Atheist Bus Ads: Not In My BackYard?

[TheRealJoeFish]

[Jackie]

RationalPoet.........If they won't put adds for atheists certainly these morons should not object to Jefferson, who was a deist who said atheists are capable of morality, "Whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idle to say as some do, that no such thing exists." Thomas Jefferson.

[Longhorn]

That was 10 entertaining minutes spent on the magical journey to the heart of a comment flame war that I'll never get back

IMO all ads are obnoxious, but it's either all of them or none of them
Just, why would you put ads on buses?

[Cato]

Just, why would you put ads on buses?

Bus banners are almost the perfect inexpensive means of advertising. If you're near the bus, they're almost impossible to ignore and eliminate from your field of vision. I also imagine that the number of people encountered along its route would be higher than stationary advertising.

[John V]

- The local Freethinkers Group, led by a fellow named Justin Vacula (more on this in a bit), wanted to run ads on the sides of the buses too, but all ads including the word "atheist" were turned down because 1) they could offend the Transit Authority's riders and 2) they could hurt the Transit Authority's business.
- About 2 years ago, the Transit Authority decided, rather than run the "atheist ads," to forbid all "religious advertising."

Seems reasonable. The TA is likely operating at a big deficit already, and can't afford to offend paying customers. As long as they also deny religious ads, what's the problem?

[SteelCurtain]

I'd say the best of all outcomes has already been achieved, no? Churches and religious groups now cannot advertise because of the policy change, and now the government is a step removed from religion.

Buy a park bench or a billboard. You made your point.

[Pyrrho]

- The local Freethinkers Group, led by a fellow named Justin Vacula (more on this in a bit), wanted to run ads on the sides of the buses too, but all ads including the word "atheist" were turned down because 1) they could offend the Transit Authority's riders and 2) they could hurt the Transit Authority's business.
- About 2 years ago, the Transit Authority decided, rather than run the "atheist ads," to forbid all "religious advertising."

Seems reasonable. The TA is likely operating at a big deficit already, and can't afford to offend paying customers. As long as they also deny religious ads, what's the problem?

Take another look at the opening post.  And pay attention to this part:

...
- Lackawanna County, where Scranton is located, has a public transit service that has run Christian (and even, according to the lawsuit, fringy, Holocaust-denial-type religious) ads on the sides of its busses.
...

And then this part:

...
- About 2 years ago, the Transit Authority decided, rather than run the "atheist ads," to forbid all "religious advertising."

...

In other words, the change of policy was because they did not want to run the atheist ads.  So they are actively wanting to prevent atheist messages, rather than having had a policy of having no ads about religion.

They are not treating the atheist group the same as they have treated religious groups.  They had no problem with running religious ads for years, and only now want to discontinue the practice because they don't want atheist advertising.  So they are discriminating against atheists.

[SteelCurtain]

I agree. They are treating atheist messages differently. But public response is a thing they have to deal with. Just like the advertising company has to cater to the person who owns the property his sign is on, the bus system relies on the passengers that would get on the bus. If they can prove that putting the atheist message with that word on it would affect their bottom line (and I don't think it would be hard to do so) then they shouldn't be compelled to accept the advertising contract.

But this is still a positive outcome. Now religious institutions cannot use government property to do their advertising.

Now, knowing what I know about Vacula, this likely wasn't a "Don't believe in God? Neither do we! Join the NEPA Freethought Society!" (Notice how easily I came up with an advertising campaign that didn't include the word "atheist?"). They weren't denying the group outright, they were just not allowing the word "atheist" to protect their bottom line, which I do think would be affected by that word.

[John V]

In other words, the change of policy was because they did not want to run the atheist ads.  So they are actively wanting to prevent atheist messages, rather than having had a policy of having no ads about religion.

They are not treating the atheist group the same as they have treated religious groups.  They had no problem with running religious ads for years, and only now want to discontinue the practice because they don't want atheist advertising.  So they are discriminating against atheists.

Yes, and as I said - and as the article said - it's for business purposes. If they believe that they'll lose riders due to the ads, and that lost revenue will exceed the ad revenue, then they need to ban the ads. They also banned religious ads. Makes sense to me.