'Sacked' for opposing same-sex marriage

Ben Reilly wrote:Intolerance is not an inherent trait like skin color or sexual preference, and people do indeed move from intolerance to tolerance -- I'm one of them.

When I was younger, I didn't really like gay people or black people -- don't really want to go into that -- and then you know what happened?

I got to know some gay people and some black people and realized I was wrong. And I was very embarrassed about that.

I don't think "I was born a bigot" is going to fly if she tries to use that angle. And freedom of speech does not, as so many on the right seem to believe, mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

Rush Limbaugh was brought in to comment on NFL broadcasts, until he said "The media is desirous to see a black quarterback perform well" and got shit-canned.



That guy got fired as well. It's pretty well established that if an employee brings public shame to his/her employer, they can be fired for it.

And I can't stress this enough -- if you would deny the right of marriage to gay people, you should be ashamed.

HoratioTarr wrote:Has she actually incited hate?   Or just voiced an opinion?    If all she's said is, it's ok to vote no, then I can't see this for grounds for a sacking.  Perhaps she might have had a warning from her employer about keeping her opinions of such a sensitive nature off social media and to herself.

Syl wrote:Why do people post their every thought and action on facebook and twitter if they know others can read everything they say.
Apart from it being boring, its obviously giving people reasons to terminate employment.

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:Has she actually incited hate?   Or just voiced an opinion?    If all she's said is, it's ok to vote no, then I can't see this for grounds for a sacking.  Perhaps she might have had a warning from her employer about keeping her opinions of such a sensitive nature off social media and to herself.

Well if you're a professional person, perhaps social media sites are not the places to leave any personal views? Unless of course, you're prepared to pay the consequences of your right to free speech and in this case, that's exactly what happened.

Ben Reilly wrote:Intolerance is not an inherent trait like skin color or sexual preference, and people do indeed move from intolerance to tolerance -- I'm one of them.

When I was younger, I didn't really like gay people or black people -- don't really want to go into that -- and then you know what happened?

I got to know some gay people and some black people and realized I was wrong. And I was very embarrassed about that.

I don't think "I was born a bigot" is going to fly if she tries to use that angle. And freedom of speech does not, as so many on the right seem to believe, mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

Rush Limbaugh was brought in to comment on NFL broadcasts, until he said "The media is desirous to see a black quarterback perform well" and got shit-canned.



That guy got fired as well. It's pretty well established that if an employee brings public shame to his/her employer, they can be fired for it.

And I can't stress this enough -- if you would deny the right of marriage to gay people, you should be ashamed.

Original Quill wrote:

SB wrote:if it is legal to fire an employee for expressing support for the no vote on gay marriage, on the grounds it would damage the companies reputation and goes against company policy, then it would be correct to say the opposite is also legal, ie to fire the same employee for expressing support for the yes vote on gay marriage on the grounds it would damage the companies reputation and goes against company policy.

No, it would not be “correct to say the opposite is legal.”  I’m afraid you need a lesson in basic government: legislatures write laws.  Most modern nations are ones of express laws, meaning that you can only take the express meaning of a law, and you can't imply anything from it.  If a law has not been written expressly, its subject matter is not necessarily illegal.

I am not familiar with the laws in Australia, but let’s say there is a law against termination for opposing discrimination, but there is no law against termination for supporting discrimination.  In that case, a person might be terminated for supporting discrimination, but not for opposing it.  The prohibition of the law covers only one side of the opinion.

The law doesn’t encourage termination of anyone.  But the law can be one-sided in that it leaves it to the employer’s discretion, in the situation not covered by the prohibition.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, it would not be “correct to say the opposite is legal.”  I’m afraid you need a lesson in basic government: legislatures write laws.  Most modern nations are ones of express laws, meaning that you can only take the express meaning of a law, and you can't imply anything from it.  If a law has not been written expressly, its subject matter is not necessarily illegal.

I am not familiar with the laws in Australia, but let’s say there is a law against termination for opposing discrimination, but there is no law against termination for supporting discrimination.  In that case, a person might be terminated for supporting discrimination, but not for opposing it.  The prohibition of the law covers only one side of the opinion.

