'Sacked' for opposing same-sex marriage

First topic message reminder :

Teenager 'sacked' for opposing same-sex marriage speaks out

The teenager who claims to have been sacked over her Facebook post opposing same-sex marriage has spoken out, saying she did not "expect to lose her job."



Madeline, who has not revealed her last name, said she was sacked as a camerawoman from an entertainment business in Canberra after she put the slogan “it’s okay to vote no," on her Facebook profile picture.

The owner of children's entertainmet company, Madlin Sims, said she fired the staff member for being “homophobic” and she couldn’t have someone working for “posting hate speech online”.

"I definitely wasn't expecting to lose a job over that opinion," Madeline told 7 News.

"I used the one available profile photo filter which says it's ok to vote no," she said referring to her Facebook profile picture.

"My views are against the [same sex] marriage, but I don't hate anyone or discriminiate against anyone who believes otherwise."

The 18-year-old said she is considering taking legal action.

On Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Fair Work Ombudsman said they want to interview both Madeline and Ms Sims to "form an assessment as to whether any workplace laws have been breached," The Australian reported.

The spokesperson confirmed they would be attempting to get in contact with both parties, but said the ombudsman would not be able to do much if the teenager was a contract worker.

“To assert that voting 'no' is homophobic as claimed by the employer is demonstrably false and indicative of the unacceptable bullying and name-calling engaged in by the 'yes' campaign," Senator Eric Abetz said.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten said people should not be dismissed from their employment for having different views on marriage equality.

Madeline told Triple J’s Hack that while she believes in equality, she could not vote yes based on her Christian values.

“I have been raised a Christian my whole life and in the bible God clearly states that a man and a man, and a woman and a woman, are not to be together,” she said.

“I love everyone, I'm not a hateful person at all and I do believe everyone should have equality, but to vote yes to me is something I can't do.”


Ms Sims has since posted a statement on Instagram which says: "I have acknowledged my bigotry in this situation. I truly hope that my actions haven't impacted the campaign for equality."

Madeline told The Bolt Report on Tuesday night she did not deserve to lose her job over her opinion on same sex marriage.

“This is a democracy and we were given the options and asked as Australians to vote yes or no and it is my opinion to vote no,” she said.

"I don't think my job should be taken away from me just because I have an opinion that someone disagrees with."

Earlier, Ms Sims had posted in a Facebook post, which has been deleted, that she did not fire Madeline because of her views on marriage equality.

“She was let go because her actions showed she is extremely out and proud about her views on homosexuals,” she posted.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/a/37162958/teen-sacked-for-opposing-marriage-equality-speaks-out/

HoratioTarr wrote:Has she actually incited hate?   Or just voiced an opinion?    If all she's said is, it's ok to vote no

Is it, though?

What if it were gay people getting to vote on whether straight people could get married to one another? Would it be okay to vote no in that case?

Is it ever okay to vote against someone having basic human rights?

Ben Reilly 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

Is it, though?

What if it were gay people getting to vote on whether straight people could get married to one another? Would it be okay to vote no in that case?

Is it ever okay to vote against someone having basic human rights?

It would be OK if that's how they felt.

Ben Reilly 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

Is it, though?

What if it were gay people getting to vote on whether straight people could get married to one another? Would it be okay to vote no in that case?

Is it ever okay to vote against someone having basic human rights?

Of course not. But that's our opinion. Not everyone has the same opinion. At what point does policing what people think and say have a line drawn through it? Has she incited others not to vote, or has she just said it's ok to say no? Is she campaigning for a no vote? Or just saying what she thinks on social media.

Ben Reilly 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

Is it, though?

What if it were gay people getting to vote on whether straight people could get married to one another? Would it be okay to vote no in that case?

Is it ever okay to vote against someone having basic human rights?

Clearly the fault is that of the aussie govt, in putting to a vote something that does not require it, since the adoption of same sex marriage DOES NOT affect negatively anyones human rights, therfore the legislation should just be passed.

HOWEVER those who are speaking against this woman and supporting her employer should not have the brass neck to hide behind human rights when you are about abrogating HERS.

you should look into your own concience and decide whether human rights are absolute or just there for your lefty agenda and thus you think you are allowed to cherry pick which ones apply and to whom.

reading this it seems you are very quick to shout FOR the rights of what YOU think should be and your supporters
and very loud against anyone with a contrary view having those rights.

Just admit that "human rights" are, to you, as flexible and tennuous, when it suits you as, as they are to the fascists....

hold up that mirror I dare you.

Another aspect occurs to me on this. What if the woman posted "say no to mixed race marriages" or "say no to equal rights for blacks" or "say no to slavery ban"?

Admittedly, the last case is extreme, but still a fair comparison. It is only due to the recent change in peoples' opinion that homosexuality has become accepted. I'd hope those 3 examples I gave sound as disgusting to some of you as they do to me. And are all certainly grounds for firing an employee. So why is this different, really?

Eilzel wrote:Another aspect occurs to me on this. What if the woman posted "say no to mixed race marriages" or "say no to equal rights for blacks" or "say no to slavery ban"?

