'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/

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


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?

Just claiming something isn't wrong doesn't mean it isn't...!


But there you go again claiming there is nothing wrong with homosexuality... although it is fundamentally wrong as it goes completely against the biological/physical make up of our sexual reproductive organs and intended puropse etc... and the pro homosexuality waffle most certainly does/will cause confusion among younger people and children as this is telling them the wrong information about what is right/normal/natural etc...


I'm not trying to impose anything... I'm just being honest... it is the pro homosexual lot who are imposing a wrong view onto others... especially children/young people...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:


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?

Just claiming something isn't wrong doesn't mean it isn't...!

Thorin wrote:Blimey what double Dutch. You need to expand why two consenting adults in love is wrong.
You continually fail to do so

But there you go again claiming there is nothing wrong with homosexuality... although it is fundamentally wrong as it goes completely against the biological/physical make up of our sexual reproductive organs and intended puropse etc...

Thorin wrote:Really, as since when were gay people infertile?
So your argument is completely sunk dear chap, as many gay people are fertile and quite capable of producing children. The reality is and again what you cannot seem to answer is whether you can control who you are attracted to.
Can you, for the fourth time asking?

and the pro homosexuality waffle most certainly does/will cause confusion among younger people and children as this is telling them the wrong information about what is right/normal/natural etc...

Thorin wrote:The only confusion I see, is the fact you are confused yourself.
You then invoke a view as to what is right and normal, based off your own subjective view.
You seems to be going off yet again some absurd view, that there is a creator being and that everything has to follow a set order. Which as seen by the mass of diversity, proves emphatically, you are talking a load of crap

I'm not trying to impose anything... I'm just being honest... it is the pro homosexual lot who are imposing a wrong view onto others... especially children/young people...

So you could not offer any valid reason against homosexuality, other than you holding an unfounded prejudice. So again its you trying to impose your hateful views to deny consenting adults being in love.

Now is anal sex wrong to you and why?

Is Oral sex wrong to you and why?

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

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.  

Unless of course her views on gay marriage are based on her religious beliefs.

Article 18 of the ICCPR states:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching

If your religion teaches that gay marriage is wrong then this law protects your right to not only hold that opinion  but to express it, in public or private

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...

You're avoiding the question. Give one logical reason why gay marriages can't take place?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:


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?

Just claiming something isn't wrong doesn't mean it isn't...!


But there you go again claiming there is nothing wrong with homosexuality... although it is fundamentally wrong as it goes completely against the biological/physical make up of our sexual reproductive organs and intended puropse etc... and the pro homosexuality waffle most certainly does/will cause confusion among younger people and children as this is telling them the wrong information about what is right/normal/natural etc...


I'm not trying to impose anything... I'm just being honest... it is the pro homosexual lot who are imposing a wrong view onto others... especially children/young people...

Don't tell me you believe that people can be turned into homosexuals by the influence of homosexuals?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


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...

You're avoiding the question.   Give one logical reason why gay marriages can't take place?

Marriage is a religious ceremony, that is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

smelly-bandit wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You're avoiding the question.   Give one logical reason why gay marriages can't take place?

Marriage is a religious ceremony, that is defined  as a union between a man and a woman.

Since when?

Since religions adapted marriage you mean..

Marriage is a contract, and religions adapted ceremonies around this.

You know naff all about history as per usual

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Marriage is a religious ceremony, that is defined  as a union between a man and a woman.

Since when?

Since religions adapted marriage you mean..

Marriage is a contract, and religions adapted ceremonies around this.

You know naff all about history as per usual

Are you aware didge, that Syl just insulted you??

Thorin wrote:

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?

Tommy Monk wrote:
Just claiming something isn't wrong doesn't mean it isn't...!

Thorin wrote:Blimey what double Dutch. You need to expand why two consenting adults in love is wrong.
You continually fail to do so

I have already explained what is wrong with homosexuality...!

Tommy Monk wrote:
But there you go again claiming there is nothing wrong with homosexuality... although it is fundamentally wrong as it goes completely against the biological/physical make up of our sexual reproductive organs and intended puropse etc...

