If it could violate your religious views, don't take the job!

[Duck]

I didn't see any indications in the linked article regarding the nature of the route. The Capital Area Rural Transportation System serves a pretty diverse area, and provides some per call (taxi like service I assume) transportation, as well as more regular bus routes (with references regarding grocery stores by name etc). I did not read in the OP article regarding the nature of this particular route, was this a regular route with a planned stop, or was this a requested ride/route, or a (as some of the CARTS buses do) a specially requested stop off the regular route (CARTS website indicates that the busses will deviate up to 3/4 mile in some areas)? If it was a regular stop on the route, the driver has no excuse, it was his job, he knew it, and he should have let her off at that stop. If it was a requested route (ala taxi service) again the driver should have known about the destination, and should have done his job. If it was a deviation from the regular route, the driver should have done his job and let her off where she needed to get off the bus.

I am all for religious expression. However, when you provide a service to the public, particularly when you are a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, check your religion at the door. I do not need to have service denied to me because of your religion, particularly when it is my tax money that helps pay your salary. If you object to Planned Parenthood (which provides services other than abortion, thank you very much) on moral grounds, fine, stay out of the building, but do NOT prevent other people from arriving for medical appointments, regardless of your feelings of the morality of prenatal care.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

One more example of why I hate people. Where does this haughty sense of overblown entitlement come from? Prince and princess syndrome coupled with a break in responsibility between the person and the world in the persons head?

I agree with Kathryn. If you are going to stand up for what you believe, you have to accept the consequences no matter what it is. In this case the consequences would be pretty obvious. His rights were not abused. If they were abused he would have gotten a little more than terminated. If the idiot wants to see what it is to have his religious rights abused, I'd be more than happy to go punch him in the face.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the bus driver doesn't want to take people to Planned Parenthood, he shouldn't be driving a bus that may be required to TAKE people to Planned Parenthood. He should either ask for a different route (reasonable accommodation by the employer most likely) or he should quit his job.

I had a look at the brief that's linked to in the OP. It seems that the driver wasn't on an assigned route; he was given a specific instruction to pick up two women and drive them to the Planned Parenthood clinic.

I've heard of places with transit arrangements like this: the dispatchers will take calls from transit users, and will effectively build a route "on the fly" based on the origins and destinations of the people waiting for pickups. Potentially, a driver could be assigned to drive between any two points in a large area of the city. In a small town, it could be anywhere within the town limits.

If this driver's distate with Planned Parenthood were accommodated, it would mean that the transit agency would either need to have a second driver on shift when he was (IOW, paying two people to do the job of one), or simply refuse clients' requests to travel to or from Planned Parenthood whenever this particular driver is on duty. Do either of these alternatives seem reasonable?

 

[idea]

I had a look at the brief that's linked to in the OP. It seems that the driver wasn't on an assigned route; he was given a specific instruction to pick up two women and drive them to the Planned Parenthood clinic.

I've heard of places with transit arrangements like this: the dispatchers will take calls from transit users, and will effectively build a route "on the fly" based on the origins and destinations of the people waiting for pickups. Potentially, a driver could be assigned to drive between any two points in a large area of the city. In a small town, it could be anywhere within the town limits.

If this driver's distate with Planned Parenthood were accommodated, it would mean that the transit agency would either need to have a second driver on shift when he was (IOW, paying two people to do the job of one), or simply refuse clients' requests to travel to or from Planned Parenthood whenever this particular driver is on duty. Do either of these alternatives seem reasonable?

build a route on the fly? I've never seen/herd of that. I don'tthink there is a problem with giving some people a specific route. What, there is only one bus driver in all of Houston? No. Employers make allowances for their employees all the time. It really isn't that difficult to call Sally instead of Joe for certain routes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

build a route on the fly? I've never seen/herd of that.

We used to have something like it here for certain areas of town before they had enough traffic to sustain regular routes. The buses would wait at the train station, and would leave when they got some minimum number of people on board. The driver would ask where everyone was going, and just take the most direct route he could to drop off everyone at their destination. For the return trip, it was a similar idea: you'd call a number and wait (sometimes quite a while) until a bus picked you up and took you to the train station again, where you could transfer to another bus or the commuter rail service.

I don'tthink there is a problem with giving some people a specific route. Employers make allowances for their employees all the time.

These sorts of arrangements are done when there isn't enough demand for specific routes. Completely changing the organization's way of doing business and operating at a significant loss to do it are a bit more than mere "allowances", IMO.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't see any indications in the linked article regarding the nature of the route. The Capital Area Rural Transportation System serves a pretty diverse area, and provides some per call (taxi like service I assume) transportation, as well as more regular bus routes (with references regarding grocery stores by name etc). I did not read in the OP article regarding the nature of this particular route, was this a regular route with a planned stop, or was this a requested ride/route, or a (as some of the CARTS buses do) a specially requested stop off the regular route (CARTS website indicates that the busses will deviate up to 3/4 mile in some areas)? If it was a regular stop on the route, the driver has no excuse, it was his job, he knew it, and he should have let her off at that stop. If it was a requested route (ala taxi service) again the driver should have known about the destination, and should have done his job. If it was a deviation from the regular route, the driver should have done his job and let her off where she needed to get off the bus.