Admittedly, the last case is extreme, but still a fair comparison. It is only due to the recent change in peoples' opinion that homosexuality has become accepted. I'd hope those 3 examples I gave sound as disgusting to some of you as they do to me. And are all certainly grounds for firing an employee. So why is this different, really?

Its only 50 years ago that practising homosexuals could be imprisoned, its hard to believe that mindset was the norm back then.
Some people took longer to accept the rights of homosexuals or black people than others, but thankfully, as time has passed, those opinions are gradually becoming obsolete.

Same sex marriage is a recent right...it'll take time for some people to accept.

I think tolerance is sometimes needed on both sides.

Different 'straw man' arguments Les...

Eilzel wrote:Another aspect occurs to me on this. What if the woman posted "say no to mixed race marriages" or "say no to equal rights for blacks" or "say no to slavery ban"?

Admittedly, the last case is extreme, but still a fair comparison. It is only due to the recent change in peoples' opinion that homosexuality has become accepted. I'd hope those 3 examples I gave sound as disgusting to some of you as they do to me. And are all certainly grounds for firing an employee. So why is this different, really?

in all 3 cases the same would apply since it presupposes that the existance of bans on
mixed marriages
no equal rights for blacks
and slavery existing
would be the status quo and a vote would being asked to alter this....

and given we live in a democratic society (so it is rumoured) means that both for and against have an absolute right to peacefully declare their opinion without fear of ANY penalty.

why are you so intent on crushing the human rights of someone who opposes your (and mine) pov

or is it indeed a case as I said earlier that human rights only belong to those who agree with you.

Lord Foul wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Another aspect occurs to me on this. What if the woman posted "say no to mixed race marriages" or "say no to equal rights for blacks" or "say no to slavery ban"?

Admittedly, the last case is extreme, but still a fair comparison. It is only due to the recent change in peoples' opinion that homosexuality has become accepted. I'd hope those 3 examples I gave sound as disgusting to some of you as they do to me. And are all certainly grounds for firing an employee. So why is this different, really?

in all 3 cases the same would apply since it presupposes that the existance of bans on
mixed marriages
no equal rights for blacks
and slavery existing
would be the status quo and a vote would being asked to alter this....

and given we live in a democratic society (so it is rumoured) means that both for and against have an absolute right to peacefully declare their opinion without fear of ANY penalty.

hmmm, I think there is another way to look at this.

Australia is supposed to be a Secular society and whilst gays are denied marriage. It is because it is holding to something nonsecular. Where religion is claiming to hold the monopoly on whether people can marry or not.

So whilst I agree and have stated, nobody should be penalized for beliefs they hold. You do have to look at this, for what this vote really is. Australia becoming fully secular.

If gays want a secular recognition of their relationship... then they can have the secular 'civil partnership'...

Tommy Monk wrote:If gays want a secular recognition of their relationship... then they can have the secular 'civil partnership'...

How is that secular?

As marriage would then still be nonsecular.

Secular is having laws that are separate from religious institutions.

A civil partnership is the secular equivalent of a non secular marriage...



Completely separate from religious institutions and governed by secular law of democratic parliament...

Tommy Monk wrote:A civil partnership is the secular equivalent of a non secular  marriage...

Completely separate from religious institutions and governed by secular law of democratic parliament...

Its not equivalent and it also still makes marriage nonsecular.

This girl wasn't "sacked" for her opinion...

But for the way that she expressed it, in public..

An employer has every right to dismiss any employee where they believe that continuing employment would be detrimental to their business --  as such,  the core issue has nothing to do with either "human rights", or left-wing/right-wing political bias,  and everything to do with business management/employment/iindustrial relations matters.

It's also interesting to note that this story originally came from an interview on the Bolt Report  --   Andrew Bolt is a notorius extreme-RW neo-fascist hatemongering radio "shock jock" commentator, renown homophobe and woman-hater, and sometimes propagandist for RW politicians, mining and oil companies (i.e. a paid 'Climate Change' denialist shill);  and also just happens to be openly backing the "No" campaign..
"Follow the money trail" on anything that Bolt comments on...          

Eilzel wrote:Another aspect occurs to me on this. What if the woman posted "say no to mixed race marriages" or "say no to equal rights for blacks" or "say no to slavery ban"?

Admittedly, the last case is extreme, but still a fair comparison. It is only due to the recent change in peoples' opinion that homosexuality has become accepted. I'd hope those 3 examples I gave sound as disgusting to some of you as they do to me. And are all certainly grounds for firing an employee. So why is this different, really?

Close, but not quite. Your examples, if anything, might come close to a charge of workplace discrimination. But, her on-line comments have nothing to do with her workplace, so they cannot be related to a claim that she was contributing to a discriminatory work environment.

Her actions are divorced from the workplace, so employment laws would not apply. They only thing they could have fired her for was generally bringing ill-repute down on the company.

Again, I'm not familiar with Australian law, but that's where logic gets you.

