Reader comments · UK: Christian man refuses to drive bus because of Stonewall gay rights poster · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


UK: Christian man refuses to drive bus because of Stonewall gay rights poster

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Presumably he’d also not drive the bus if he knew on board there was any of the following:
    a prostitute
    single mother
    idol worshipper
    (list not conclusive)

    Or maybe he, like so many other religious bigots, pick and choose what they object to in order to gain self publicity.

    1. Jock S. Trap 16 Nov 2012, 3:41pm

      I strongly suspect the latter is certainly true there G*

    2. Just childish grandstanding. Grow up for goodness sake.

  2. I can’t believe that the bus driver may not be facing disciplinary action.

    He is there to do a job, which he refused to do. The bus company should take the appropriate action.

    1. He probably has been disciplined. A employer should not discuss internal procedures in the media.
      Being a union rep at a bus company myself and knowing how first behave towards it’s staff, that driver almost certainly faced a discipline, possibly even gross misconduct

    2. billywingartenson 17 Nov 2012, 1:40am

      CAn his butt nd make sure he cant go on the dole. In general in the USA if you are fired for cause you do not get unemployment insurance

    3. GingerlyColors 17 Nov 2012, 6:44am

      Shame on the bus company for not disciplining him. Whatever next – black people being forced to sit at the back of their buses?

  3. Wholly unacceptable. And as absurd as if, say, a Hindu driver refused to drive a bus because it was advertising McDonald’s on the outside.

  4. In light of today’s disturbing press revelations about the insidious, secretive Marxist-influenced “charity” Common Purpose – which seeks in its £5000 courses to groom future leaders to lead “beyond authority” and subvert and demoralise the workings of society – isn’t it rather more pertinent for Pink News to be asking whether the chiefs of major charities like Stonewall and The Terence Higgins Trust are Common Purpose graduates?

    It would certainly serve to explain many of the hare-brained policies that have emanated from these institutions over the years – such as Stonewall’s opposition to equal marriage rights and the THT’s failure to reverse HIV transmission rates – which work against our good.

    It seems we are living in a time when many hidden and disturbing truths are finally coming to the surface after years of enforced PC doctrines and doublespeak that have served to turn truth on its head…

    1. Just as I always suspected:- this site is infested with Common Purpose graduates seeking to deflect and steer debate in order to engineer an ultra left wing consensus.

      No longer a conspiracy but now very much in the open.

      Red arrow away:- your last weapon of attack now that the light of truth has been shone upon you.


      1. Dave North 16 Nov 2012, 4:44pm

        I think I’m a bit too old to be a graduate at 47.

        Honestly. GET A LIFE, and enough with the conspiracy theories.

        It really does make you look very childish.

        1. Nothing more tragic than gay men in denial of truth while beating the drum of victimisation, and stunning to see the amount of red arrows that symbolise how far into the darkness our community had stumbled.

          But of course that was the plan all along:- to use gay men as pawns to steer through a raft of intrusive, Orwellian laws that sought to stamp out freedom of speech, just as Common Purpose has plotted to stamp all over the freedom of the press.

          Seems that little self-serving ploy had been nipped in the bud on this great day.

      2. Get ya GP to change your medication Freak – and go find another website to dish your brand of Crazy on – Fool!

        1. Touched a raw nerve have I, JD?

          The truth will always out.

          1. w a n k e r

          2. Ooh touchy!!

      3. James Justice 16 Nov 2012, 8:31pm

        Well done Samuel B, I’ll give you a ‘thumbs up’. Common Purpose is an insidious organisation that deserves to be exposed.

        It’s the same with the Bilderberg Group – they should have more light shone on them, too.

        Sometimes I do wonder whether the “it’s the Gramsci/Frankfurt school” lot, have a point.

        1. Thanks James for restoring my faith that some gay men are still in the light and see clearly what is going on in the world beyond the Common Purpose-indoctrinated propaganda that spews out daily on the BBC.

          This is a great day for truth.

