The B110 Bus

I have none.

It is a private bus operator, who does not receive one red cent from the city or any government agency. In fact, they PAY the city $22,000 a year for driving the route. A private bus has a constitutional right to adhere to their religious leaders religious beliefs.

Also, the passengers enforce the seperation, not the driver or bus company. The driver has no obligation to involve himself in conversation or interactions between passengers. In fact it would be dangerous for him to do so while driving.

To be honest, there’s need for competition. I am a customer of theirs and don’t want to be a kafu tova, but my experience with a few of the drivers there were less than decent. Aggressive, abrupt, slamming doors in your face, screaming, ignoring inquiries – just to name a few. Not to “throw a stone after the fallen” I’m just suggesting honest competition…

Whether they receive monies from the state or not is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the line is run under a franchise agreement and, according to the MTA, gender segregation on the line is a direct violation of that agreement.

A private bus has a constitutional right to adhere to their religious leaders religious beliefs.

A bus has no constitutional rights whatsoever.

The operators of a bus line, on the other hand, do NOT have the “constitutional right” to put their religious beliefs ahead of their contractual agreements. Example: if you go to Dunkin’ Donuts and want to open a franchise, you will have to sign a franchise agreement with them. One feature of their franchise agreement is that the store must be open seven days a week. You cannot sign the agreement and then claim your right to close for Shabbos and not be in violation of the contract because of your “constitutional rights” to your religious beliefs.

The bus case here is no different. It doesn’t matter if you have a religious belief that transportation must be gender-segregated*. If the bus company signed a franchise/licensing agreement that such acts are in violation of the contract, then they are in violation, their religious beliefs notwithstanding.

The Wolf

* Of course, we all know that gender-segregated transportation is NOT required l’halacha. Thousands of frum people take the subway every day and no one considers them sinners for doing so.

The Wolf

I think they should have been chachamim, and put the women on the front of the bus and the men in back.

Much harder to challenge, even if legally the same exact thing.

They need to add a few stops on the “other” side of the bridge, so the hipsters don’t need to traipse thru “our” side of the nabe, dressed the way they do.

Dr. Seuss: I believe you are mistaken. When you enter a franchise agreement, you are bound to keep all the conditions of said agreement. Especially if they are state law. No one is forcing you to enter such an agreement; ergo, there is no abridgement of rights. If you have a problem with the conditions of the agreement on religious grounds, you contest them – you CAN’T just ignore them. You can’t break laws in the name of the first amendment. There IS a legal process.

Another point: as per the ruling in Reynolds v. United States –

“Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”

Good call, because then we’d have Muslims murdering all the infidels, saying that the first amendment allows them. Where to draw the line? I don’t know. But bottom line? You can’t use the freedom to exercise religion as a get-out-of-jail-free.

NOT to mention that it has yet to be proved that separate seating on buses is an established tenet of Judaism.

That aside, I was once on a bus where the men sat on one side, and the women on the other. What would be the halachic implications of such an arrangement?

Dr. Seuss: Even if we take your assumptions as true, these are still the facts: There are laws against segregation (by race, sex, etc.) of public accommodations. By entering in a franchise agreement with a public transportation service, you are agreeing to these abide by these laws. If you believe these laws violate your constitutional rights, then you can challenge them. To break the law without applying to the appropriate legal channels, citing the Constitution as your justification, is not a feasible legal practice.

The Constitution and its amendments are not quite as unilateral as you believe them to be. It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and determine constitutionality. If things worked as you are arguing, then what exactly is their function? By your logic, gay people would have no problem marrying, as per the interpretation of several different amendments. What right would any state have to abridge theirs? That’s why we have the court system and legal action – to regulate unrestrained behaviors under the protection of the Constitution.

A conflict between established state/franchise law and the tenets of the Constitution would definitely warrant investigation. Perhaps the law would be determined in our favor. Who knows? My point is not to say that separate seating is wrong, but to emphasize the need for the issue to be addressed in the proper manner. If there are laws and we break them, then the Constitution cannot be valid. Plus, isn’t the current method causing a chillul Hashem? Why not try to avoid that?

