that will be displaying a variety of legitimate adverts for a variety of businesses/products/services/films etc...

But, as we just agreed, advertising is irrelevant.

Tommy Monk wrote:The bus driver employee was not contracted to drive a bus that was displaying any overt symbols that were promoting homosexuality, and that were not part of any legitimate advertising campaign displayed on the bus on the designated advertising spaces!!!

Have you read the contract?  What does it say?  If it doesn't address the matter, it is silent and you are wrong, tommy.

Tommy Monk wrote:And he is within his rights to refuse to be any part of it by refusing to drive the bus while it was being used in this way.

From where do these rights emanate?  If it is not in the employment contract, and otherwise no law addresses the matter, it is not a right.

Picture it, tommy:

Tommy:  Your honor, a bus driver shouldn't be made to drive a bus with gay symbols on it.

Court: Why?

Tommy: It's...it's...it's...it's just wrong, that's why.

Court: Case dismissed.  Next?

Oh Tommy, Tommy....what exactly is your problem with gay people?
Really?

Tommy Monk wrote:This wasn't something that was on any of the designated advertising space on the bus... therefore it was not legitimate advertising... therefore it was nothing to do with the advertising space on the bus!


The bus driver employee is contracted to drive the bus... the employee will have accepted that the bus will have designated advertising space that will be displaying a variety of legitimate adverts for a variety of businesses/products/services/films etc...


The bus driver employee was not contracted to drive a bus that was displaying any overt symbols that were promoting homosexuality, and that were not part of any legitimate advertising campaign displayed on the bus on the designated advertising spaces!!!


And he is within his rights to refuse to be any part of it by refusing to drive the bus while it was being used in this way.

You haven't seen the bus driver's contract, so that's a bunch of waffle. I'm using common sense, and I bet you anything that his contract has no clause to allow him to refuse to drive a bus that advertises something he finds morally objectional.

Tell me, Tommy, why does advertising like that bother you so much? Do you really think that any amount of advertising could turn a straight person gay?

In societies where there are some people, like you, who think it's strange or aberrant to be gay, I see only good in putting out a message that there's nothing wrong with you if you're gay.

Unless the message was "If you're gay, you're superior to straight people," I have no problem with it. Because everything that occurs in nature is by definition natural, there's nothing unnatural or wrong about being homosexual. It's just how some people are, no different from skin or hair or eye color.

I'm sure the employee contract does not state that he is required to participate in the promotion of homosexuality... so he is well within his rights to refuse to do so...!


And for the umpteenth time... this has nothing to do with any of the legitimate advertising that was on any of the designated advertising spaces on the bus!

Tommy Monk wrote:
I'm sure the employee contract does not state that he is required to participate in the promotion of homosexuality... so he is well within his rights to refuse to do so...!


And for the umpteenth time... this has nothing to do with any of the legitimate advertising that was on any of the designated advertising spaces on the bus!

The situation as it turns out proves you are absolute wrong in what bus companies can and cannot put on their buses, and what employees can and cannot deem legitimate reasons to refuse to work. You're just throwing around your emotions like an absolute whiny baby.

But to the core of your point - what EXACTLY do you think is achieved by a bus number being rainbow coloured? What EXACTLY is being promoted (in your opinion) and what EXACTLY are the actions you think it will lead to?

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
I'm sure the employee contract does not state that he is required to participate in the promotion of homosexuality... so he is well within his rights to refuse to do so...!


And for the umpteenth time... this has nothing to do with any of the legitimate advertising that was on any of the designated advertising spaces on the bus!

The situation as it turns out proves you are absolute wrong in what bus companies can and cannot put on their buses, and what employees can and cannot deem legitimate reasons to refuse to work. You're just throwing around your emotions like an absolute whiny baby.

But to the core of your point - what EXACTLY do you think is achieved by a bus number being rainbow coloured? What EXACTLY is being promoted (in your opinion) and what EXACTLY are the actions you think it will lead to?

Can you back any of that up with any evidence...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:
I'm sure the employee contract does not state that he is required to participate in the promotion of homosexuality... so he is well within his rights to refuse to do so...!

