News | United Kingdom

Homophobic Christian Refuses to Drive Bus with Sign Reading 'Some People are Gay. Get Over It!'

A UK bus driver left passengers waiting for 20 minutes after refusing to drive a bus because it had an ad from LGBT rights group Stonewall on it that read "Some People are Gay. Get Over It," the Daily Mail reports:

BusAmong those on the bus was Rebecca Neill, 25, from Herringthorpe, South Yorkshire, who had boarded the 5.25pm service at Rotherham and had just taken her seat when the commotion began.

'Once the driver had let us on the bus, he was meant to be swapping with another driver, but when his replacement wouldn’t get on they just left us there while they had an argument outside,' she said.

'There were quite a few passengers arguing with him and several drivers as well. Someone was shouting at him: "You can’t do that, it’s disgusting. Then another driver got on and explained what was going on. He apologised and said that the poster wasn’t acceptable to this Christian, but that he didn’t agree with what the guy was doing. 'I just thought it was disgusting. I would never say: 'I’m not getting on your bus because you believe in God and I don’t.' He’s a bus driver — he’s going to come across all sorts of people. Does he seriously think he has never had a gay person on his bus? I think it’s wrong that he can cause such a fuss while people are trying to go places."

Said the bus company: 'We are aware of an incident involving one of our drivers refusing to drive a bus at Rotherham Interchange. We have spoken to the driver in question and the matter has now been resolved. We would like to apologise to any customers that were affected during this isolated incident.'

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I'd be curious to know just how it was "resolved".

    Posted by: jleo71 | Nov 16, 2012 9:02:27 AM


  2. These homophobes just don't seem to get it. They always put their hatred of us over doing their jobs and living their lives. Oh well. Have fun without a job, stupid random Christian bigot.

    Posted by: Francis | Nov 16, 2012 9:03:51 AM


  3. Some people should be fired. Get over it.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Nov 16, 2012 9:05:25 AM


  4. The level of bigotry in the daily mail comments is astonishing

    Posted by: jjose712 | Nov 16, 2012 9:08:29 AM


  5. RESOLVED HOW?!

    Posted by: Peter | Nov 16, 2012 9:24:28 AM


  6. Christians. Ya gotta love 'em. Especially since they are such hateful, ignorant bigoted twits and wouldn't know what love is if it came up and kicked them in the ass.

    Um, somebody should tell that cretinous Christian bus driver that the bigoted, Christian, homophobic bus he rides on left the station a long, long time ago.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Nov 16, 2012 9:33:35 AM


  7. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, however stupid they might be, but when working we need to follow the policy the company has, if not, one should work some place else. Anyway, I think this driver has issues to solve, the sooner the better.
    @JJose712, DM is awful tabloid.

    Posted by: Matt26 | Nov 16, 2012 9:45:38 AM


  8. Not much of a story: Driver refuses route because bus displays ad violating his religious views. I take it that a willing driver was found and the passengers arrived at their destinations.

    Many firms try to accommodate their employees' religious and ethical views. A grocery store that just started selling pork might make a special provision for Moslem employees. Perhaps the bus company agreed to put this driver on non-gay advertising buses in the future. Would that be so bad?

    One right must often be balanced against another. Gay rights are important, but so is freedom to follow private religious and ethical beliefs.

    Posted by: ernstroehm's ghost | Nov 16, 2012 9:58:20 AM


  9. Ernstroehhm's Ghost - How could a bus company function if every driver was allowed to choose what advertising was allowed on the bus he was driving? If the ad was for a movie that included an adulterous affair would this same bus driver refuse to drive? Adultery is a sin too. And if all Jewish and Muslim drivers refused to drive a bus that included an ad for McDonald's McRib because it contains pork? A vegan who refuses to drive any vehicle containing ads for meat? It would never work.

    Posted by: Eddie | Nov 16, 2012 10:08:19 AM


  10. If the bus has a shampoo ad on it, does that mean the driver endorses the product?

    Posted by: Gus | Nov 16, 2012 11:05:23 AM


  11. It's a great sign of progress when people on the bus thought the driver was being unreasonable.

    I'm sure there have been lots of drivers who didn't like whatever was being advertised on the side of the bus over the years but none of them refused to work. Luckily this kind of childish, attention-seeking behavior really shows people how pathetic and disgusting these brainwashed, moronic so-called Chrisitans really are ! They are only doing all this for attention.

    Posted by: Icebloo | Nov 16, 2012 12:04:14 PM


  12. @Eddie,

    McRibs contain pork?

    Posted by: GDad | Nov 16, 2012 12:23:24 PM


  13. There is no god. Get over it.

    Posted by: ccbeach | Nov 16, 2012 1:28:57 PM


  14. Just another example of using one's own understanding of religion to justify homophobia! Liked the comment about movies and pork products.

    Posted by: Tom in long beach | Nov 16, 2012 2:26:30 PM


  15. Don't want to drive the bus? That's an easy resolution, fine a driver that will. Then reprimand or fire the bus driver that refused to do their job.

    Posted by: Kogenta | Nov 16, 2012 3:04:13 PM


  16. @Ernstroehm's, I'd quibble with you on one small point...the right to follow private religious beliefs is "important" *only when* those beliefs are true. If an invisible man in the sky really does watch you and read your thoughts, and if he really will send you off to be tortured horrifically for all of eternity if you show one whit of tolerance for those who flout certain of the rules (but not the ones inconvenient to you) that he really did set forth thousands of years ago through legitimately-raping slavers writing in now long dead languages who may have been mistaken about unicorns and the Earth being flat, but really were right about the invisible man in the sky who spoke to them, then it would be "important" for the law to protect you from having to choose between having your flesh boil for all of eternity versus having a bad day at work. But is that true? Is it just me or does it not actually sound true? Rather than making a blanket decree that employers simply bend over backwards to accommodate all such beliefs, I think it's fair and reasonable that employers first have some proof that the beliefs they are asked to accommodate are in fact true.