          The world is waking up to the subterfuge, corruption and mass deception that has been wrought on us and it is time to wrest back our country from the claws of the self-serving vermin that have co-opted brand UK for their sinister purposes.

      4. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2012, 10:45am

        So not everyone agree with you on this… deal with it!

        1. The point, Jock dear, is that it is not a question of people believing me:- it is a question of gay men choosing to continue playing the eternal downtrodden victims or facing the truth that has now been forensically exposed over 11 pages of the second best selling newspaper in the UK:- readership circa 8 million.

          They may continue to play ignorant, remain dumb or stay fixed in arch denialist mode, but when what was one day conspiracy theory is the next exposed as fact with irrefutable evidence to back said fact up, the tIn foil hats rightfully now become theirs to wear!

          Get off Grindr for a few minutes if you can prise yourself away and start researching using another 6-letter search engine beginning with G (clue:- Google)

          It won’t result in a hot anonymous shag, I’m afraid, but at least you might learn something for once!


          1. Seriously? They wasted 11 pages of newspaper on this nonsense?

          2. Jock S. Trap 18 Nov 2012, 10:23am

            Personally I take pride that I can openly have a difference of opinion to others. It stems debate. You, my dear, are playing the sore loser. Your remarks strike a note of bitterness as you clearly think Gay men are playing victims and then to make unfounded remarks about anonymous shags? What planet are you on?

            I repeat… Not everyone agrees with you… deal with it! Don’t act bitter, debate it!

            Oh and for the record Grindr? Personally I prefer Scruff!!

      5. More paranoid dribble. Not worth a response, any more then you would respond to a madman.

        1. Well, no surprise there then.

          Always had you down as “one of them” and now you have just gone and outed yourself.


      6. Samuel B., please try to understand that the many thumbs-down you have received may have been for nothing more and nothing less than the apparent irrelevance of your observations to the news item under discussion.

    2. Do you happen to have a spare tin foil hat? Aliens/Government/Illuminati appear to have taken maine?

      1. Kris sweetie, is PN your only news resource?

        Common Purpose has been blown wide open today to millions of people.

        It is conspiracy fact:- the only person around here wearing the tin foil hat is yours truly, still denying the truth while oblivious to the fact that CP’s expose is headline news.

        Or are you another CP shill in a long line who have operated on here to deflect debate?

        Accept it, the game is up!

    3. Ben Foster 16 Nov 2012, 7:12pm

      Samuel, what are you on about?

      1. Happy to oblige you, Ben, but steel yourself for what follows.

        Trawling through the Guardian web site, like you do, this had me sputtering into my corn fakes:-

        Curiouser and curiouser, I then did something I rarely do and clicked through to The Daily Mail web site and found THIS:-

        The most forensically investigated and damningly incendiary expose of the rot that is attempting to take us all down.

        Much like many of the predictable comments at the ends of these articles, it is clear that Common Purpose is out in force on PN red-arrowing away in fury.

        Yet irony of ironies, 30+ red arrows to date (come on, you can all do better than that!) is only likely to draw the curiosity of normal PN visitors to the above links.

        Own goal, rather!

        1. This will be my 3rd attempt to reply – seems there are several words that one cannot put in the same sentence following recent events. With all due respect Samuel this is your interpretation of these news stories – I have a very different view based on the tactics that are described, but it seems PN will not let me reply in a way to allow me to explain my thinking………………..interesting!

          The distilled version of these stories, in my view are attempts to deflect & distract from the real story which has been lost – the alleged systemic abuse of children & adults; now I wonder who could be involved in such a conspiracy????

          The rows at the BBC & This Morning are very effective deflection tactics, as is the impending Leveson report, why is no one interested in the victims & their families one should be asking? I have said this several times – but it falls on deaf ears!

          1. Wow my comment finally gets published several hours late……third time lucky it seems

          2. Thanks for contributing, W6.

            The whole point about my original post here was to try to make the distinction between the comparative triviality of this “news” story which, in a way and undoubtedly unwittingly is itself a smokescreen to the bigger scandals that are now bubbling to the surface with considerable momentum.