Most likely, the contract does not say he can refuse, either. You are the one who says it is a 'right', so you are making the affirmative case. Rights don't appear out of thin air. What is your source of the alleged 'right'?

Tommy Monk wrote:And for the umpteenth time... this has nothing to do with any of the legitimate advertising that was on any of the designated advertising spaces on the bus!

Who cares? We have put that issue to rest.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

The situation as it turns out proves you are absolute wrong in what bus companies can and cannot put on their buses, and what employees can and cannot deem legitimate reasons to refuse to work. You're just throwing around your emotions like an absolute whiny baby.

But to the core of your point - what EXACTLY do you think is achieved by a bus number being rainbow coloured? What EXACTLY is being promoted (in your opinion) and what EXACTLY are the actions you think it will lead to?

Can you back any of that up with any evidence...!?

Tommy, you haven't established the right of the bus driver, or any source of it.  What is les supposed to answer for, let alone give evidence?  It's all a chimera of your making.

I'm sure his contract doesn't say he must dance around in a gimp costume either... but that doesnt mean that he has to do it, if one day, the employer says that they want him to do it!!!


If he is imposed upon to do something that is outside of what is stated in his contractual agreement... then he is well within his rights to refuse...!

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm sure his contract doesn't say he must dance around in a gimp costume either... but that doesnt mean that he has to do it, if one day, the employer says that they want him to do it!!!

It's a farcical equivalency, but if he's ordered to do so, he's got no right to refuse.  You just proved that.

Tommy Monk wrote:If he is imposed upon to do something that is outside of what is stated in his contractual agreement... then he is well within his rights to refuse...!

We just went over that: You don't know what is in his contract.  But if it's not specifically disallowed, or otherwise against the law, he's gotta do what his employers say or lose his job.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
I'm sure the employee contract does not state that he is required to participate in the promotion of homosexuality... so he is well within his rights to refuse to do so...!


And for the umpteenth time... this has nothing to do with any of the legitimate advertising that was on any of the designated advertising spaces on the bus!

The situation as it turns out proves you are absolute wrong in what bus companies can and cannot put on their buses, and what employees can and cannot deem legitimate reasons to refuse to work. You're just throwing around your emotions like an absolute whiny baby.

But to the core of your point - what EXACTLY do you think is achieved by a bus number being rainbow coloured? What EXACTLY is being promoted (in your opinion) and what EXACTLY are the actions you think it will lead to?

Can you back any of that up with any evidence...!?

He was suspended from his job - that's evidence enough and is FAR more than you've offered (just subjective shoulds, shouldn'ts etc...).

Again:

But to the core of your point - what EXACTLY do you think is achieved by a bus number being rainbow coloured? What EXACTLY is being promoted (in your opinion) and what EXACTLY are the actions you think it will lead to?

This is actually a very interesting case.

First of all, I'll just say that I do find it absurd that he objected to the number and that he must have very strong objections to homosexuality for whatever reason.

My question is - what was he actually suspended for? He didn't refuse to do his job, but he did inconvenience passengers and put the schedule out by going and getting another bus. He also told passengers why he was getting another bus. If he hadn't done that, would he have been suspended?

In other words, is he suspended for messing about getting another bus or for saying something which others would consider homophobic? It seems to be the latter, so if he had not made those remarks, would he have been suspended? If he had made the remarks but not changed buses, would he have been suspended?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm sure his contract doesn't say he must dance around in a gimp costume either... but that doesnt mean that he has to do it, if one day, the employer says that they want him to do it!!!

It's a farcical equivalency, but if he's ordered to do so, he's got no right to refuse.  You just proved that.

Tommy Monk wrote:If he is imposed upon to do something that is outside of what is stated in his contractual agreement... then he is well within his rights to refuse...!

We just went over that: You don't know what is in his contract.  But if it's not specifically disallowed, or otherwise against the law, he's gotta do what his employers say or lose his job.

So you think that if his employer told him yo go put on a gimp suit and dance around, then he must do it...!!!,??


