Christian bus driver fired after refusing to drive Calgary ‘Gay Pride bus’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Son_of_Niall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_Plato said:
What did YOU go out into the wilderness to see…
Click to expand...
Well now I’m scared. I mean you’ve raised your voice and everything. You’re even seeing red a little. I mean I didn’t know this would be a test. I was never good at tests. Ok. I mean I guess in a way I’m happy that you actually invited me out into the wilderness after all (even if maybe now you’re mad at me and yelling a bit–but maybe it’s just because of the wind?). I guess I was wrong about you not wanting me to come. So I think you are asking me if I came out to see a reed because it’s not supposed to be what I came out to see after all. But I was close about the approaching storm.

So if I didn’t come out to see a reed blowing in the wind because of an approaching storm, why did I come? And I mean am I lost? No, because you’re with me. Were we supposed to be meeting someone? Were we supposed to be meeting someone to do with the CBC? No, they wouldn’t be in the wilderness.

Do you mind if I look that phrase up on the search engine? Because it sort of sounds like something Jesus would say. Maybe it’s about John the Baptist? But why is he involved with me not doing my own homework? Or was he the one who didn’t want to drive the bus? No, his name was Rau or something, not John.

Ok, so I looked it up and it is about John the Baptist (I knew water had to be nearby)!

So you were saying that I came to see something in the wilderness, but that I was surprised by what I did see. You’re saying that I should have recognized John was warning us about the coming of the messiah instead of being disappointed that he didn’t look like I was expecting (but I really wasn’t expecting him to look like a reed–honest). Or something? Now this is a lot of homework you gave me. I think it was in punishment for not doing it before. If so I hope I got closer to the answer this time. I hope I’m really close.

I don’t want your letters to get any bigger. :eek:

Peace.

-Trident
 
Trident_H said:
Well now I’m scared. I mean you’ve raised your voice and everything. You’re even seeing red a little. I mean I didn’t know this would be a test. I was never good at tests. Ok. I mean I guess in a way I’m happy that you actually invited me out into the wilderness after all (even if maybe now you’re mad at me and yelling a bit–but maybe it’s just because of the wind?). I guess I was wrong about you not wanting me to come. So I think you are asking me if I came out to see a reed because it’s not supposed to be what I came out to see after all. But I was close about the approaching storm.

So if I didn’t come out to see a reed blowing in the wind because of an approaching storm, why did I come? And I mean am I lost? No, because you’re with me. Were we supposed to be meeting someone? Were we supposed to be meeting someone to do with the CBC? No, they wouldn’t be in the wilderness.

Do you mind if I look that phrase up on the search engine? Because it sort of sounds like something Jesus would say. Maybe it’s about John the Baptist? But why is he involved with me not doing my own homework? Or was he the one who didn’t want to drive the bus? No, his name was Rau or something, not John.

Ok, so I looked it up and it is about John the Baptist (I knew water had to be nearby)!

So you were saying that I came to see something in the wilderness, but that I was surprised by what I did see. You’re saying that I should have recognized John was warning us about the coming of the messiah instead of being disappointed that he didn’t look like I was expecting (but I really wasn’t expecting him to look like a reed–honest). Or something? Now this is a lot of homework you gave me. I think it was in punishment for not doing it before. If so I hope I got closer to the answer this time. I hope I’m really close.

I don’t want your letters to get any bigger. :eek:

Peace.

-Trident
Click to expand...
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17329
 
DaddyGirl said:
Does Lifestite “News” *ever *get a headline factually correct?

He wasn’t asked to drive the bus, therefore he wasn’t fired for refusing to drive it.

He was fired because he breached a code of conduct by giving a bunch of media interviews without permission and in those interviews, speaking negatively about his employer and his job.

In his interviews, he said he’d rather lose his job than drive the bus. So then, he should be glad for the outcome, yes?

From the CBC:

Rau received a termination of employment letter from the City of Calgary on Thursday for breaching code of conduct an the city’s media relations policy.
The letter states: “To be clear you are entitled to your religious beliefs and to express them freely. However, you went beyond that and made false and misleading comments during various media interviews, which resulted in undue controversy and put the reputation of the city at risk.”

.
Click to expand...
The CBC article:

cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-transit-driver-jesse-rau-fired-over-pride-bus-controversy-1.3225224
Rau says he was told any bus driver might have to drive the bus, but the city said Rau had been “specifically” told he would not be assigned to the route.
Click to expand...
Apparently he never had to drive the bus; at worst (if his story is correct) he might have been assigned to it.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Does Lifestite “News” *ever *get a headline factually correct?

He wasn’t asked to drive the bus, therefore he wasn’t fired for refusing to drive it.

He was fired because he breached a code of conduct by giving a bunch of media interviews without permission and in those interviews, speaking negatively about his employer and his job.