            Further online research of Common Purpose – of which I spent a good deal of Friday reading up on – reveals that they target charity heads for their “mind-altering NLP training courses” that teach participants how to “lead beyond authority” with an agenda that seeks to change the face of Britain into a “post-democratic society” – whatever THAT means!! – and clearly CP is the nexus using gay men via charities such as Stonewall who seek to make us see ourselves as victims in order to yell outrage at anyone and everyone who dares air a valid opinion about equal marriage rights, for example.

            We can see on these very boards, thank God, that most commentators no longer…

          3. take the bait and are calling for a common sense approach where perceived negative comments above gay people are concerned and no longer are demanding the criminalisation of free speech itself.

            As The Daily Mail revealed, CP’s tentacles stretch into all levels of authority, and it’s ability for past graduates to network from one authority to another is how CP has managed to get several of its own members onto the Leavesden inquiry which is seeking to reign in press freedoms.

            You will also find it is CP members who have driven the campaign to use gay men as pawns to push through legislation banning hate crimes, which is all well and good until you realise that this is just a policy by stealth to eventually eat away at all of our freedoms of expression until we become totally compliant mind slaves beholdened to the state.

            1984 was a warning:- NOT an instruction manual!

            CP has been revealed to be a cancer that has festered at the heart of government institutions, major…

          4. companies and, I’m afraid to say charities, and the effect has been to break and demoralise our society from within as is born witness by the rapid decline of our hospitals, schools, police…all major bastions of society have been affected by this malaise.

            Research suggests it was done in order to weaken our cultural voice and strength in order to make the UK more easily assimilate into the perceived incoming EU federal superstate, but that of course is where it all starts leading into conspiracy theory, as indeed all theories relating to CP were up until the Guardian and Mail’s forensic coverage on Friday.

            As a result it is now time for us to start opening our eyes, joining the dots and asking the uncomfortable questions that inevitably arise:- such as:- “have charities that purport to represent the interests of gay men been subject to CP training courses and, if so, whose interests are these charities really serving.”

            For obvious reasons we need urgent transparency on this issue.

        2. Ben Foster 17 Nov 2012, 7:47pm

          I don’t read the guardian. I tink you should stop making assumptions about everybody else when you know so little about them.

    4. A typical response to a rational question:- 30+ red arrows and counting.

      Proof were any required that the stagnant stench that have long wafted around these parts is due to PN’s infestation of uber left wing disinformo shills who know their game is up but won’t go quietly.

      Their plot to stamp out freedom of speech could only be achieved by first muzzling our open press, but now the truth that the Levesdon enquiry is rigged with Common Purpose placemen means they will never succeed.

      So time for us mere mortals to cease playing their game:- we are only victims if we choose to be, and criminalising free speech is NOT the solution to curing our ills, however much the disinformo shills try to convince us otherwise.

      What lost, dark souls they are.

      1. Ben Foster 17 Nov 2012, 7:55pm

        Well, I’ve read the two articles you quoted, Samuel, and I’m still puzzled about what any of that has to do with anybody. It’s just a lot of Murdoch belly-aching versus BBC bitching with the Levenson inquiry stuck in the middle and is just sound and fury signifying nothing. It’s hardly a revelation that a mostly right wing printed press and a mostly left wing TV media dont like each other.

        What does it have to do with christian homophobes coming up with ever more ridiculous objections to gay equality?

      2. Samuel, I always thought you were a slightly antagonistic and definitely right of centre, but sensible poster. But this whole thread has been a long-winded meaningless babble. Your reactions to anyone who so much as queries what you have to say is just downright rude. People who don’t agree with you don’t have to be just left wing Grindr users. They have ideas and thoughts of their own. And if that CP course really costs £5,000 a go then I doubt if many of us are graduates of it. Hands up who has that sort of money to throw down the drain?