Which shows that you don't have a clue what you are talking about!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm sure his contract doesn't say he must dance around in a gimp costume either... but that doesnt mean that he has to do it, if one day, the employer says that they want him to do it!!!

It's a farcical equivalency, but if he's ordered to do so, he's got no right to refuse.  You just proved that.

Tommy Monk wrote:If he is imposed upon to do something that is outside of what is stated in his contractual agreement... then he is well within his rights to refuse...!

We just went over that: You don't know what is in his contract.  But if it's not specifically disallowed, or otherwise against the law, he's gotta do what his employers say or lose his job.

So you think that if his employer told him yo go put on a gimp suit and dance around, then he must do it...!!!,??


Which shows that you don't have a clue what you are talking about!!!

To the core of your point - what EXACTLY do you think is achieved by a bus number being rainbow coloured? What EXACTLY is being promoted (in your opinion) and what EXACTLY are the actions you think it will lead to?

Just on a lighter note for a minute, wouldn't that multi coloured bottle of vodka make a great Christmas present for anyone who supports the gay pride events.

Raggamuffin wrote:This is actually a very interesting case.

First of all, I'll just say that I do find it absurd that he objected to the number and that he must have very strong objections to homosexuality for whatever reason.

My question is - what was he actually suspended for? He didn't refuse to do his job, but he did inconvenience passengers and put the schedule out by going and getting another bus. He also told passengers why he was getting another bus. If he hadn't done that, would he have been suspended?

In other words, is he suspended for messing about getting another bus or for saying something which others would consider homophobic? It seems to be the latter, so if he had not made those remarks, would he have been suspended? If he had made the remarks but not changed buses, would he have been suspended?

It's a good question.  I went back and studied the original piece.  The company would definitely have been within its rights if it had simply said: insubordination, failure to conform to orders or procedures (in the assignment of the bus).  But the company did not take that tack.

Rather, the company issued a statement:

"We particularly want all customers of whatever background or sexual orientation to feel comfortable on our services.

"As a company we do not condone any behaviour from our drivers that does not support this view. "The driver involved in this incident has been suspended and a full investigation is underway."

This brought the company into the sights of the discrimination issue.  It's still alright, as there is no law or contract provision that says the company cannot acknowledge diversity, including sexual orientation.  Either way, the driver was insubordinate.  There is no company rule, general law or contract provision that justifies his anti-gay display.

He didn't discriminate though as he didn't stop gay people getting on the bus.

If he had told the passengers that he had to change the bus for technical reasons, would he have been suspended, even if he had told his boss the truth?

Raggamuffin wrote:He didn't discriminate though as he didn't stop gay people getting on the bus.

There are lots of ways to discriminate.  True, he did not choose to prevent someone from getting on the bus.  Rather, he chose another form to express his discrimination.  It's still in violation of company policy.

But, that's the reason why I think the company should have left the discrimination out of it, and gone directly to the immediate infraction: he refused company protocol when he rejected his vehicle assignment.  End of...

Raggamuffin wrote:If he had told the passengers that he had to change the bus for technical reasons, would he have been suspended, even if he had told his boss the truth?

Certainly, if the bus were incapacitated somehow, it would have been recognized as an impossibility of performance.  That's a circumstance, not insubordination, and it would not have led to the suspension.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:He didn't discriminate though as he didn't stop gay people getting on the bus.

There are lots of ways to discriminate.  True, he did not choose to prevent someone from getting on the bus.  Rather, he chose another form to express his discrimination.  It's still in violation of company policy.

But, that's the reason why I think the company should have left the discrimination out of it, and gone directly to the immediate infraction: he refused company protocol when he rejected his vehicle assignment.  End of...

Raggamuffin wrote:If he had told the passengers that he had to change the bus for technical reasons, would he have been suspended, even if he had told his boss the truth?

Certainly, if the bus were incapacitated somehow, it would have been recognized as an impossibility of performance.  That's a circumstance, not insubordination, and it would not have led to the suspension.