Yeah, Quill, tbf I should have made that clearer that in my opinion, it should be a ok to fire them under those circumstances. Not that that is the law.

Tommy Monk wrote:If gays want a secular recognition of their relationship... then they can have the secular 'civil partnership'...

Irrelevant argument, since we now have gay marriages and the UK and everything is just fine with that.

Lord Foul wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Another aspect occurs to me on this. What if the woman posted "say no to mixed race marriages" or "say no to equal rights for blacks" or "say no to slavery ban"?

Admittedly, the last case is extreme, but still a fair comparison. It is only due to the recent change in peoples' opinion that homosexuality has become accepted. I'd hope those 3 examples I gave sound as disgusting to some of you as they do to me. And are all certainly grounds for firing an employee. So why is this different, really?

in all 3 cases the same would apply since it presupposes that the existance of bans on
mixed marriages
no equal rights for blacks
and slavery existing
would be the status quo and a vote would being asked to alter this....

and given we live in a democratic society (so it is rumoured) means that both for and against have an absolute right to peacefully declare their opinion without fear of ANY penalty.

Fair point. So ten years from now, when gay marriage is legal in Aus, would you justify her losing her job for voicing her voicing this opinion then?

Tommy Monk wrote:Different 'straw man' arguments Les...

How is it different exactly?

Eilzel wrote:Another aspect occurs to me on this. What if the woman posted "say no to mixed race marriages" or "say no to equal rights for blacks" or "say no to slavery ban"?

Admittedly, the last case is extreme, but still a fair comparison. It is only due to the recent change in peoples' opinion that homosexuality has become accepted. I'd hope those 3 examples I gave sound as disgusting to some of you as they do to me. And are all certainly grounds for firing an employee. So why is this different, really?

Her profile pic didn't say "say no", it said "It's OK to vote no", which is different. I haven't read that she actually said or posted anything detrimental against gay people.

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Is it, though?

What if it were gay people getting to vote on whether straight people could get married to one another? Would it be okay to vote no in that case?

Is it ever okay to vote against someone having basic human rights?

Clearly the fault is that of the aussie govt, in putting to a vote something that does not require it, since the adoption of same sex marriage DOES NOT affect negatively anyones human rights, therfore the legislation should just be passed.

HOWEVER those who are speaking against this woman and supporting her employer should not have the brass neck to hide behind human rights when you are about abrogating HERS.

you should look into your own concience and decide whether human rights are absolute or just there for your lefty agenda and thus you think you are allowed to cherry pick which ones apply and to whom.

reading this it seems you are very quick to shout FOR the rights of what YOU think should be and your supporters
and very loud against anyone with a contrary view having those rights.

Just admit that "human rights" are, to you, as flexible and tennuous, when it suits you as, as they are to the fascists....

hold up that mirror I dare you.

I don't understand why they're leaving it to the population to decide either. Gay people shouldn't need the permission of the masses to get married.

Syl wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Another aspect occurs to me on this. What if the woman posted "say no to mixed race marriages" or "say no to equal rights for blacks" or "say no to slavery ban"?

Admittedly, the last case is extreme, but still a fair comparison. It is only due to the recent change in peoples' opinion that homosexuality has become accepted. I'd hope those 3 examples I gave sound as disgusting to some of you as they do to me. And are all certainly grounds for firing an employee. So why is this different, really?

Its only 50 years ago that practising homosexuals could be imprisoned, its hard to believe that mindset was the norm back then.
Some people took longer to accept the rights of homosexuals or black people than others, but thankfully, as time has passed, those opinions are gradually becoming obsolete.

Same sex marriage is a recent right...it'll take time for some people to accept.

I think tolerance is sometimes needed on both sides.

There will always be intolerant people, just like you'll always get some nasty old fart peppering forums with bile. It's their problem and says more about them than the people they target. But I think retaliation in kind just makes them worse and gives them something to rail against even more.

Original Quill wrote:

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.

In your own excellent example of the Royal Military, was the soldiers intent to bring down ill-repute upon the UK armed forces?  I think not.  The soldier just acted in a manner that no respectful representative of the military should act.

Applying that standard to the present case, I think the employer's position is that the young woman conducted herself in a manner that no respectful representative of the company should act.

If they are smart, they won't get into the pros and cons of the issue content, and simply say that engaging in such a controversial topic was neither wise nor prudent.  That way they avoid the close fly-by with an issue of discrimination.

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.

Again, you bring up an excellent point.  I guess we are entering an age where facebook is not a personal space or a place where an expectation of privacy can hold.  It is, in the language of the police, in "plain view".

In conjunction with that, we are also seeing that just appearing in the news, involuntarily, is also detrimental to your employment.  Many of the demonstrators that were seen in news clips of the Charlottesville demonstration were terminated soon afterwards.  What does that have to do with their employment?  But absent a law, whose to prevent the employer from making any decision he wants about his company?

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???

It's a good position you take, I admit.  But the question the law asks is: Why should we inhibit an employer from running his company the way he wants to?