        1. If you researched Common Purpose properly instead of wading in with a put down, you will find that their courses are not available to the likes of you and me:- only those recruited from organisations, companies and charities where CP’s method of training – to “lead beyond authority” – is being used to enable graduates to network between said organisations, companies and charities for subversive and invariably self-serving ends.

          Hence why CP is being likened to the Freemasons.

          This is what is so sinister about their methods and how outwardly disparate institutions are effectively influenced by the same doctrines and principles:- we can see, for example, how PC has riddled and weakened our public services to the extent that the NHS, schools and even sexual health services are now being put out to tender to private companies who lobby central government hardest.

          Frankly it stinks and CP has a lot to lose by their methods bring blown wide open by the press.

          1. Now, with regards to the likes of Will bring “one of them”, it has long puzzled me why many in public services are so close-minded and reflexively jump down the throat of anyone who expresses a free opinion that doesn’t chime with often extreme liberal values.

            I’ve spent a few hours looking through a few online web sites that expose CP practises, and among the techniques employed is a pack mentality that gangs up on anyone who expresses an “outside of the box” opinion to the point where they are berated into submission and so jump into the PC “groupthink” line.

            Graduates then take these mind-altering techniques into their own workplaces and instill them into their employees:- it’s abundantly obvious Will is a recipient of this technique just as paramedic Stu was (note how PC is now hampering the rescue services), likewise various other posters.

            No surprise, then, that it’s always the same names that jump on those who express individual thought not in line with the “PC consensus”…

        2. As a footnote I would add that some 35,000 people are reported to have passed through Common Purpose’s doors:- a staggering number!

          And which clearly begs the question to what extent are CP’s doctrines guiding consensus around free speech and freedom of the press which we now know this outfit is hell bent on suppressing.

          And to what extent are they using a “gay agenda” to bulldoze through these ends, and us as pawns as they know an element of gay men – stirred on by PC operatives who have assumed residency on boards like PN the world over – will cheer on such draconian objectives without realising the sinister consequences?

          Perhaps we ought to ask MP Chris Bryant who headed the London office of Common Purpose and who has been most vocal of all against the Murdoch press phone tapping scandal in calling for draconian new measures to curb the press’s wilder excesses.

          Perhaps he should just think more carefully before posting snaps of himself in tightie whites on gay cruise sites…

    5. Wow, now up to 49 red arrows:- can I claim a PN record here?

      You have to marvel at the networking that must have ensued among panicky PC misfits to ensure this colossal figure:- surely an own goal due to the interest it has attracted.

      Indeed, if I am talking conspiratorial baloney, why has my post attracted such a barrage of attack and denisl that clearly attempts to deflect and diminish what are now proven to be straightforward facts?

      Here’s to the 50th red arrow, on which I will pop open a bottle of sparkling wine!

  5. Jock S. Trap 16 Nov 2012, 3:39pm

    What a bigot! Disgusting!

    Well in the current climate I think there would be plenty of people willing to the very job he clearly isn’t prepared to do.

    As the old saying goes “Beggers can’t be choosers” and his man is obviously not fit to do the job. I suggest he finds a job he can do and let someone else willing take over.

  6. I wonder if he was wearing mixed weave while making this ‘protest’? By all accounts in the Bible its as bad as being gay.

    1. Some people wear mixed weave. Get over it!


      1. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2012, 10:48am

        Yes and in religious circles, those that do we can confidently call Hypocrites!

  7. In passing, I have to say I’m startled to see that the Daily Mail article in the link treats the incident surprisingly sympathetically – to us I mean, not the driver. What’s going on?!

    1. Possibly because he is a very silly man?

    2. Don’t worry, the readers’ comments are reassuringly toxic.

      1. Ah. No surprises there!

      2. Dave North 16 Nov 2012, 4:48pm

        Read them.

        Its all apparently because of our left wing mysterious “gay agenda” and nothing to do with the fact that the bus driver is a dork who clearly does not understand contracts of employment.