Yes, but there wasn't a technical problem with the bus - he would only be pretending there was. The point is - was it what he said to the passengers which got him suspended?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There are lots of ways to discriminate.  True, he did not choose to prevent someone from getting on the bus.  Rather, he chose another form to express his discrimination.  It's still in violation of company policy.

But, that's the reason why I think the company should have left the discrimination out of it, and gone directly to the immediate infraction: he refused company protocol when he rejected his vehicle assignment.  End of...



Certainly, if the bus were incapacitated somehow, it would have been recognized as an impossibility of performance.  That's a circumstance, not insubordination, and it would not have led to the suspension.

Yes, but there wasn't a technical problem with the bus - he would only be pretending there was.  The point is - was it what he said to the passengers which got him suspended?

I don't think there is a dispute as to the driver's discrimination. I'm saying the physical act used to express his discrimination, switching buses, is what was the precise infraction. The company should have left the discriminatory motive out of it, and focused on the actual wrong-doing.

The driver was clearly being unjustifiably discriminatory in his motives, but why raise that? There's enough just in his actions. That way the company avoids the whole embroilment in discrimination.

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm sure his contract doesn't say he must dance around in a gimp costume either... but that doesnt mean that he has to do it, if one day, the employer says that they want him to do it!!!


If he is imposed upon to do something that is outside of what is stated in his contractual agreement... then he is well within his rights to refuse...!

What do you mean by the term "gimp" *, arsehole  ?!?

Use that foul word in front of me or mine around here, I would smash your fucking teeth down your throat..


*  In Oz,  as in North America, the word "gimp" is used as a derogatory slur/insult towards a disabled person, esp. somebody with a limp..

Using the word to insult or demean somebody, or a group/class of people, could easily earn somebody like Tommy a smack in the mouth for his efforts..

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/gimp

The fun of international forums, when Tommy might not even recognise the wider meaning of the word he uses !

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm sure his contract doesn't say he must dance around in a gimp costume either... but that doesnt mean that he has to do it, if one day, the employer says that they want him to do it!!!


If he is imposed upon to do something that is outside of what is stated in his contractual agreement... then he is well within his rights to refuse...!

What do you mean by the term "gimp", arsehole  ?!?

Use that foul word in front of me or mine around here, I would smash your fucking teeth down your throat..

Tommy?  Teeth?  In any case, I wondered about that too.  What is a 'gimp outfit'?  What is a 'gimp'?  When I first heard it, it was a derogatory label for a disabled person.

Gimp costumes and masks are now quite popular in the sadist/masochist community I believe.
Never purchased one myself but I know what they look like.....google it.

Syl wrote:Gimp costumes and masks are now quite popular in the sadist/masochist community I believe.
Never purchased one myself but I know what they look like.....google it.

Google gets you dominate/submissive costuming like this:



Not very nice, either.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm sure his contract doesn't say he must dance around in a gimp costume either... but that doesnt mean that he has to do it, if one day, the employer says that they want him to do it!!!


If he is imposed upon to do something that is outside of what is stated in his contractual agreement... then he is well within his rights to refuse...!

What do you mean by the term "gimp" *, arsehole  ?!?

Use that foul word in front of me or mine around here, I would smash your fucking teeth down your throat..


*  In Oz,  as in North America, the word "gimp" is used as a derogatory slur/insult towards a disabled person, esp. somebody with a limp..

Using the word to insult or demean somebody, or a group/class of people, could easily earn somebody like Tommy a smack in the mouth for his efforts..

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/gimp

The fun of international forums, when Tommy might not even recognise the wider meaning of the word he uses !

You're an idiot.  The clue is in the word "costume? Who would wear a disabled costume?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Gimp costumes and masks are now quite popular in the sadist/masochist community I believe.
Never purchased one myself but I know what they look like.....google it.

Google gets you dominate/submissive costuming like this:



Not very nice, either.

The one on the left is wearing a gimp mask.....nowt as queer as folk.

If the British B&D,S&M 'community' used the word "gimp" in Oz, Canada or the USA, they could just as easily earn a smackdown over here for that as well..

Then again, those masochist types would likely enjoy a smack in the mouth -- I wonder if they deliberately chose an old insulting term for just that reason ?