The law doesn’t encourage termination of anyone.  But the law can be one-sided in that it leaves it to the employer’s discretion, in the situation not covered by the prohibition.

fuck my life, i hate to see what "law" you practice, it seems entirely whimsical and random

this is how law seems to work in your head  

scenario A : a man walks into a shop and shoots the attendant

Quill : guilty, its against the law

scenario  : a man walks into a shop and shoots the attendant

Quill : its perfectly legal  

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

fuck my life, i hate to see what "law" you practice, it seems entirely whimsical and random

this is how law seems to work in your head  

scenario A : a man walks into a shop and shoots the attendant

Quill : guilty, its against the law

scenario  : a man walks into a shop and shoots the attendant

Quill : its perfectly legal  

Since this thread isn't about me, I assume by your abandonment of the issue, you are giving in on the argument.  I would too if I were you.

When things seem to be crazy and contradictory, it's a good sign that there are not just a few facts, but a whole dimension that you are missing.  Imagine coming upon some people playing three-dimensional chess.  You see one makes a move, and another responds...all of a sudden, a piece on tier 7 is removed.  In a two-dimensional world that square was not in jeopardy.  WTF, you exclaim, that piece shouldn't be taken!!

But that's how the game is played.  You don't get it because there's an added dimension that you don't take into account.  Now compound that by 5 - 6 dimensions.  That's the way the law is.

You have a sense of justice that is at about the third-grade level, and the game is being played on the post-graduate level.  Those people are grown-ups; you are still in the sand box.  Unfortunately, that is quite typical of conservatives...some of them get left behind.  It's not the fault of conservatism, of course, but the people who are attracted to conservatism.  As John Stuart Mill once said: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative."

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Since this thread isn't about me, I assume by your abandonment of the issue, you are giving in on the argument.  I would too if I were you.

When things seem to be crazy and contradictory, it's a good sign that there are not just a few facts, but a whole dimension that you are missing.  Imagine coming upon some people playing three-dimensional chess.  You see one makes a move, and another responds...all of a sudden, a piece on tier 7 is removed.  In a two-dimensional world that square was not in jeopardy.  WTF, you exclaim, that piece shouldn't be taken!!

But that's how the game is played.  You don't get it because there's an added dimension that you don't take into account.  Now compound that by 5 - 6 dimensions.  That's the way the law is.

You have a sense of justice that is at about the third-grade level, and the game is being played on the post-graduate level.  Those people are grown-ups; you are still in the sand box.  Unfortunately, that is quite typical of conservatives...some of them get left behind.  It's not the fault of conservatism, of course, but the people who are attracted to conservatism.  As John Stuart Mill once said: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative."

So Quill, being that over 50% of Muslims in this country believe homosexuality, should be criminalized. Would you thus support sacking any of these Muslims or Christians (who feel the same), as employees or contractors? Even though they may have never actively discriminated against someone homosexual at work or been prejudiced against them?

I mean do you realise how many worms would be crawling around, based on the can you are opening?

You are crossing a thin line to sack people based on beliefs they hold. When the law is very clear about discrimination within the work place. That you in fact end up discriminating yourself against them for their beliefs. That is not a secular society, but one that is totalitarian.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So Quill, being that over 50% of Muslims in this country believe homosexuality, should be criminalized. Would you thus support sacking any of these Muslims or Christians (who feel the same), as employees or contractors? Even though they may have never actively discriminated against someone homosexual at work or been prejudiced against them?

I mean do you realise how many worms would be crawling around, based on the can you are opening?

You are crossing a thin line to sack people based on beliefs they hold. When the law is very clear about discrimination within the work place. That you in fact end up discriminating yourself against them for their beliefs. That is not a secular society, but one that is totalitarian.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.  I'm not even an Australian citizen.  I'm just describing the way the law works.

Again didge, you are confusing a description with a prescription.  When I push for something normatively, you will know it.  When we discuss war in the Middle East, or racism, you will know where I stand.

With law, I merely describe it like it is...it's just a living, and I have represented both sides.  When you are standing on a cliff wondering whether to jump, I can tell you what will happen if you do; I can also tell you what will happen if you don't.  However, I have no opinion on whether you should jump.