      3. It surprises me that such comments are even allowed. Didn’t they send a man to jail for homophobic tweets this summer?

  8. Give me one reason he shouldn’t be disciplined for being a bigoted, homophobic piece of s*** and the passengers shouldn’t be fully compensated.

  9. It makes me feel really positive that others were willing to tell this bigot that they disagreed with him. It sounds like no-one was backing him up which shows that the tide is turning toward equality.

    That said, I’ve always found Sheffield almost welcoming compared to other cities.

  10. I’m surprised none of the passengers didn’t deck him. What a humungous @rsehole.

  11. Robert Brown 16 Nov 2012, 3:50pm

    So . . . can non-Christians refuse to drive buses when ‘festive’ posters are put on transport?

    1. GingerlyColors 17 Nov 2012, 6:49am

      I must admit, I hate Christmas, partly because of my line of work but I still have to earn a living.

      1. Spanner1960 18 Nov 2012, 4:01pm

        I’m an atheist. We celebrate every day.

  12. “the matter has now been resolved.”
    How, I wonder. Slapped wrist?

    1. It’s not clear to me how the matter has been resolved… Not clear at all.

  13. ‘The matter has now been resolved’.
    How? A verbal warning as a minimum?
    Somehow I suspect not.

  14. “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.”

    We would like the First Group to tell us exactly how the matter has been resolved. Has the driver been disciplined or is the company making accommodations to the driver’s bigotry?

  15. I suppose that’s fair enough….as long as said driver stops doing everything, everywhere!..being as an lgb or t person will have had a hand in EVERY aspect of this persons life!

  16. It would be appropriate to have First Group offer a more detailed answer as to how the issue was resolved. Had a racist remark been made he would have been reprimanded for that and potentially sent on some race equality course if not sacked. So how have the exactly resolved this issue.

    I wonder what he would have done if any individuals on the bus who were gay decided to transfer to the new bus he was operating and disclose this to him, would he refuse to take them??? And what would be his reason for denying them access to transport…

    1. And what if he had refused to let people who weren’t white on the bus? He could easily have found that bit in the bible that ‘justifies’ that. Or maybe he could just have refused to let people of other faiths on and used his ‘christianity’ to excuse that too?

      I suspect he’d have been dealt with more severly if he HAD refused to let non-white people on board – yet the religious ‘justification’ is just the same. Sadly, it seems anyone being homophobic and explaining it by religion is far, far more accepted than religious-inspired racism even though they’re both equally offensive.

  17. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Nov 2012, 4:54pm

    Wait until the C4M hate group gets wind of it. They’ll spin it and spin it and complain about abuse of religious freedom of course. That’s the problem with these bloody religious nutters, they just can’t leave personal religious beliefs at home where they belong. Instead, they have to force it on the rest of society who couldn’t give a flying toss anyway.

    Since when is a bus, any mode of public transport or the workplace a designated place of worship or belief I’d like to know? Where is that written?

  18. Same old same old. All that is going to happen is @) a slap on the wrist
    b) some mild disciplinary action

    if the Uk gay community had some balls and muscle, we’d already have set up a campaigning organisation whose sole purpose is to initiate boycotts when we are attacked.
    We’d then be in a position say, to give 24 hours ultimatum to First group to publicly announce what disciplinary action that individual has received and depending on their response, initiate a boycott, or not of their company.
    Unfortunately, we are too busy shopping and partying to ever implement anything of the sort.

  19. What is the problem some Christians have with doing their job? Do they think they’re special? Do they think the rules don’t apply to them? I’m not a Christian yet I’ve taught Christianity and other religions without fussing and whining and disrupting children’s education – because it’s part of my job.

    I never know whether these Christians honestly believe they have to be ‘christian’ every waking moment and at every opportunity, like some kind of full-on evangelising, or whether they’re just trying to force UK law to give them special rights by constantly crying “Religious freedom!” all the time.