Look at our political system as a kind of meadow: we have this endless field of freedom, inside of which we plant the occasional flower of a law.  We are prohibited from stepping on the flowers, but we may walk anywhere else.  But for the flower, the field is open and free.  

Likewise, but for a law prohibiting certain reasons for termination, the field is free for the employer.

the military is not a civvy company, there are clearly stated standards and codes of conduct that are expected of all servicemen, and every serviceman knows what they are (or should do) so if a servicemen wilfully breaches those codes then he is wilfully bringing the service into disrepute, and is therefore legally open to the appropriate disciplinary measures, yet even in the military you are not told how to think or vote.

over brexit, over general British politics, over ordinary issues that arise daily, you are allowed to express your opinion in public or private in uniform or civvies and you would never face any kind of censure over your views so long as those views are legal and in line with the military's standards and values, the only way you would get in the shit is if you expressed those views to a news crew, and that's because you then automatically become a spokesman for the military and are expressing a personal opinion under the guise of official policy.

a civilian company will have similar codes of conduct that will generally revolve around the ethos of the company, not around politics, but even so, no company can dictate how a person must vote in an election or social referendum under a democracy, apart from when mps ware whipped to vote a certain way even the government allows free votes on issues like gay marriage or the brexit referndum.

if an employee in company uniform began to express their political views on the vote, whilst on duty in the work environment to the public?? then yes they could face disciplinary actions, because as above they become the spokesperson of the company and are essentially telling people what official policy is.

like my military, no company has any right to dictated what a person thinks or how they vote on any given issue, i accept that the issue of privacy vis-a-vis FB pages is a somewhat grey area and may not be subject to the usual privacy protections we can expect under other circumstances, however it still is in private because you as an employer have to actively seek out what your employees are doing.

It is in principle no different to creeping round their garden and peeking through the window and then using what you see against them.

That sounds like borderline extortion.

the question of law and how a company runs its business isn’t really applicable here , since no one is expecting the law to dictate what price a company changes for delivery, that’s just capitalism, this is more about what protections and rights an employee can expect.

however the law cannot be as rigid and inflexible as you suggest, ie that unless there is a law to specifically prohibit a certain course of action then that action isn’t illegal because no law exists to make it so.

That would mean that there must be a law for every single scenario that could ever occur would with every single possible combination of events and words, that’s a complete impossibility, as it would be legislating against events that haven’t yet occurred.

that's like saying its illegal to shoot someone with a gun because there ARE laws that prohibit such an action, but its ok to stab someone to death because no law exists to specifically outlaw the killing of people with a knife.

we would have to be constantly be thinking up new scenarios and then writing news laws, like "its illegal to kill someone with a laser sword" a completely pointless law since laser swords dont exist here and now, but might do in 100 years time, and unless we make it illegal now, in 100 years time folks are going to be killing each other with laser swords and getting away with murder.

the idea that a law must exits to deal with every kind of specific scenario is rather unfeasible.

Unless the company specifically stated their stance and clearly laid out their standards and values, how could an employee breach them?? Even if the owner of the company was clear on its stance towards gay marriage, at most it could prohibit what employees could say whilst on duty, private citizens are beyond their reach and authority.

Secondly it is up to the company to prove how her private opinions have harmed the company’s reputation, seeing as how companies are just business and not political organizations, unless of course the company is anti-democratic and by expressing her democratic right she has damaged the company’s reputation.

A similar scenario would be your mobile service provider cancelling your contract (with refund) because they found out how you voted in the US elections and declared that association with you would be damaging to their reputation.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Clearly the fault is that of the aussie govt, in putting to a vote something that does not require it, since the adoption of same sex marriage DOES NOT affect negatively anyones human rights, therfore the legislation should just be passed.

HOWEVER those who are speaking against this woman and supporting her employer should not have the brass neck to hide behind human rights when you are about abrogating HERS.

you should look into your own concience and decide whether human rights are absolute or just there for your lefty agenda and thus you think you are allowed to cherry pick which ones apply and to whom.

reading this it seems you are very quick to shout FOR the rights of what YOU think should be and your supporters
and very loud against anyone with a contrary view having those rights.

Just admit that "human rights" are, to you, as flexible and tennuous, when it suits you as, as they are to the fascists....

hold up that mirror I dare you.

I don't understand why they're leaving it to the population to decide either. Gay people shouldn't need the permission of the masses to get married.

Exactly. It's nobody's business but theirs. Who is anyone to say they can't. However, you have to blame the Church and religion for the genesis of the discrimination. It's only recently that the masses have given that institution a big Go Fuck Yourself with your Archaic Laws and Shibboleths.

Tommy Monk wrote:If gays want a secular recognition of their relationship... then they can have the secular 'civil partnership'...

Give one good logical reason why gay people can't be married in the way straight people can? Don't parp on about how you feel it's unnatural and don't give the hollow excuse that God forbids it.

Eilzel wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Another aspect occurs to me on this. What if the woman posted "say no to mixed race marriages" or "say no to equal rights for blacks" or "say no to slavery ban"?