Thorin wrote:I understand your expertise in law, which if truth be told, you would know this is unlawful. Based on Australian laws. That an employer has no right to terminate a contract based off one of those contractors. Speaking out on a future vote. As they are being discriminated against based on their belief. Again no matter if you and I disagree with her stance on that vote. So you would know that the law would find the company that sacked her, is breaking the law. As that company is actively discriminating against an individual and in this case, on their religious belief. The law is very clear both here and in Australia and frankly this has only given both bad and good press to that employer off this.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:I understand your expertise in law, which if truth be told, you would know this is unlawful. Based on Australian laws. That an employer has no right to terminate a contract based off one of those contractors. Speaking out on a future vote. As they are being discriminated against based on their belief. Again no matter if you and I disagree with her stance on that vote. So you would know that the law would find the company that sacked her, is breaking the law. As that company is actively discriminating against an individual and in this case, on their religious belief. The law is very clear both here and in Australia and frankly this has only given both bad and good press to that employer off this.

Can you identify that law?  I would like to look it up.

I am qualified only speak to US law.  Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is unlawful to take adverse action against an employee on the basis of  race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

In the US, if a law doesn't prohibit it, it's in the abyss of nothingness, as I like to say.  In other words, you are free to do what you like.

This woman in Australia spoke out against gay marriage.  The employer terminated her, not because of the content (pro or con gay marriage), but because it brought ill-repute down on the employer to discuss the matter publicly.

The gay marriage issue was only tangential to the reason for termination.  She was terminated for bringing ill-repute down on the company.  She did that by taking up a matter on-line she should have avoided.

Thorin wrote:So what I am asking is something very simple in whether you support something nonsecular and more in reality totalitarian. The sacking of people. Not for any active discrimination they act out on towards people, but on beliefs they hold?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:So what I am asking is something very simple in whether you support something nonsecular and more in reality totalitarian. The sacking of people. Not for any active discrimination they act out on towards people, but on beliefs they hold?

I don't believe that a person should be punished for beliefs they hold, no.  And i think the US Constitution upholds that standard by it's First Amendment freedoms.

But here, in Australia, it was not the belief content for which the young woman was fired.  It was the act of publicly taking up a controversial matter on a public forum, and thereby bringing ill-repute down on the employer.  Her words, pro or con, were beside the point.

That said, I still need to know what law, and what it says, in order to assess the jeopardy of both the employer and the employee.

To repeat myself, there has to be a law before there can be an unlawful act.  What does it say?

Thorin wrote:Do you believe in a Police state that allows for the discrimination of people based on their beliefs, whether those beliefs held are good or bad?

Now I respect the right of any company to, through disciplinary procedure to sack anyone that discriminates directly against other employees or customers. But here this does neither. She simple disagrees with gay marriage based on her religious beliefs. I would argue against her, but what precedent is this employer setting by discriminating against those she disagrees with?

Thorin wrote:You fall foul again of what has happened before in history when Jews and their business were banned by the Nazi's.

Thorin wrote:1) Already posted a link

Thorin wrote:2) This is not US law and thus you admit your views are based on US law and not Australian then?

Thorin wrote:CANBERRA, Australia, September 20, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — An Australian children’s entertainment company fired a young woman for saying on social media “it’s OK to vote ‘no’” in the country’s current referendum on same-sex “marriage.”

Capital Kids Parties owner Madlin Sims may have violated discrimination laws in firing an 18-year-old because Sims said her former employee’s view amounted to hate speech, The Guardian reported.

The young woman known thus far as Madeline said in various media interviews that she was let go because her Christian view did not allow her to vote yes in Australia’s voluntary postal survey on gay “marriage.” The plebiscite runs from September 12 through November 7.

Sims posted on Facebook that she had “fired a staff member who made it public knowledge that they feel ‘it’s OK to vote no,’” and that she viewed saying so as hate speech. The social media account was inactive at press time.

“Advertising your desire to vote no for [same-sex marriage] is, in my eyes, hate speech,” Sims said.

She said “there were prior conversations had,” so it wasn’t a case of “you’re voting no, you’re fired.”

Sims said having an employee who was “extremely out & proud” about her views on homosexuality was a risk to her customers and equated a “no” vote with being homophobic.

"It's not OK to vote no,” she stated. “It's not OK to be homophobic. This isn't a matter of opinion or even religion."