  20. He needs to be sacked.

    He is refusing to perform his job and therefore breaking his contract.

  21. Don’t sack him, simply incarcerate him in a lunatic asylum.

  22. Some buses are…….

  23. The bus company has a responsibility to the customer who paid for the advertisement, so where are they in this?

  24. I’m surprised that you had to state his religion – we all would have known it anyway.

    1. Patrick Mc Crossan 17 Nov 2012, 12:20am

      Could have been muslim?

  25. spiritbody 16 Nov 2012, 6:46pm

    dont mind ‘defending’ the guy to a certain point.
    If the anti-gay posters had gone ahead, and I were a bus driver, I wouldnt have been willing to drive around advertising an anti gay message.
    So I have to apply the same right to this guy.
    BUT, I think he should have driven the bus this time, THEN talked with his bosses to see if he could be allocated only buses that were free of the poster in future.
    If that request were refused for whatever reason, then he should have resigned and went to find a job that doesnt impinge on his ethics. (Although, I dont mind defending him again at this point by saying, who would have foreseen that taking a bus drivers job would ever impinge on this particular moral dilema)
    Overall, its important that people are free to live a life, and earn a wage, in a way that does NOT impinge on their ethics and morality, but even more important is that they see that it is themselves that are ultimately responsible for ensuring this.

    1. Kathryn Howie 16 Nov 2012, 8:30pm

      “But, this bus has an advert for beef burgers on it, I’m a vegetarian, couldnt possibly drive it, its against my beliefs, its immoral.”

      1. Well that would be up to you wouldnt it. Thats what Im saying. Everyone is individually responsible for ensuring that their livelihood doesnt go against their right and wrongs. They shouldnt expect that the job itself will mold itself to their morality. So if a vegetarian bus driver didnt want to drive a bus with a MacDonalds advert on it, and their bus company couldnt garuntee MacDonalds ad free buses for them to drive, then they would have to resign, and go find another line of work.

    2. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2012, 10:51am

      People should leave these kinds of discriminating beliefs at home. They do Not belong in the work place.

      If the man wants to be so petty, then he is free to look for another job and let a more willing people earn the nice bus driver salary instead.

      1. Well so we agree on the second couple of lines of your post. It IS up to us individually to ensure that we earn a living that doesnt go against what we believe to be right or wrong. But I dont agree with the first couple of lines. You cant just switch off your morality when you arrive at work, (or leave it at home as you say) and neither should you. What would be the point in having a morality at all? Youre suggesting that if the anti gay posters had went ahead, you would have ‘left what you see as right and wrong at home’ and happily driven the bus around advertising, very visually, an anti gay message.

    3. “Overall, its important that people are free to live a life, and earn a wage, in a way that does NOT impinge on their ethics and morality,”

      ‘Indeed… so he should resign. That’s his freedom. Its not his bus, he’s just the driver, he’s not being paid to make a moral judgement on the advertising, any more then the people he commutes. Your argument is fundamentally flawed, as you miss the obvious.

      1. WTF? The very next line after that I say that it upto HIM to ensure that his livelihood is in line with his morality!! Its not the bus companies problem. No job can be expected to mould itself to individuals rights and wrongs. Yes, it would be up to him to resign and go find another job. Thats exactly what i said! Jesus. Talk about selective reading!

    4. The guy is a twat and should be disciplined and or fired on the grounds of not doing his job.

      So lets look at what you said that seems to have upset people.

      1) you would refuse to drive a bus around with bigoted anti-gay stuff on it.
      2) the guy handled it badly
      3) if he still has a problem he should quit
      4) people should stand up for their views.

      Gosh what a monster you are :P Sadly I don’t think most people here have read what you actually said beyond stating that you were defending him. Welcome to the Internet!

  26. Yet another religionist redefining traditional employment.

  27. Ben Foster 16 Nov 2012, 7:00pm

    I’m just trying to imagine him down the job centre, explaining why he left his previous job. Leaving a job without good reason incurs a ‘sanction’ and he would not recieve job seeker’s allowance. And his ridiculous religious objections are certainly not a good reason.