My comment on this practice being an established tenet of Judaism did not relate to legal semantics. I was just wondering whether or not the issue warranted such extreme action on our end. As pointed I mentioned before, some buses are segregated left-right as opposed to front-back. This practice is ostensibly not as discriminatory as the current one is, so if the government is applied to appropriately, there is very little reason for this not to be allowed.

Oh, and I would be very interested in hearing some cases where private entities were allowed to violate a(n) individual/group’s constitutional rights. As well as the provenance and basis of this practice. That would surely make for an interesting legal precedent…

OneOfMany and Wolf: Again, the law allows private bus operators to segregate their buses. So to compare it to religious child sacrifice is absurd. The only issue here is the franchise agreement. And considering the law allows segregation by private entities, a franchise by a government entity cannot abrogate a parties religious freedom that is protected by law — and segregation is so protected by law. (See, for example, Monsey Bus.) Additionally, the bus company is not getting paid by the government to run this bus. The franchise is simply an allowance to operate the bus route on the public roads.

I don’t see the point in arguing over the law, when probably none of you know what the law is.

You could argue about what you think the law should be, if you were writing the constitution. Or you could argue about what we should do on the tzad the law is that it is illegal.

popa_bar_abba: The Constitution was written with the provision that it is to be interpreted by the courts as the situation warrants. So we wouldn’t really have any more power if we were in the framers’ position.

The Constitution was written with the provision that it is to be interpreted by the courts as the situation warrants.

Not really. The courts decided that on their own. That is the chiddush of Marbury v. Madison.

So we wouldn’t really have any more power if we were in the framers’ position.

Of course we would. Nobody ever debated whether the president has to be 35 years old. You can put things in clearly.

Good point, Wolf!

How can we Jews argue against these laws? They are what protect US from discrimination as well!

Wolf: The seats are equal. There is no quality difference between them. Why is it legally any different than a gender segregated restroom?

Dr. Seuss; The carrier (Bus Co.) may be private. But the route that they are driving along picking up passengers and collecting revenue is public, that is represented by City Government. And, therefore, public accommodation rules apply. And it is part of an agreement that they signed.

Dr Seuss: Because practice in the American South until the 1960s proved that being forced to sit in the back of the bus was considered derogatory and discriminatory. The easiest solution would be to put the women in front and have a curtain halfway through. Add a rear entrance for men if you want to look super-frum.

oneofmany: Why are we arguing about this?

Dunno. But at least it’s edifying. 🙂

Wolf (and anyone else who cares),

By gender discrimination in public accommodations the law limits its application to exclude situations where such restrictions are reasonable (e.g. bathrooms, changing rooms, gyms). The bus line could argue that busses are such a place. They’d be laughed out of any court that they tried that in.

The article I read is somewhat confusing, stating that if they were truely a private entity they would be allowed to be segregated. But is it even legal to operate a bus route without a franchise? (Like operating a taxi without a medallion.)

Metro, is this any different than the Monsey bus? To me it sounds like a trick. You are calling it a franchise but that only means the route you are taking.

The mayor said that if you want you can make a private bus service and then you can do what you want. Was he just making noise or is there such an option?

I do think that it is a very good point to mention, that it is not a company inforced rule. The passengers sit separately on their own. Even if one passenger tells another to change a seat that has nothing to do with the company.

There are two differences between this and the Monsey bus, I think (although I’ll admit I’m not positive about either).

First, in order to pick people up at stops on the street (as opposed to travel from pickup at point a to drop off at point b) the company needs the franchise from the city to allow them to what is in effect compete with the MTA. They could reorganize as a private bus company, but I think would be unable to make stops along the route if they did.

Second, the Monsey bus is an interstate route and is licensed by the USDOT. Not sure if that matters in terms of what is considered discrimination, but it does affect what would or would not be considered a public vs. private route.

the Monsey bus is an interstate route

It’s not that simple, AFAIK they don’t make stops in New Jersey. Their Baltimore route is operated by their charter division (although I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a seperate “tour organizer” involved).