Sims’ brother reportedly asked Madeline to take the “it’s OK to say no” message down from Facebook, but Madeline had gotten no word from Capital Kids Parties until she was fired.

The Coalition for Marriage’s Bill Shorten declined to comment on this specific case but said, “People should not be dismissed from their employment for having different views about marriage equality.”

“People’s job security shouldn’t be threatened by that,” he said. “No one should risk losing their job because they are either voting yes or no.”

The Guardian report said the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Human Rights Commission affirmed it could be illegal to fire an employee or contractor for their religious and political views, along with their sex, gender identity or sexuality.

“You can bring a complaint on that basis,” discrimination commissioner Karen Toohey said. “It’s a decision for the ACT civil and administrative tribunal [to determine].”

Both Sydney University associate professor Belinda Smith and Tim Lyons, research fellow for progressive think-tank Per Capita, said the law protects political and religious views of employees and contractors, irrespective of whether they support or oppose gay “marriage.”

“If religious convictions are a protected attribute – as they are in [the] ACT – then generally it is not permissible to fire someone for those convictions. This could constitute direct discrimination,” Smith said.

She noted, though, that employers “can generally prescribe what workers can and can’t say and do on the job to clients.”

Lyons, also former Australian Council of Trade Unions assistant secretary, said it was “important to note that discrimination law works both ways.”

Laws banning discrimination based on a person’s religious or political convictions protect both sides, Lyons said.

“As long as the expression of your views isn’t threatening people in the workplace ... and is not hate speech, then clearly you’ve got a right to your views,” he said. “The irony is that people on the right loudly protesting the so-called politically-correct thought police will have their rights protected by those laws as well.”

Saying “it’s OK to vote no” was “a pretty gentle way of stating a view” that would not constitute hate speech or vilification, said Katharine Gelber, a University of Queensland professor and free speech expert.

Any alleged violation of employer policy would hinge on whether an employee or contractor was identified with the employer on their social media account, Gelber said.

“It’s not unusual for employers, particularly in the public service, to have strict guidelines about political issues,” she said. “Employers are increasingly controlling the views of their workers on social media, which could be seen as an overreach.”

A recent poll conducted by international Internet-based market research firm YouGov indicated 59 percent of Australians said they were in favor of changing the law to allow same-sex “marriage,” with saying 33 percent they were not in favor and 9 percent who did not know. A Guardian Essential poll released around the same time had 55 percent favoring legalizing gay “marriage” and 34 percent opposed.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/18-year-old-aussie-loses-her-job-for-saying-its-ok-to-vote-no-on-same-sex-m

Lets hope the law changes and gays are allowed to marry.

Though as seen this employer has discriminated against her even on contract, based on her belief.

As seen above that is a big no, no.

Thorin wrote:3) It brought more hate to the employer based on her actions against this contractor. Any hate she did not deserve ffrom this, just as her contractor did not deserve to lose her job based on calling for people to make a decision on a vote. Again I disagree with her, but she has a right to express that opinion. Its not a sack-able offense. In fact it shows that Australia is a secular society to have people that disagree. The woman who sacked her made a very poor decision. She may like both of us support gay marriage, but that does not mean she can force people to think it is right and by sacking her. She is criminalizing her views, which is wrong

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:3) It brought more hate to the employer based on her actions against this contractor. Any hate she did not deserve ffrom this, just as her contractor did not deserve to lose her job based on calling for people to make a decision on a vote. Again I disagree with her, but she has a right to express that opinion. Its not a sack-able offense. In fact it shows that Australia is a secular society to have people that disagree. The woman who sacked her made a very poor decision. She may like both of us support gay marriage, but that does not mean she can force people to think it is right and by sacking her. She is criminalizing her views, which is wrong

What is a "sackable" offense?  The principle in the absence of a law is: "You can fire someone for good cause, or you can fire someone for bad cause; you just can't fire someone for illegal cause."

If the standards of a "sackable offense" are any different, they would have to be codified in statutory law.

Thorin wrote:Have a read Quill.