According to the document on the ACLJ site that's linked to in the OP, he was driving a bus and was assigned by his dispatcher to make a pickup at a specific time and drop the passengers off specifically at the Planned Parenthood clinic. AFAICT, it was when he was assigned the run that he told his dispatcher that he refused to make the pickup.

Beyond that, I don't know the specific details of the type of service he was driving.

 

[Smoke]

build a route on the fly? I've never seen/herd of that. I don'tthink there is a problem with giving some people a specific route. What, there is only one bus driver in all of Houston? No. Employers make allowances for their employees all the time. It really isn't that difficult to call Sally instead of Joe for certain routes.

Graning worked for CARTS -- the Capital Area Rural Transportation System. CARTS does have "routes" but not the kind of set routes a city bus line has.

If you live in Bertram and you need to go to Austin, you call and make an appointment to be picked up on Monday, because that's the only day CARTS makes a run between Bertram and Austin. The CARTS driver will pick you up in a van and drive you to Austin in the morning, and in the afternoon he'll pick you up and drive you back to Bertram.

If you live and Blanco and you need to go to Austin, it works the same way, but you have to go on the fourth Monday of the month, because that's the only time CARTS runs between Blanco and Austin

If you live in Brownsboro and you need to go -- well, anywhere -- you call CARTS and tell them where you need to go and make an appointment to be picked up "within our time slots of general availability." The bus won't be making a straight run to Austin, though, because Brownsboro shares a bus with neighboring communities.

In all cases, it's recommended that you call 24 hours in advance to make your appointment.

For Edwin Graning to be assigned to a "route" where he won't ever have to go to Planned Parenthood would require that CARTS picks a town and make a policy that the people from that town never get to go to Austin, or any town with a Planned Parenthood office, lest Edwin Graning's sensibilities be offended.

 

[Kathryn]

I didn't say the guy did the right thing all the way around. In the end, he has to live with himself. He may have truly never considered the possibility that a passenger would ask him to take them to the Planned Parenthood office. I don't know - but I do know that he was faced with a moral decision in his mind and apparently he went with his conscience on this one - as we all should.

That being said, I believe he deserves to be fired and he doesn't have a legal case. But if I were in that position, I would hope that I wouldn't compromise my own personal values just to keep my job.

As for reasonable accomodation about his route, none of us knows whether or not that request would be reasonable. Some bus routes stick to one end of town or the other - in fact, most bus routes are very well defined. Maybe they could have reasonably accomodated him and maybe not. It would be an option to consider.

 

[waitasec]

July 20, 2010

'Next stop: Planned Parenthood'... but not with this driver

An Austin bus driver who was fired for refusing to drive a passenger to Planned Parenthood is suing his employer for religious discrimination.

According to the Austin American-Statesmen, the driver identifies as "an ordained Christian minister who is opposed to abortion," and he called his supervisor to say he couldn't in good conscience take someone to have an abortion at the clinic. The supervisor took that as his resignation.

this has nothing to do with his "good conscience" because he didn't make the choice. this has everything to do with him having control over someone else's choice

 

[Kathryn]

this has nothing to do with his "good conscience" because he didn't make the choice. this has everything to do with him having control over someone else's choice

He's not telling her she can't have an abortion, and he's not keeping her from having an abortion. He is simply not aiding and abetting her in having an abortion.

 

[jmvizanko]

What a moron is right. Does he not realize that any other passenger could be going somewhere to kill or rape somebody, or make a stop at the library before walking over to have an abortion? Your job is to take people from A to B, not play Christian superhero using your public vehicle...

 

[waitasec]

He's not telling her she can't have an abortion, and he's not keeping her from having an abortion. He is simply not aiding and abetting her in having an abortion.

he was in a position to muck up this persons decision, he didn't know what the circumstances surrounding her choice was, did he?
in his heart he believes it is wrong...fine, he has the right to believe that (i happen to agree with him)
HOWEVER, this is a country that is supposed to be based on equality...his job is to get someone from point a to point b he had nothing to do with her personal choice, he is not aiding and abetting in her CHOICE it is NONE of his business

 

[PivotalSyntax]

What a moron is right. Does he not realize that any other passenger could be going somewhere to kill or rape somebody, or make a stop at the library before walking over to have an abortion? Your job is to take people from A to B, not play Christian superhero using your public vehicle...

There's quite a difference between knowingly and unknowingly driving someone to do something you are personally opposed to.

 

[jmvizanko]

There's quite a difference between knowingly and unknowingly driving someone to do something you are personally opposed to.

Sure. But there is also quite a difference between driving your personal car to take somebody to go do something legal that you don't agree with, and driving your public bus to take somebody to go do something legal that you don't agree with.

 

[Smoke]

One more example of why I hate people. Where does this haughty sense of overblown entitlement come from?

:clap Exactly.