Admittedly, the last case is extreme, but still a fair comparison. It is only due to the recent change in peoples' opinion that homosexuality has become accepted. I'd hope those 3 examples I gave sound as disgusting to some of you as they do to me. And are all certainly grounds for firing an employee. So why is this different, really?

in all 3 cases the same would apply since it presupposes that the existance of bans on
mixed marriages
no equal rights for blacks
and slavery existing
would be the status quo and a vote would being asked to alter this....

and given we live in a democratic society (so it is rumoured) means that both for and against have an absolute right to peacefully declare their opinion without fear of ANY penalty.

Fair point. So ten years from now, when gay marriage is legal in Aus, would you justify her losing her job for voicing her voicing this opinion then?

silencing anyone for their opinion, whether this be considered "wrong" or not is always a dangerous step. Firstly there is the Human right to freedom of opinion and the right to communicate that opinion, whether its popular or not.
secondly, holding and communicating an opinion is NOT, of itself, "hate speech" etc.

Can I assume that you would be happy living in and supporting a society where anyone for instance, holding any religious view at all, is dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night and savagely beaten (all quite lawfully) ?

becasue that is where this selective abrogation of rights leads.....

you have now, I think, the majority support and acceptance....be glad of that and concentrate on winning the "hearts and minds" of those left who oppose....and you dont do that by villification and punishment.

Eilzel wrote:Another aspect occurs to me on this. What if the woman posted "say no to mixed race marriages" or "say no to equal rights for blacks" or "say no to slavery ban"?

Admittedly, the last case is extreme, but still a fair comparison. It is only due to the recent change in peoples' opinion that homosexuality has become accepted. I'd hope those 3 examples I gave sound as disgusting to some of you as they do to me. And are all certainly grounds for firing an employee. So why is this different, really?

so what if that is what she said??

an personal opinion is still a personal opinion regardless of what it relates to.

you are in effect advocating the kind of behavior we see in places like north korea, where having the wrong opinion will get you killed or imprisoned.

obviously you're not yet suggesting we kill or imprison people with the wrong opinion although im not sure by what authority or standards you decide what a "wrong opinion" is??? so realistically the only difference between your attitude and that of the north Koreans is the degree of punishment that should be exacted on those with the "wrong opinion"

you're obviously happy to enforce your standards and values on others and more than willing to punish those who don't conform, i would have thought the persecution faced by the homosexual community for so long would have warned you of the dangers of such a path, if anything it should have made you MORE tolerant of others, not less

Lord Foul and smelly.

I do not wish for formal legislation banning those opinions, at all.

What I say is that I understand companies firing those who do- because of the effect they may have.

Eilzel wrote:Lord Foul and smelly.

I do not wish for formal legislation banning those opinions, at all.

What I say is that I understand companies firing those who do- because of the effect they may have.

i think we will enter dangerous Territory where we leave it up to private companies to champion social and political causes, and to guard against attitudes and opinions that run counter to those causes??

again, you are entering the realms of dictating what is a right opinion and what is a wrong opinion and then advocating punishment for those who you see as having the "wrong opinion",if we continue down this route where you feel its acceptable to fire a person for the "wrong opinion", how long till you or those on your side of the argument fall foul of this??

don't forget elizel, that somewhere out there is a employer that would consider the opinions you hold to be "wrong",if your employer was against gay marriage and found this forum and saw your opinions would you accept being fired for expressing the opinions you do on here??

i somehow think the answer will be a resounding NO

so why do you support that exact course of action??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Lord Foul and smelly.

I do not wish for formal legislation banning those opinions, at all.

What I say is that I understand companies firing those who do- because of the effect they may have.

i think we will enter dangerous Territory where we leave it up to private companies to champion social and political causes, and to guard against attitudes and opinions that run counter to those causes??

again, you are entering the realms of dictating what is a right opinion and what is a wrong opinion and then advocating punishment for those who you see  as having the "wrong opinion",if we continue down this route where you feel its acceptable to fire a person for the "wrong opinion", how long till you or those on your side of the argument fall foul of this??

don't forget elizel, that somewhere out there is a employer that would consider the opinions you hold to be "wrong",if your employer was against gay marriage and found this forum and saw your opinions  would you accept being fired for expressing the opinions you do on here??

i somehow think the answer will be a resounding NO

so why do you support that exact course of action??

You are right in that the answer to that question would be no.

I think I'm seeing this more from a position taken in future. I agree with Vic in that since this IS currently a subject of actual debate in a particular country then it is unfair to fire someone for airing a view one way or the other.

However, thinking forward, there may come a time -maybe as far off as 50 years from now but still- when what we now consider 'opinion' may be seen as otherwise.

I know you claim it a strawman, but the slavery is NOT to my mind a matter of opinion anymore. It is, unquestionably, a moral wrong. Regardless of what people thought 200+ years ago. This puts it outside of your framework of 'right' and 'wrong' opinions. Slavery is wrong, is an opinion in the most flippant of senses, most people would state it is a fact.