Tim Lyons wrote:“As long as the expression of your views isn’t threatening people in the workplace ... and is not hate speech, then clearly you’ve got a right to your views,” he said.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

fuck my life, i hate to see what "law" you practice, it seems entirely whimsical and random

this is how law seems to work in your head  

scenario A : a man walks into a shop and shoots the attendant

Quill : guilty, its against the law

scenario  : a man walks into a shop and shoots the attendant

Quill : its perfectly legal  

Since this thread isn't about me, I assume by your abandonment of the issue, you are giving in on the argument.  I would too if I were you.

When things seem to be crazy and contradictory, it's a good sign that there are not just a few facts, but a whole dimension that you are missing.  Imagine coming upon some people playing three-dimensional chess.  You see one makes a move, and another responds...all of a sudden, a piece on tier 7 is removed.  In a two-dimensional world that square was not in jeopardy.  WTF, you exclaim, that piece shouldn't be taken!!

But that's how the game is played.  You don't get it because there's an added dimension that you don't take into account.  Now compound that by 5 - 6 dimensions.  That's the way the law is.

You have a sense of justice that is at about the third-grade level, and the game is being played on the post-graduate level.  Those people are grown-ups; you are still in the sand box.  Unfortunately, that is quite typical of conservatives...some of them get left behind.  It's not the fault of conservatism, of course, but the people who are attracted to conservatism.  As John Stuart Mill once said: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative."

Thorin wrote:You did not read it Quill and again it would have to be up to the owner to prove it effected her company to lose customers over this ones persons views.

Thorin wrote:She has no case and the law will see she discriminated against her contractor

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Since this thread isn't about me, I assume by your abandonment of the issue, you are giving in on the argument.  I would too if I were you.

When things seem to be crazy and contradictory, it's a good sign that there are not just a few facts, but a whole dimension that you are missing.  Imagine coming upon some people playing three-dimensional chess.  You see one makes a move, and another responds...all of a sudden, a piece on tier 7 is removed.  In a two-dimensional world that square was not in jeopardy.  WTF, you exclaim, that piece shouldn't be taken!!

But that's how the game is played.  You don't get it because there's an added dimension that you don't take into account.  Now compound that by 5 - 6 dimensions.  That's the way the law is.

You have a sense of justice that is at about the third-grade level, and the game is being played on the post-graduate level.  Those people are grown-ups; you are still in the sand box.  Unfortunately, that is quite typical of conservatives...some of them get left behind.  It's not the fault of conservatism, of course, but the people who are attracted to conservatism.  As John Stuart Mill once said: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative."

there isn't much of an argument left is there??

i think any argument has died a miserable death when we have you saying its perfectly legal to fire a black man because an employer doesn't like the colour of his eyes

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:You did not read it Quill and again it would have to be up to the owner to prove it effected her company to lose customers over this ones persons views.

Read what?  You haven't provided a copy of the law.  Frankly, I'm not sure there is such a law in Australia.  If you can't provide it, then I will assume there is none.  In that case, the employer can fire her...perhaps not even giving a reason.

Thorin wrote:She has no case and the law will see she discriminated against her contractor

Under US law, she would first have to make out a prima facie case.  She would have to show precisely what she was fired for.  But that's US law.  

Unless Australia has a law covering this, she is free to go and so is the employer.

SB wrote:there isn't much of an argument left is there??

i think any argument has died a miserable death when we have you saying its perfectly legal to fire a black man because an employer doesn't like the colour of his eyes

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Read what?  You haven't provided a copy of the law.  Frankly, I'm not sure there is such a law in Australia.  If you can't provide it, then I will assume there is none.  In that case, the employer can fire her...perhaps not even giving a reason.



Under US law, she would first have to make out a prima facie case.  She would have to show precisely what she was fired for.  But that's US law.  

Unless Australia has a law covering this, she is free to go and so is the employer.

Why not look up the law yourself and it was actually quoted.

I suggest you read again

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Why not look up the law yourself and it was actually quoted.

I suggest you read again

I wouldn't know where to look.  I'm not even sure there is such a law.

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

there isn't much of an argument left is there??

i think any argument has died a miserable death when we have you saying its perfectly legal to fire a black man because an employer doesn't like the colour of his eyes

I never saw Quill state that????