In his interviews, he said he’d rather lose his job than drive the bus. So then, he should be glad for the outcome, yes?

From the CBC:

Rau received a termination of employment letter from the City of Calgary on Thursday for breaching code of conduct an the city’s media relations policy.
The letter states: “To be clear you are entitled to your religious beliefs and to express them freely. However, you went beyond that and made false and misleading comments during various media interviews, which resulted in undue controversy and put the reputation of the city at risk.”

.
Click to expand...
Methinks that ignorance was not the cause of the misleading headline, but rather intentional deceit. We need investigative reporters like you, DG, who get the facts of the story correct.
 
meltzerboy said:
Methinks that ignorance was not the cause of the misleading headline, but rather intentional deceit. We need investigative reporters like you, DG, who get the facts of the story correct.
Click to expand...
Methinks the problem of controversy is only a problem because politically correct society has raised the whole issue of gay “rights” to a frenetically controversial level. If the media and society at large were not so concerned with being politically correct, the driver’s comments wouldn’t have even raised an eyebrow nor resulted in his firing.

The ONLY reason Calgary Transit’s charge of “controversy” sticks is because Calgary Transit entered into a controversial issue by partnering with the gay community and a corporate sponsor to fabricate the potential for controversy to begin with (and to point and shriek when it happened.)

They didn’t need to do that, but under the pretext of being “community minded” in order to push a particular agenda – I suspect knowing full well that it would be controversial – they found a suitable scapegoat to sacrifice to the gods of political correctness.

What we need are reporters without an agenda to present both sides of any story fairly and concisely. Anyone can present facts selectively in such a way as to further one viewpoint or another. But as soon as journalism takes on bias, it finds ways to cover that bias with a certain “civility” and covert selectivity with regard to how and why the presentation of facts takes the form it does.

We need reporters who will dig as deep as necessary to get the whole story and all of the facts, not merely those that corroborate the side they favour. For that, we need a readership that is concerned with the whole truth, with unbiased justice and real tolerance – not the shallow political correctness that currently rules the media, politics and existing social mores.

That ought to be the challenge DG takes to heart.
 
Stalin used to lock up people like this bus driver in insane asylums. The Chinese communists sent them to reeducation camps, where few survived. Thus far, the “progressive” left fires them or throws them in prison. I guess there is some progress to be noted here.
 
The supervisors at Calgary Transit could have shown magnanimity and tolerance by quietly speaking to Rau, reinforcing that they would respect his beliefs, reassure him that his employment was not on the line and shown an all-round willingness to defuse rather than exacerbate the situation – consistent with their purported communal spirit of support for everyone.

That isn’t what they chose to do.

Can someone explain why that would not have been the better option?

Meltzerboy? DaddyGirl?
 
Peter_Plato said:
Methinks the problem of controversy is only a problem because politically correct society has raised the whole issue of gay “rights” to a frenetically controversial level. If the media and society at large were not so concerned with being politically correct, the driver’s comments wouldn’t have even raised an eyebrow nor resulted in his firing.

The ONLY reason Calgary Transit’s charge of “controversy” sticks is because Calgary Transit entered into a controversial issue by partnering with the gay community and a corporate sponsor to fabricate the potential for controversy to begin with (and to point and shriek when it happened.)

They didn’t need to do that, but under the pretext of being “community minded” in order to push a particular agenda – I suspect knowing full well that it would be controversial – they found a suitable scapegoat to sacrifice to the gods of political correctness.

What we need are reporters without an agenda to present both sides of any story fairly and concisely. Anyone can present facts selectively in such a way as to further one viewpoint or another. But as soon as journalism takes on bias, it finds ways to cover that bias with a certain “civility” and covert selectivity with regard to how and why the presentation of facts takes the form it does.

We need reporters who will dig as deep as necessary to get the whole story and all of the facts, not merely those that corroborate the side they favour. For that, we need a readership that is concerned with the whole truth, with unbiased justice and real tolerance – not the shallow political correctness that currently rules the media, politics and existing social mores.

That ought to be the challenge DG takes to heart.
Click to expand...
I first heard of this story four days ago, and at that time the driver was never assigned that bus. The City had mentioned a need for accommodation for the driver, he would not be required to drive the bus in question. It seemed case closed, nothing to see here folks. But how it went from that to his firing.
I would like to know what his comments were that resulted in his dismissal?
I would like to know why a driver who was never going to drive “the bus” would make any comment either way?
 
Son_of_Niall said:
lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-christian-bus-driver-fired-after-refusing-to-drive-calgary-gay-pri
Click to expand...
“He should be fired since it is a derelict of his duty.” Just like how he should be fired if he refused to drive a bus sporting Planned Parenthood in a Pro-choice rally, or for refusing to drive a bus that publicly avows Jews to be the source of social evil, or for refusing to drive a bus armed with colonial soldiers going to massacre some peacefully protesting Indians in New Delhi.

