So you don't (choose to) read the ongoing news stories where atheists protest religious references and take up the courts' time suing over it?

What about driving a vehicle that supports crash commercialism?

I think you're confusing this issue with someone suing under the First Amendment because the government promotes religion.

In 2006, Vanessa Willcock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission against a company called Elane Photography for refusing to photograph her gay commitment ceremony. The business is owned by a husband and wife--evangelical Christians who have made a decision not to photograph ceremonies related to gay unions. In April, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found against Elane Photography and ordered it to pay $6,637 for Willcock's legal fees in bringing the complaint. The decision has been appealed.

[quote=straw]

It seems as silly to me for this man to quit his job (if that's actually what he did) over this advertisement as it would be for a copy editor to walk off the job because he's a non-smoker and the newspaper he works for prints cigarette ads.

JJ - he should stay and and drive a different bus, or do other duties if he can. That way he is still doing some type of job.

I don't think the beginning blurb of this thread tells a complete story. Without a complete story - this is all just conjecture. (But then again, that's what most of the Cooler is).

If the company offerred no other options, yes, he should walk off. However, he should have exhausted all other options before walking off.

I think not

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_/ai_n27925966

In 2006, Vanessa Willcock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission against a company called Elane Photography for refusing to photograph her gay commitment ceremony. The business is owned by a husband and wife--evangelical Christians who have made a decision not to photograph ceremonies related to gay unions. In April, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found against Elane Photography and ordered it to pay $6,637 for Willcock's legal fees in bringing the complaint. The decision has been appealed.

couldn't they just go get another photographer?

Again, I don't see how the vehicle is supporting anything. It's a man-made object that simply doesn't care about things like religion. It's a man-made object being used to convey a very specific religious, or anti-religious, belief.

Nor do I think that the bus company is endorsing anything just by accepting money from an advertiser so that they can continue to operate and provide transportation service. The only person(s) interested in promoting anything is the advertiser. Then why do TV and radio stations censor certain ads? Because being a pacifist is not an excuse for perpetuating something you don't believe in or that goes directly against your beliefs.

It seems as silly to me for this man to quit his job (if that's actually what he did) over this advertisement as it would be for a copy editor to walk off the job because he's a non-smoker and the newspaper he works for prints cigarette ads. It's sad and ironic that you think standing up for beliefs is silly while you continue to post yours here.

It's really between him and his employer. The righteous indignation from those about the poor people who are not going to receive life saving treatment becuse they had to wait a few minutes more for another bus or driver is quite amusing.

Enough of this "we have to accept everyone and serve them all" carp.

Being a Christian doesn't mean you have to accept everything that everyone does; it means standing up for what you believe that Christ would stand for.

I don't understand why a private business is found liable for not doing something. If they took someone's money and didn't provide a service, that's one thing. But refusing to do something if for no other reason than 'just because', big deal, go somewhere else.

Forcing bars to ban smoking also confuses me, and I don't smoke.

Another entry for the English to Phil dictionary:
'sincere question' = 'righteous indignation'

It's sad and ironic that you think standing up for beliefs is silly while you continue to post yours here.

No, don't buy your bolded section. Christ stands for something, but to say each one of us gets to interpret it... sounds like cafeteria Christianity to me. I will take this but leave that.