Well, it may just be that 50 years from now, acceptance of gay marriage will be an absolute given and to think otherwise would be wrong. In fact, it may even be considered as much of a fact as slavery being wrong is basically a fact.

Still, I see your point, punishing people for expressing views IS a dangerous path, on that we agree. But I do see both sides here. However future generations see it, it is unfair to punish someone for this at the current time, in a country which doesn't even allow gay marriage under current legislation. Some societies are slow to catch up on many things, on this Aus is surprisingly lagging, but they're getting there

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:If gays want a secular recognition of their relationship... then they can have the secular 'civil partnership'...

Give one good logical reason why gay people can't be married in the way straight people can?   Don't parp on about how you feel it's unnatural and don't give the hollow excuse that God forbids it.  

Homosexuality is fundamentally wrong so homosexual marriage is also fundamentally wrong... the state/govt should not legislate to condone/promote homosexuality as being 'right' in any way...

Tommy Monk wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:If gays want a secular recognition of their relationship... then they can have the secular 'civil partnership'...

Give one good logical reason why gay people can't be married in the way straight people can?   Don't parp on about how you feel it's unnatural and don't give the hollow excuse that God forbids it.  

Homosexuality is fundamentally wrong so homosexual marriage is also fundamentally wrong... the state/govt should not legislate to condone/promote homosexuality as being 'right' in any way...

I'd like you to explain to me, how falling in love in love with another consensual adult, is wrong.

Tommy Monk wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Give one good logical reason why gay people can't be married in the way straight people can?   Don't parp on about how you feel it's unnatural and don't give the hollow excuse that God forbids it.  

Homosexuality is fundamentally wrong so homosexual marriage is also fundamentally wrong... the state/govt should not legislate to condone/promote homosexuality as being 'right' in any way...

Just claiming something is wrong, does not mean it is.

In fact there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and even more it does not effect you or anyone else in any shape or form. 

So the reality is, you are trying to impose your backward views onto others, which would effect homosexuals.

Now is anal sex wrong to you and why?

Is Oral sex wrong to you and why?

He doesn't answer those questions didge. I've been asking him for years.

eddie wrote:He doesn't answer those questions didge. I've been asking him for years.

Indeed Eddie

Anyway, have a good evening

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

i think we will enter dangerous Territory where we leave it up to private companies to champion social and political causes, and to guard against attitudes and opinions that run counter to those causes??

again, you are entering the realms of dictating what is a right opinion and what is a wrong opinion and then advocating punishment for those who you see  as having the "wrong opinion",if we continue down this route where you feel its acceptable to fire a person for the "wrong opinion", how long till you or those on your side of the argument fall foul of this??

don't forget elizel, that somewhere out there is a employer that would consider the opinions you hold to be "wrong",if your employer was against gay marriage and found this forum and saw your opinions  would you accept being fired for expressing the opinions you do on here??

i somehow think the answer will be a resounding NO

so why do you support that exact course of action??

You are right in that the answer to that question would be no.

I think I'm seeing this more from a position taken in future. I agree with Vic in that since this IS currently a subject of actual debate in a particular country then it is unfair to fire someone for airing a view one way or the other.

However, thinking forward, there may come a time -maybe as far off as 50 years from now but still- when what we now consider 'opinion' may be seen as otherwise.

I know you claim it a strawman, but the slavery is NOT to my mind a matter of opinion anymore. It is, unquestionably, a moral wrong. Regardless of what people thought 200+ years ago. This puts it outside of your framework of 'right' and 'wrong' opinions. Slavery is wrong, is an opinion in the most flippant of senses, most people would state it is a fact.  

Well, it may just be that 50 years from now, acceptance of gay marriage will be an absolute given and to think otherwise would be wrong. In fact, it may even be considered as much of a fact as slavery being wrong is basically a fact.

Still, I see your point, punishing people for expressing views IS a dangerous path, on that we agree. But I do see both sides here. However future generations see it, it is unfair to punish someone for this at the current time, in a country which doesn't even allow gay marriage under current legislation. Some societies are slow to catch up on many things, on this Aus is surprisingly lagging, but they're getting there

the gay marriage thing is neither here nor there, it just happens to form the context for this conversation, but the principles could apply to anything really.

take brexit, take trump, is it acceptable to fire people for voting for trump or for brexit??

or how about firing people for voting for hillary and for remain??

this declaring that an opinion is "wrong" is in itself nothing more than an opinion, and a dangerous path because its sets a precedent and normalizes aggression towards those we don't agree with.

why stop at firing someone?? why not beat them up?? why not imprison them??

the degree of punishment seems arbitrary and open to escalation.

do you really hate people on the right of the political/social divide so much that you want to live in a society where a right leaning law abiding man/woman with kids a mortgage and a life that they are trying to build in peace, could lose everything because of they happened to mention that its ok to vote no in support gay marriage or remain or Hillary??

as for slavery?? Muslim Arabs still practice slavery, its not as open as it once once but its still practiced. so while slavery is in your OPINION a moral wrong, the arab slavers and slave owners would disagree, from their perspective, you are the one in the wrong.

bearing in mind how much you LUUUUUUUUUUVVVVVVVVVVVV multiculturalism, if you had an employee from a culture where slavery is morally acceptable and that's how they have been raised and they dont know any different, how could you morally fire him for expressing that opinion or perhaps telling a story of how he owns slaves in his homeland where its legal??

your personal moral outrage over slavery would trump his sense of moral integrity and you would use your position of power over him to punish him, which brings us back to the slippery slope of acceptable aggression towards people we disagree with.