Original Quill wrote:

SB wrote:there isn't much of an argument left is there??

i think any argument has died a miserable death when we have you saying its perfectly legal to fire a black man because an employer doesn't like the colour of his eyes

You've gone off on a different subject, smells.  Until you connect it up, I'll assume it's not relevant to my discussion.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I never saw Quill state that????

yeah there is a lot of things you dont see when you choose not to

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I wouldn't know where to look.  I'm not even sure there is such a law.

I suggest you at least try, in order to back your case

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:


yeah there is a lot of things you dont see when you choose not to

Then why not post up your claim?

It should not be difficult to find.

If you are right, I will happily condemn Quill.

If of course you simple invented this, then I will as always laugh at the fact you are that pathetic

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I suggest you at least try, in order to back your case

I don't know Australian law.  Can you offer a site or lead where the law might be found?

Frankly, I'm not sure there is a law that covers this situation.  In the US, Title VII covers only race, color, sex, religion, and national origin.  Here, the controversy is over an action--bringing ill-repute down on the employer--so there is nothing to cover it.

It's kind of a dead end, except if there is nothing to make it illegal, the employer is free to do what it wants.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Then why not post up your claim?

It should not be difficult to find.

If you are right, I will happily condemn Quill.

If of course you simple invented this, then I will as always laugh at the fact you are that pathetic

well didge, its lucky for me then that i don't really care about your approval or your opinion

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I suggest you at least try, in order to back your case

I don't know Australian law.  Can you offer a site or lead where the law might be found?

Frankly, I'm not sure there is a law that covers this situation.  In the US, Title VII covers only race, color, sex, religion, and national origin.  Here, the controversy is over an action--bringing ill-repute down on the employer--so there is nothing to cover it.

It's kind of a dead end, except if there is nothing to make it illegal, the employer is free to do what it wants.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't know Australian law.  Can you offer a site or lead where the law might be found?

Frankly, I'm not sure there is a law that covers this situation.  In the US, Title VII covers only race, color, sex, religion, and national origin.  Here, the controversy is over an action--bringing ill-repute down on the employer--so there is nothing to cover it.

It's kind of a dead end, except if there is nothing to make it illegal, the employer is free to do what it wants.

Why are you asking me?

Have you not the ability to research yourself?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Why are you asking me?

Have you not the ability to research yourself?

Not if the law is non-existent.  As I said, in the US this is an at-will situation and there is no prohibition involved.  If it's the same in Australia, there's nothing to look for.  

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't know Australian law.  Can you offer a site or lead where the law might be found?

Frankly, I'm not sure there is a law that covers this situation.  In the US, Title VII covers only race, color, sex, religion, and national origin.  Here, the controversy is over an action--bringing ill-repute down on the employer--so there is nothing to cover it.

It's kind of a dead end, except if there is nothing to make it illegal, the employer is free to do what it wants.

not an action

a personally held opinion, expressed on a private FB page and not in the capacity of a company spokesmen

its like creeping around her garden at night and peeking through the window and then firing her because you don't like the colour of her knickers

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

not an action

a personally held opinion, expressed on a private FB page and not in the capacity of a company spokesmen

its like creeping around her garden at night and peeking through the window and then firing her because you don't like the colour of her knickers

Yes, but if that (publicly bringing down ill-repute on the employer) is what they say they fired her for, that's it.  It's their voice, and their reason.  It's up to her to prove that they fired her for another, surreptitious and illegal reason.

But we don't even have a law, yet.  Let's not get ahead of ourselves...I'm only speaking as if the case were in the US, and analyzing it under Title VII.

SB wrote:however that has to be some kind of deliberate action where its clear that the employees actions have indeed damaged the company in some way.

SB wrote:a personal opinion expressed in the privacy of a personal FB page by a private citizen is not grounds for dismissal based on the above, if it where then millions of people around the world would be losing their jobs on an hourly basis.

SB wrote:Australia is a democracy, the vote on gay marriage will be democratic, the theory of a democracy is that all citizens vote based on what their values are, if we begin to punish people for voting in a way that is incompatible with our values then we are no longer a democracy.

so i guess the question that will settle this is , how has a private citizen exercising her democratic right to express a personal opinion about an upcoming vote in a democratic society damaged the reputation of a company that is part of said democratic society???