(no subject)

[theweaselking]

No, you fundie dumbass, you are not being "discriminated against" when people ask you to please stop reading the Bible loudly at them on a city bus.

Edit: I'd said "private location" because I figured the buses in Texas counted as such, being privately owned. It's since been pointed out that a movie theatre is *also* a public location, and that buses in this case are subsidised by the government with the concomitant restriction against, well, restrictions.

She's still noisy, annoying, breaking the rules, and refusing to shut the fuck up when asked politely. She's just not that EXTRA level of wrong.

Comments

[demongrrrrl.livejournal.com]

Stupid twit.

But it wasn't a private location, it was in a public bus. That being said, she still was being loud and disrupting the other passengers' ride and was (appropriately) silenced.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Aren't the buses owned and run by private companies?

[demongrrrrl.livejournal.com]

No, it says fairly clearly that this is public transportation.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It says it's a city bus.

But aren't those owned and operated by mostly-private companies in Texas?

In Canada, at least in Ottawa, the public transportation is a for-profit corporation owned wholly by the city, making all of their buses and trains *private property*.

As far as I know, anyway. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am - and I figure, if anything's going to be a private corporation in *Canada*, it's certainly going to be one in Texas.

[jagash.livejournal.com]

I believe it would count as a privately owned public location, as would malls or movie theatres.

[demongrrrrl.livejournal.com]

What's your point?

This is not a private occasion, it is a mode of transportation that has been made available to the public by the concession which runs it, per a contract with the city/state government. By law, any business having a contract with a city/state in the US, cannot discriminate against a customer based on their religion.

This bus service cannot claim to be a private situation because it is run according to the TRE's rules. TRE's the customer, you dance to their tune.

[takhisis.livejournal.com]

Pretty much. The city buses are "public transportation" and therefore she cannot be discriminated against. However, I agree, it doesn't matter if she was loudly reading the Bible, The Cat in the Hat, or singing Carmina Burana, she was thrown off for being a loud-assed bitch, not for her religion.

"Discrimination." Razzum frazzum. Gimme a half-dozen lions, I'll show you "discrimination", lady!

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Good enough.

I wasn't arguing that "on a public bus this would be okay", although on a public *street* it most certainly would be annoying-and-stupid-but-allowed. I just was assuming that the buses were a private location that just happens to be mobile, which is a whole extra kettle of lutefisk.

[takhisis.livejournal.com]

Gotchas. Nope it falls into that weird loophole of public service vs. public location. Yeah, if it were, say, a chartered bus or a taxi or something else privately owned, it is a whole different crockpot of kippers. ;)

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Yep. The difference: anyone who finds her reading offensive cannot remove him or herself from the annoyance. Transportation counts as a necessity, thus giving the transit authority the responsibility to enforce "civil conduct" minimum standards. If another passenger were to complain to the driver and the driver subsequently did nothing, allowing Ms. Yakyak to continue, the authority could have been sued by the offended passenger.

Years ago, I didn't complain about a similar situation. I was just riding the bus. Two teens with far-away stares sat near me. One started reading to the other from some Hindi holy book. I was trying to read my own book, and got pissed.

"Hey," I said a bit menacingly, "can I piss in your face?"

"Huh?" said the shocked teen. "No!"

"Then keep your fucking religion out of my ears." Then I left.

[demongrrrrl.livejournal.com]

I know you weren't saying that it would be OK on a public bus. On a public bus she still deserved to be thrown off.

I was just picking nits.

Sorry to revisit this so late.
And have you ever eaten lutefisk? If you do, it might explain a lot. ::GRIN::

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Since loudness was the issue, I think the bus driver could and should have asked her to read to her kids at a conversational level, but he didn't.

[elffin.livejournal.com]

He doesn't have to: There's a sign, posted at the front of the bus, that says "No loud or abusive behavior", with an informative infographic to boot. There's also a posted set of rules that states, among other things, that riders may be asked to leave if they violate the posted rules.

As someone who often rides DART (Dallas buses) and occasionally rides the T, I've never seen someone removed for any reason short of committing an actual crime - our drivers here in Dallas tend to be occupied with traffic conditions.

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

Her complaint would be valid if she was forbidden specifically to read the Bible as opposed to other books or, say, gabbing in a cell phone as people tend to do here.

In any case, remarkable public display of religiosity is specifically discouraged by Jesus, so a Christian should not normally have this problem.

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

In any case, remarkable public display of religiosity is specifically discouraged by Jesus, so a Christian should not normally have this problem.

Heh. Lots of "christians" are too busy IGNORING the red words.

[allysonsedai.livejournal.com]

This is completely apropos of nothing, but I saw this and thought you would appreciate the wtf-ness of it all.

[sanityimpaired.livejournal.com]

I'd love to ask said woman if the same right to read religious texts on a bus would also apply if said religious text was from Levay's Satanic Bible. I can't imagine she'd say yes, and any other answer would completely invalidate her complaint.