Except the assault on family & marriage is the “in crowd” evil of the present day, so none of those other examples would supposedly fit with this one. In 100 years, something else will be the “in crowd” evil, and that generation will have its share of white martyrs as well. Nothing is new under the sun. Then again, the assault on family & marriage is nothing new, even if it takes different faces. The contemporaries of Jesus in Palestine could divorce & ditch a woman if he thought she was a bad cook, which in of itself is bad, and is even worse when you consider what women needed for financial security at the time.
 
Peter_Plato said:
The supervisors at Calgary Transit could have shown magnanimity and tolerance by quietly speaking to Rau, reinforcing that they would respect his beliefs, reassure him that his employment was not on the line and shown an all-round willingness to defuse rather than exacerbate the situation – consistent with their purported communal spirit of support for everyone.

That isn’t what they chose to do.
…
Click to expand...
👍
 
Just read his letter of dismissal. As stated before his driving the bus was never going to happen, before going to the press or after.
If the inquiry is made “am I required to drive this bus?”
The answer is “no you are not assigned that bus.”
End of story. I don’t think Christian, Muslim or whatever is the case. I think stupidity is.
If you draw attention to yourself, don’t be surprised that your (civic) employer finds out you post Nazi content on your Facebook page.
 
robsully said:
Just read his letter of dismissal. As stated before his driving the bus was never going to happen, before going to the press or after.
If the inquiry is made “am I required to drive this bus?”
The answer is “no you are not assigned that bus.”
End of story. I don’t think Christian, Muslim or whatever is the case. I think stupidity is.
If you draw attention to yourself, don’t be surprised that your (civic) employer finds out you post Nazi content on your Facebook page.
Click to expand...
Other than vague references to “Nazi content,” precisely what did Rau post on his Facebook page?

Was he supporting Nazism? Was he actually claiming his supervisors were acting as Nazis? What precisely did he post?

Do you know? Or are you content with vague references to make the case?

Perhaps more facts need to be exhumed and forensic analysis applied before Rau is buried and laid to rest as utterly despicable and irredeemable by modern “progressive” standards?

What do you think?
 
BobCatholic said:
If that were true, that denial would not be considered evil and there would be no controversy.
Click to expand...
Hey, I never said that liberal logic made sense. Take their claim that “truth is relative.” If that were true, then that statement itself wouldn’t be true; it would be relative. If truth were relative, morality itself would be relative; and if morality were relative, liberals couldn’t claim the moral high ground because there wouldn’t be any moral high ground. :nope:
 
robsully said:
Just read his letter of dismissal. As stated before his driving the bus was never going to happen, before going to the press or after.
If the inquiry is made “am I required to drive this bus?”
The answer is “no you are not assigned that bus.”
Click to expand...
On the face of it, “Am I required to drive this bus?” is not answered in a completely unambiguous way by “No, you are not assigned that bus.” It seems to leave open the possibility that at some time in the future he could be “assigned that bus.”

What leaves the question open is that the bus was to be used, eventually, on all routes throughout Calgary. That seems to imply that at some point the possibility might come about that even though he isn’t now assigned that bus, he might someday be required to drive it.

If the supervisors wanted to settle the question unequivocally, they would have said something like, “No one will ever be assigned that bus unless they agree to drive it.” Obviously that gives drivers a great deal of power that I doubt the supervisors would be willing to permit them. That is a capitulation I doubt the supervisors who dreamed the scheme would ever allow.

Why not just face it, there is a social revolt happening and some are on the “right” side and others on the “wrong” side – such episodes are nothing more than maneuvers to secure footholds for one particular ideology at the expense of others within the broader culture.
 
I’d love to hear this story written about in a paper the way it truthfully happened.

The Calgary Pride parade has become so large and mainstream, virtually no one bats an eye anymore. In fact, it is so mainstream, that transit has a pride bus. How does the driver feel about driving the bus? Clearly, he doesn’t care because he wasn’t interviewed. And why would he? It’s a bus with advertising on it. All buses have ads on them. Does anyone expect the bus driver is personally endorsing Clearly Contacts or Sprot Shaw Community College? No, they expect the driver to be a safe driver, courteous to the passengers, and not trash talk the transit company.

In the absence of a controversy, the CBC reporter found a dupe to come out publicly and say that he would rather quit than drive that bus, and he objects to it on religious grounds. The company fired him for violating his contract. Calgary is, for Canada, a conservative city. Odds are there is more than one driver who doesn’t want to drive that bus. Drivers aren’t being fired because they refuse to drive the bus, they are being fired for public criticising the company.

If he hadn’t gone for his 15 minutes of fame, he’d still have a job, and he still wouldn’t be driving the bus he so objects to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top