I think that's really a pointless tangent, smelly. A vote in an election or political referendum cannot be a right/wrong issue. I can think a particular vote is stupid, but not wrong.

So really a non starter. Of course a vote in an election is never wrong. But one day opppsing equality might be considered as wrong as slavery is by almost the entire world today.

SB wrote:the military is not a civvy company, there are clearly stated standards and codes of conduct that are expected of all servicemen, and every serviceman knows what they are (or should do) so if a servicemen wilfully breaches those codes then he is wilfully bringing the service into disrepute, and is therefore legally open to the appropriate disciplinary measures, yet even in the military you are not told how to think or vote.

over brexit, over general British politics, over ordinary issues that arise daily, you are allowed to express your opinion in public or private in uniform or civvies and you would never face any kind of censure over your views so long as those views are legal and in line with the military's standards and values, the only way you would get in the shit is if you expressed those views to a news crew, and that's because you then automatically become a spokesman for the military and are expressing a personal opinion under the guise of official policy.

You hit the nail on the head there, smells.  That is precisely what she was fired for…going public with Facebook.

SB wrote:a civilian company will have similar codes of conduct that will generally revolve around the ethos of the company, not around politics, but even so, no company can dictate how a person must vote in an election or social referendum under a democracy, apart from when mps ware whipped to vote a certain way even the government allows free votes on issues like gay marriage or the brexit referndum.

if an employee in company uniform began to express their political views on the vote, whilst on duty in the work environment to the public?? then yes they could face disciplinary actions, because as above they become the spokesperson of the company and are essentially telling people what official policy is.

like my military, no company has any right to dictated what a person thinks or how they vote on any given issue, i accept that the issue of privacy vis-a-vis FB pages is a somewhat grey area and may not be subject to the usual privacy protections we can expect under other circumstances, however it still is in private because you as an employer have to actively seek out what your employees are doing.

Well, the company is not trying to “dictate” to an employee her political views.  The company is simply severing the relationship with the person.  After all, the company has rights that need respecting too.

SB wrote:It is in principle no different to creeping round their garden and peeking through the window and then using what you see against them.

That sounds like borderline extortion

.

If two friends come to a difference of opinion about something—say, cops killing blacks--and one says: I think we should sever our relationship..my other friends are offended by your remarks, how is that not right?  In a free and open nation, all people have a right to associate with whomever they want.

Where, and by what means is that right abrogated? It's ironic that you stand for these fundamental rights all the time, but now you reverse your course.

Eilzel wrote:I think that's really a pointless tangent, smelly. A vote in an election or political referendum cannot be a right/wrong issue. I can think a particular vote is stupid, but not wrong.

So really a non starter. Of course a vote in an election is never wrong. But one day opppsing equality might be considered as wrong as slavery is by almost the entire world today.

thats weird, i have been told countless times how its wrong to vote for brexit

SB wrote:the question of law and how a company runs its business isn’t really applicable here , since no one is expecting the law to dictate what price a company changes for delivery, that’s just capitalism, this is more about what protections and rights an employee can expect.

however the law cannot be as rigid and inflexible as you suggest, ie that unless there is a law to specifically prohibit a certain course of action then that action isn’t illegal because no law exists to make it so.

To the contrary, this is about corporate image, perhaps the most precious commodity a company has. It certainly is going to affect sales...and what is being in business all about if not sales? The employee drags the company into a discussion it wants no part of, and even imputes a side to it.

I think that the company has a most sacred right to object, and sever its relationship with that person.

SB wrote:That would mean that there must be a law for every single scenario that could ever occur would with every single possible combination of events and words, that’s a complete impossibility, as it would be legislating against events that haven’t yet occurred.

that's like saying its illegal to shoot someone with a gun because there ARE laws that prohibit such an action, but its ok to stab someone to death because no law exists to specifically outlaw the killing of people with a knife.

we would have to be constantly be thinking up new scenarios and then writing news laws, like "its illegal to kill someone with a laser sword" a completely pointless law since laser swords dont exist here and now, but might do in 100 years time, and unless we make it illegal now, in 100 years time folks are going to be killing each other with laser swords and getting away with murder.

the idea that a law must exits to deal with every kind of specific scenario is rather unfeasible.

So, just generalize.  Instead of a law that prohibits killing with a gun, draft a law that prohibits murder…PERIOD.  

Use your imagination, fgs.  Drafting legislation is easy.