    Posted by: JJ | Nov 16, 2012 4:27:22 PM


  17. Icebloo found the silver lining in this story. The fact everyone protested him and called his bigotry disgusting is definitely a good thing and shows there are a lot of people out there who haven't been poisoned mentally by mainstream organized religion.

    Posted by: Francis | Nov 16, 2012 5:15:39 PM


  18. Reading this article in the Daily Mail, it is clear to see that most Daily Mail readers are homophobic.
    The reason for the poster was to try and prevent bullying at schools. The poster was the idea of teachers and secondary school students.
    The Daily Mail readers clearly have a problem reading.

    Posted by: jake | Nov 17, 2012 4:54:51 AM


  19. I know a friend that knows the christian in question I asked them what it was all about?. Are they homophobic on the ground of their christian belief.?(because I believe that is wrong).According to them no that was not the issue everything as been twisted and the truth distorted. According to the christian in question- if that was the case they would refuse to drive anyone on the bus because we are all sinners according to the christian bible including themselves. The issue was the wording " get over it" it comes across as sarcastic and quietly aggressive(passive aggressive) and in their opinion it isn't right to be teaching/giving children the go ahead to come across in this manner. Most people in Britain accept the gay community. Its like they want to cause more of a drama- it could of been said in a more constructive way. In all walks of life people are bullied for been a different,colour ,race or belief even the Christians all included.etc(just examples)and its not right including bullying gays. I asked well "what would should the advertisement of said that would of been acceptable for this christian in question-"Some people are gay thats just me"(an example). Less defensive/less abrupt-they said it wasn't there place to judge anyone for been gay that's up to god as they will be judged too. As for me i'm confused now and don't know what to think? I hear this person is a lovely kind person and as helped many a homeless person gay or otherwise over the years doesnt sound very homophobic to me.I'm all for gays and their voice but if a christian had an issue with the way the wording was put across are they not allowed protest? make me wonder who's bullying who?cant help but feel sorry for the christian in question if that's the case. Just one big misunderstanding.

    Posted by: Kathy mc donagh | Nov 17, 2012 3:09:30 PM


  20. "Just one big misunderstanding"???

    B*LL SH!T

    "[A]re they not allowed to protest?" Of course. However, did the bus driver actually try to follow chain-of-command first before refusing to do his job? I have heard about and seen many much "worse" ads involved with public transportation in the US. As pointed out above, it is impossible to let the bus drivers exercise the right of veto over the busses they drive. When they object to ads, they need to take it up with the bus company - not out on the riders. No telling what inconvenience this 20 minute wait did to connections &c. Unfortunately, some of the "nicest" people can be some of the "worst" in the right circumstances. It's probably still true that some of the "nicest" whites in the US are incredibly racist:(

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Nov 18, 2012 7:53:58 PM


  21. To the recent post -using abrupt language solves nothing.Yes they tried to sort this out-even a letter was written explaining there position to the company to keep everything above board. It was explained in the letter that had something less in your face example "I am gay and happy to be one"-or "Some of us are gay we are all difference" addresses the issues of bullying in a much more constructive and balanced way because gays aren't the only ones been bullied in society. As for the interpretation of this story according to the christian in question -was blown out of proportion.There was one man in question no others were arguing and the delay was not for 20 minutes this in the bus records. If this person loses his job the full story will come out not just one half.It looks like they are gettng attacked(on websites etc). I would agree that this person deserves everything they get if they were been homophobic but that's not the case. The real issue with them is about the freedom of speech -we all should be allowed say we disagree with something or the way somethings been put across without been subjected to abuse. Freedom of speech this is their argument. Stonewall has its place and its a great platform for gays -but should it push its opinions on everyone in this manner? and if someone disagrees with their approach they are homophobic.???really- is that fair?? its the "get over it" that's the problem for this christan they find it too abrupt and they should be allowed to express this without getting called all these names(bigot,homophobc etc..) and labelled something they are not.In saying that the real issue according to this christan in question has really nothing to do with gays or Stonewall its all about freedom of speech-this is a fundentmental human right for eveyone and that what they were sticking up for. Take a different example if a sign on the the bus said"I am a meat eater-get over it" do you think vegetarians would find it offensive as they believe its wrong to kill and eat animals?then say the bus driver refused to drive the bus based on their belief-are they wrong, should they "get over it"? or should they get sacked??.Think about it!!!-this whole argument according to them is all about freedom of speech for all of us gays/christians/all different races and cultures- with these difference of opinions and beliefs (once its in the public eye) comes the responsibility of each group to act with respect and understanding for each others diverse beliefs. its not right to act sarcastic or in an abrupt manner when expressing diffence points of view especally if it offensive to others -its like shut up and put up and if you don't you'll get the consequences .What kind of example is this showing children? Thats its ok to act this way?its not. We are all difference and we all deserve respect and freedom of speech to express our diffences its a fundentmental human right.

    Posted by: Kathy mc donagh | Nov 19, 2012 5:10:18 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Tony Kushner, Husband Praise Obama's 'Lincolnian' Endorsement of Marriage Equality at White House Screening« «