  28. I got over it ages ago. I still find the message quite aggressive and coarse. Luckily I don’t drive a bus.

    1. Spanner1960 18 Nov 2012, 4:04pm

      I agree.
      Stonewall have two speeds: full on and fck all.
      Either they fill people with complete apathy, or just alienate everybody.

    2. I didn’t get enough downvotes, so I’m going to add to my sins like this:

      It’s doubtful that this sort of message changes minds. You can’t tell people what to think and expect them to obey. People get highly attached to their attitudes; they sometimes even hold their opinions more strongly simply by being told not to hold them.

      Yes… people are children. It’s very difficult to teach them not to be children; they must learn for themselves. The louder and more aggressively daddy shouts, the less likely he is to change attitudes.

  29. swure the driver has not been disciplined first group bosses are too scared of bus drivers going on strike if they discipline the bigot. where is the justice and equality in employment law for all. i consider the attitude of this bus driver as homophobic which is a crime why is has not been sued??? and as gross misconduct he should have been out the door imediately with no notice. are they scared of him at first group???

    1. GingerlyColors 17 Nov 2012, 6:55am

      If the union representing the driver concerned were to take industrial action in the event that he is disciplined then the union has to consult it’s membership by means of a postal ballot if the action is to comply with the law. The chances are that the membership would vote against industrial action as the majority of them would have found the individual’s actions to be wrong and that he should face disciplinary action.

  30. oh sheffield
    why are you so embarrassing sometimes

  31. Oh for fack’s sake. I told you, these Christians are just looneys. Next they’ll claim they can’t use, say a restaurant because gay people might have infected the plate and cutlery.

    Can’t drive a bus because of a poster. The bus company should sack him.

    Perhaps I should refuse to drive a bus in case I happen to pass a church.

  32. Hell, I’ll drive the bus – and the bus management, which would pay my wages from the money received from the ads put on the bus, can put any ad they want to up there – as long as they’re paying me to do my job. While I do personally endorse this specific ad, whatever ad happens to be up there had not hired me as their spokesperson. I’m a big, ole, hairy bear and I would drive the bus even if a tampon ad happened to show up.

  33. Regardless of how bigoted we think the bus driver is, regardless of how unprofessional he seemed to handle the sitaution. He has a right to down his tools and withhold work. I would do the same if the ad promoted homophobia, etc. However, his boss also has the right to dismiss him and they should.

    1. The ad is not “promoting” anything. It just says that some people are gay. I don’t know how can a simple scientific fact can be regarded as a promotion of anything?

  34. He is a driver, its not up to him what goes on the side of the buses.

    Even if he dislikes gay people, I can imagine he has to see alot more personal upsetting things on buses than an advert.

    1. Whats this in the bible about not charging interest on money lent? So, if he was true to his belief, what would his action be, if a bank was advertising on the bus?

  35. I suggest Stonewall puts the ad on ALL of First’s buses in South Yorkshire.


    ..any driver who disagrees with the above must be a bigot and a hetrophobe too then? Stonewall with it’s gay hierarchy lauding it over their £180 dinners and their ‘bigot’ (thought criminal)of the year (why not choose a rabbi or a imam? – who disagree with the distorting marriage agenda too ?) are an extremist group funded by government to a tune of £100,000 a year – the opposite of a charity.Time their distasteful ads were removed.

    1. Ray, get the help you need, you sound like you have mental health issues.

  37. New Aussie 17 Nov 2012, 3:36am

    I do not in any way sympathise with this guy’s views. But if he believes his religion tells him not to support gay rights then how is his refusal any different from an Asian driver refusing to drive a bus with an anti-immigrant message from the BNP on the side?

    1. And if his religion told him not to support people people of colour rights? It’s fun how every bigotry can be hidden by “religious views”.

      The ad simply says that there are gay people. And sadly, many people still can’t get over it.