SB wrote:Unless the company specifically stated their stance and clearly laid out their standards and values, how could an employee breach them?? Even if the owner of the company was clear on its stance towards gay marriage, at most it could prohibit what employees could say whilst on duty, private citizens are beyond their reach and authority.

I think that works both ways.  If a company should state its stance, standards and values, so should the employee lay out all of her attitudes and possible conflicts of interest.

Perhaps this whole thing might have been avoided if the employee had clearly stated her opinions on homosexual marriage before being hired.  Then she would never have been hired, and all the travail stops before it starts.

Original Quill wrote:

SB wrote:Unless the company specifically stated their stance and clearly laid out their standards and values, how could an employee breach them?? Even if the owner of the company was clear on its stance towards gay marriage, at most it could prohibit what employees could say whilst on duty, private citizens are beyond their reach and authority.

I think that works both ways.  If a company should state its stance, standards and values, so should the employee lay out all of her attitudes and possible conflicts of interest.

Perhaps this whole thing might have been avoided if the employee had clearly stated her opinions on homosexual marriage before being hired.  Then she would never have been hired, and all the travail stops before it starts.

It's not the sort of subject which generally comes up in interviews.

SB wrote:Secondly it is up to the company to prove how her private opinions have harmed the company’s reputation, seeing as how companies are just business and not political organizations, unless of course the company is anti-democratic and by expressing her democratic right she has damaged the company’s reputation.

A similar scenario would be your mobile service provider cancelling your contract (with refund) because they found out how you voted in the US elections and declared that association with you would be damaging to their reputation.

Smells, you sound like a socialist.  Too much British influence, I suppose.  

Unfortunately, we live in a world where the person alleging a wrong must state it.  It’s not incumbent on the other party to anticipate it.  That’s why this employee has had to file a lawsuit.  

The company is merely stating that it does not want to associate with the employee any more.  It’s the employee who brings up all this fuss about ‘why’ in her lawsuit.

In America, if this were a discrimination suit, under Title VII the company would have to ‘articulate’ its defense (ie, proffer such details) in evidence.  Burdine v. Texas Department of Community Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (1981).  But this is Australia, and it’s not a discrimination suit involving race, color, sex, religion or national origin.  It’s just a company who feels that her attitude and opinions might be detrimental to it’s business.

It’s a free country.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think that works both ways.  If a company should state its stance, standards and values, so should the employee lay out all of her attitudes and possible conflicts of interest.

Perhaps this whole thing might have been avoided if the employee had clearly stated her opinions on homosexual marriage before being hired.  Then she would never have been hired, and all the travail stops before it starts.

It's not the sort of subject which generally comes up in interviews.

She is looking for a job at the interview.  She should have taken the initiative to bring it up.  

She would be a lot better off today if she had brought it up.  Now, she has to file a lawsuit and all the money and travail that involves.  

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not the sort of subject which generally comes up in interviews.

She is looking for a job at the interview.  She should have taken the initiative to bring it up.  

She would be a lot better off today if she had brought it up.  Now, she has to file a lawsuit and all the money and travail that involves.  

Why would she bring it up? There's no reason to.

Her former employer would be better off if she hadn't broadcast what she did all over Facebook as well.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

She is looking for a job at the interview.  She should have taken the initiative to bring it up.  

She would be a lot better off today if she had brought it up.  Now, she has to file a lawsuit and all the money and travail that involves.  

Why would she bring it up? There's no reason to.

Her former employer would be better off if she hadn't broadcast what she did all over Facebook as well.

I think she found out there was a reason to bring it up. Live and learn. Next time, maybe.

Original Quill wrote:

SB wrote:That would mean that there must be a law for every single scenario that could ever occur would with every single possible combination of events and words, that’s a complete impossibility, as it would be legislating against events that haven’t yet occurred.

that's like saying its illegal to shoot someone with a gun because there ARE laws that prohibit such an action, but its ok to stab someone to death because no law exists to specifically outlaw the killing of people with a knife.

we would have to be constantly be thinking up new scenarios and then writing news laws, like "its illegal to kill someone with a laser sword" a completely pointless law since laser swords dont exist here and now, but might do in 100 years time, and unless we make it illegal now, in 100 years time folks are going to be killing each other with laser swords and getting away with murder.

the idea that a law must exits to deal with every kind of specific scenario is rather unfeasible.

So, just generalize.  Instead of a law that prohibits killing with a gun, draft a law that prohibits murder…PERIOD.  

Use your imagination, fgs.  Drafting legislation is easy.

And there you go Quill, a single law that prohibits a whole range of a certain action

Now if only we had a law that protects an employee from descrimination.............

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, just generalize.  Instead of a law that prohibits killing with a gun, draft a law that prohibits murder…PERIOD.  

Use your imagination, fgs.  Drafting legislation is easy.

And there you go Quill, a single law that prohibits a whole range of a certain action

Now if only we had a law that protects  an employee from descrimination.............

There's no discrimination.  She's not alleging adverse action because of race, color, sex, religion or national origin.  She's whining because she shot off her big mouth, and someone talked back.

Look at it this way: it's a dialogue, and she got her answer.