A Stitch in Haste

I've been blogging long enough, reading enough news stories, commentaries and counter-commentaries, to have developed a certain clinical immunity from the more obnoxious examples of anti-gay bigotry. Stated differently, I don't get disgusted very easily anymore.

But this disgusts me:

A [Minneapolis] bus driver who complained about a gay-themed ad got official permission not to drive any bus that carries that ad, according to an internal memo confirmed Tuesday by Metro Transit.

Transit authorities call it a reasonable accommodation to the driver's religious beliefs.

Keep in mind that I'm not disgusted by the bigot himself — barbarians like this are all too common. My disgust is directed solely at the public bus company that catered to this pompous bigotry, under the guise of — give me a break — making a "reasonable accommodation."

I beg to differ. Surrendering to anti-gay animus is never reasonable. The reasonable accommodation is to insist that employees either do their jobs or quit.

A political belief, such as favoring second-class citizenship for gays, is not a religious belief. Reasonable accommodations apply to worship, not politics and certainly not to bigotry in the workplace. Not requiring Jews to work on Saturday is a reasonable accommodation — it concerns worship. Allowing a Sikh to wear his dastaar is a reasonable accommodation — it concerns piety. Allowing a Christian to read his Bible in the cafeteria during his lunch break is a reasonable accommodation — it concerns faith.

Antipathy toward gays is not a component of religious worship, any more than is racism or xenophobia. It is a political viewpoint that happens to be embraced by certain (primitive) faiths. There's a difference. And political viewpoints are never entitled to any "reasonable accommodation" except the freedom to quit.

Now consider the analogies: Would a Palestinian be exempt from driving any bus with Anti-Defamation League ads? A Catholic and ads from Planned Parenthood? An atheist and ads for the local parochial school?

And what of the non-religious iterations? A Muslim refusing to drive a bus with ads for alcohol or banks? A skinhead driver and ads from the NAACP? A Democrat and ads for Rush Limbaugh? A gay and ads for an ex-gay ministry?

This decision was so outrageous, so contemptible, that — get this — even the driver's union is opposed to it:

"Our union tries to represent all diversity — whether it be religion, cultural, race, sexual orientation, any of that," [the local union president] said. "And if you start saying this or that ad is inappropriate, you're offending other people, and that can create a difficult environment for people to work in.

Stated in a less mushy, warm-fuzzy-feeling, collectivist way: workers ought to just show up and shut up and keep their opinions to themselves. A bus company is not a church pew or a town hall meeting.

Don't be surprised, now that the social conservatives are running out of states in which to introduce bigot amendments (and are likely to lose their political influence along with their Republican majority in the House), if they increasingly turn instead to private-sector displays of their "oppression" at the hands of the gay-friendly and present ever more demands for "reasonable accommodation."

Hopefully future targets of these demands will actually be "reasonable" in their response — by denying them.

MAJOR UPDATE: The transit company reversed itself in light of the nationwide indignation. (Hat tip.)

POST SCRIPT #1: Speaking of "primitive faiths" and gays, the Catholics are at it again. The only thing loopier than a gay Republican is a gay Catholic.

POST SCRIPT #2: Speaking of barbarians and gays, John McCain is at it again. He's all for gay marriage, as long as it's not gay marriage. There's a word for people for John McCain.