 

[Smoke]

I didn't say the guy did the right thing all the way around. In the end, he has to live with himself. He may have truly never considered the possibility that a passenger would ask him to take them to the Planned Parenthood office. I don't know - but I do know that he was faced with a moral decision in his mind and apparently he went with his conscience on this one - as we all should.

Well, I think if we're all going to follow our consciences, we should make a better effort to have a conscience worth following. Mr. Graning's conscience sucks.

 

[Kathryn]

I've said from the start on this one that the man should probably have been fired.

My point is that when a person has principles, he shouldn't sell them out just to keep a job. But he should be willing to accept the logical consequences of his moral choices.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've said from the start on this one that the man should probably have been fired.

But you also said that he should have the right to refuse the pickup (even if it means he gets fired).

My point is that when a person has principles, he shouldn't sell them out just to keep a job. But he should be willing to accept the logical consequences of his moral choices.

And my point is that the ship sailed on him making a moral stance long before the incident in question.

The driver's apparently an anti-abortion Christian minister; do you think that Planned Parenthood could've opened a new office in town without him learning about it? His job entailed driving anyone anywhere within a large area, and IMO he would've known full well that this area included the Planned Parenthood clinic. If he has a problem with doing that job in its entirety, then he should've found another line of work.

Kathryn, I know you've got family members in the military. How would you feel if a soldier in one of their units enlisted, got shipped off to fight overseas, got deployed on some specific mission, and only then decided that he had a moral objection to the current war and refused to fight?

Obviously, the potential consequences could be greater in that case than in the case of the bus driver... a soldier's dereliction of duty can cost lives, while a bus driver's dereliction of duty might only strand people or impose a long wait on them, but the principle is the same. Once you've freely accepted a commitment, you're honour-bound to keep it. Even moreso if others are relying on you to keep your word.

Edit: you talk about principles; honesty, loyalty and duty are principles, too.

 

[Kathryn]

But you also said that he should have the right to refuse the pickup (even if it means he gets fired).

I'm not going to scroll all the way through these posts to my original comment, but I think it's pretty clear from my posts that my position is that we should not sacrifice our moral values for the sake of a job. What I've been saying is that if we are faced with a task on our jobs that violates our moral values, we should not sell out our principles just to save our job.

What I've said is that he should live by his PRINCIPLES but be prepared to sacrifice for those principles as well. I've also been very clear that the company had the right to terminate him, and that he shouldn't sue them for doing so.

Kathryn, I know you've got family members in the military. How would you feel if a soldier in one of their units enlisted, got shipped off to fight overseas, got deployed on some specific mission, and only then decided that he had a moral objection to the current war and refused to fight?

Obviously, the potential consequences could be greater in that case than in the case of the bus driver... a soldier's dereliction of duty can cost lives, while a bus driver's dereliction of duty might only strand people or impose a long wait on them, but the principle is the same. Once you've freely accepted a commitment, you're honour-bound to keep it. Even moreso if others are relying on you to keep your word.

Well, Hitler's military officers were faced with this same dilemma, weren't they? As we judged them, did the excuse "I was only following orders" hold much weight?

And you're right - a wartime scenario is markedly different from this bus driver's scenario. But I also believe that if a soldier enlists and then later down the road comes to the moral conclusion that he or she is morally opposed to the job duties, then I back that soldier's right to resist. Now - this will probably cost the soldier his/her job. The soldier may even be arrested, detained, stripped of rank, dishonorably discharged (depending on the scenario). But that's a small price to pay for living honestly by one's true convictions.

I would absolutely support any of my military family members who decided this was their route to take, based on their own moral code. And I would be proud of them for their strength of conviction.

Edit: you talk about principles; honesty, loyalty and duty are principles, too

But they can also be used as excuses for morally selling out just to keep your job.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, Hitler's military officers were faced with this same dilemma, weren't they? As we judged them, did the excuse "I was only following orders" hold much weight?

It seems like you're not getting my point. If you were one of Hitler's officers, the time to quit would've been when you first heard about his "final solution", not months or years later by deserting your troops on the battlefield.

And you're right - a wartime scenario is markedly different from this bus driver's scenario. But I also believe that if a soldier enlists and then later down the road comes to the moral conclusion that he or she is morally opposed to the job duties, then I back that soldier's right to resist.

But this right is incompatible with the right of that soldier's comrades to be assured that they will have the support of the rest of the members of their unit. I'm surprised that you'd choose between them the way you did.

Now - this will probably cost the soldier his/her job.

Or his comrades their lives.

The soldier may even be arrested, detained, stripped of rank, dishonorably discharged (depending on the scenario). But that's a small price to pay for living honestly by one's true convictions.

I would absolutely support any of my military family members who decided this was their route to take, based on their own moral code. And I would be proud of them for their strength of conviction.

Would you express this sentiment at the funeral of a soldier who died because the pilot of his close air support suddenly decided to become a war resister in the middle of a mission?

But they can also be used as excuses for morally selling out just to keep your job.

And again, that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm not asking anyone to "morally sell out" or take jobs that they feel are wrong. I'm asking people to consider the full ramifications of their duty before they agree to it and before a situation arises where others rely on them to uphold that duty.