    2. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2012, 11:30am

      He is paid to do a job not for his opinion!

    3. There aren’t any buses with anti-immigrant messages from the BNP on the side.If there were, Asian drivers would not be the only ones objecting. The BNP are objectionable bigots.

  38. if he worked for me he would of been shown the door that ad pays his wages all over a bloody poster get a grip. there seems to be a lot of religious folk chucking the dummy out of the pram over nothing. equal marriage will be introduced soon so chuck dummy out of pram all you want

    1. If I employed this moron, I’d have the very bus he refused to drive parked up outside his house all day, every day.

  39. GingerlyColors 17 Nov 2012, 6:42am

    I trust that the people who paid to ride on that bus had their fares refunded after being delayed for 20 minutes because some jumped-up bigot refused to drive a bus with a pro-gay advert on the side and that any refund comes out of the drivers wages. What sort of precedent will this set? Will a Muslim bus driver refuse to drive a bus with a beer advert on the side?
    Because my job involves handling mail, I have an obligation to process mail even if it is for an organisation which I disagree with. I once handled some mail which was being sent out by the Trafalgar Club, a ‘respectable’ sounding cover name used by the British National Party. I knew who posted it but I was contracted to handle it even though both myself and my trade union disapprove of the BNP.
    I believe in standing by my principles and I feel that those who are opposed to LGBT rights should stand by theirs and walk home in the pouring rain than ride on a bus with a pro-gay ad on the side.

  40. Some People label themselves ‘gay’ – so what !

    (in small print Stonewall receives£100,000 a year from the tax payer to fritter away money on dumb bus ads and calls it’s self a ‘charity’)

    1. If it’s a case of “so what!” why do you appear to care so much? You’ve spent a good deal of time posting anti-gay comments on a gay site so you clearly care quite a lot, don’t you? Why does the mere statement that some people are gay wind you up so much? Are you an ‘ex-gay’?

    2. “Some People label themselves ‘gay’ – so what !”

      Because they’re braver then you, that’s what’s so what.

  41. he has a right to his beliefs. but if they get in the way of doing his job, he should be sacked.

  42. ian westwood 17 Nov 2012, 1:17pm

    as a gay man i could not care less if he liked to poster or not , his beliefs are fine as along as they dont hurt any one , but he is paid as a bus driver and he failed to do that job , so as an employee he is obviously not fit for purpose so disciplinary action should be taken .

  43. He’s probably trying to get a job offer from Stagecoach.

    1. As a director, probably.

  44. ………….

    1. BBC, This Morning, Tory Peer, Leveson

      1. Interesting, when I have tried to reply to a particular posting when I have used the above words my comments have not been published – this has happened 3 times, how very odd!

        1. I think you’re getting paranoid. But why mention any of those things on this particular thread?

          1. I wanted to reply to some comments already made, in the thread that are not really about this story. I’ve worked out the potentially offending words I wished to use.

          2. Spanner1960 18 Nov 2012, 4:06pm

            What? Like “g*y and l*sbi*n”?

          3. I am very sure even you can work it out the clues are above!

  45. All the posturing on both sides of the fence is detracting from one very simple fact : the overbearing power given to “religion” in our modern societies and the special treatment you get as soon as you claim “belief” for anything.
    If you have an opinion, and a strong one at that, on anything, it can linguistically speaking be considered a belief; but if it comes from reason and logic, it is almost powerless.
    If you have a belief stemming from belonging from any religious organisation, you are almost untouchable. You can hate, vilify, insult as much as you want.
    Until religion has its special status purely removed, it will remain the greatest danger to the peace of our world, quite simply.
    And all considered, religion is the greatest enemy LGBT communities are facing daily, in all parts of the globe. And should be treated as such. Enough with kids gloves and niceties.

  46. Irony of biblical proportions – clearly these adverts must continue.

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 Nov 2012, 9:49am

      Indeed. If there was ever proof these poster were needed to fight prejudice, this bus driver is the highlighter of it!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.