 

Thorin wrote:Really, as since when were gay people infertile?
So your argument is completely sunk dear chap, as many gay people are fertile and quite capable of producing children. The reality is and again what you cannot seem to answer is whether you can control who you are attracted to.
Can you, for the fourth time asking?

Male and female sexual interaction is the undeniable intended puropse of our sexual reproductive organs... and male/female attraction is also the whole intended puropse of attraction...!

Tommy Monk wrote:
and the pro homosexuality waffle most certainly does/will cause confusion among younger people and children as this is telling them the wrong information about what is right/normal/natural etc...

Thorin wrote:The only confusion I see, is the fact you are confused yourself.
You then invoke a view as to what is right and normal, based off your own subjective view.
You seems to be going off yet again some absurd view, that there is a creator being and that everything has to follow a set order. Which as seen by the mass of diversity, proves emphatically, you are talking a load of crap

Right and normal is obvious... and seen throughout the worlds species of animals and plants... male + female = normal & natural...

Tommy Monk wrote:
I'm not trying to impose anything... I'm just being honest... it is the pro homosexual lot who are imposing a wrong view onto others... especially children/young people...

Thorin wrote:
So you could not offer any valid reason against homosexuality, other than you holding an unfounded prejudice. So again its you trying to impose your hateful views to deny consenting adults being in love.

Now is anal sex wrong to you and why?

Is Oral sex wrong to you and why?

I have been very clear about my view, and my reasoning...!!!


It's not about 'unfounded prejudice'... I am not trying to impose my views on anyone but merely expressing my honest opinion, which is a perfectly valid opinion to have... nothing 'hateful' about it, it's just common sense backed up by biology... and I'm not 'denying' any 'consenting adults being in love'...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:
I have already explained what is wrong with homosexuality...!
You have given
Male and female sexual interaction is the undeniable intended puropse of our sexual reproductive organs... and male/female attraction is also the whole intended puropse of attraction...!

Thorin wrote:Intended
Who intended it?
Again homosexuals are quite capable of producing children.
So your argument is complete gibberish and why you still continue to refuse to answer my question
Can you control who you are attracted to?

Right and normal is obvious... and seen throughout the worlds species of animals and plants... male + female = normal & natural...

Thorin wrote:
You mean where homosexuality is observed in other species, showing how it clearly is right and normal

I have been very clear about my view, and my reasoning...!!!

Thorin wrote:

You mean its been piss poor and just the prejudice backwards views you hold

It's not about 'unfounded prejudice'... I am not trying to impose my views on anyone but merely expressing my honest opinion, which is a perfectly valid opinion to have... nothing 'hateful' about it, it's just common sense backed up by biology... and I'm not 'denying' any 'consenting adults being in love'...!!!

You are trying to impose them and single out homosexuals, based on a view, you do not see them as right.
I mean what if we applied your warped logic to other groups.
People with green eyes?
Amber eyes?
Those without limbs?
Those blind?
Those deaf?
Do you deny any of these groups of people the right to be in love and marry?

Of course not proving you are emphatically being prejudiced towards one group of people you dumbly class as not right and normal. Yet if we applied that dumb method to where other groups of people are different, you would never apply your dumb method to that.

Now is anal sex wrong to you and why?

Is Oral sex wrong to you and why?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Since when?

Since religions adapted marriage you mean..

Marriage is a contract, and religions adapted ceremonies around this.

You know naff all about history as per usual

Are you aware didge, that Syl just insulted you??

Good for her if she has.

What has that got to do with once again you being utterly ignorant on history?

It has nothing to do with eye colour or the ability to see/hear etc...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:It has nothing to do with eye colour or the ability to see/hear etc...!!!

But it would, if we applied your flawed methodology on what you class as normal.
Hence the absurdity of your argument.

smelly-bandit wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You're avoiding the question.   Give one logical reason why gay marriages can't take place?

Marriage is a religious ceremony, that is defined  as a union between a man and a woman.

Who says they have to have a religious wedding? Besides, there are now Churches that do same sex marriages.

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Are you aware didge, that Syl just insulted you??

Good for her if she has.

What has that got to do with once again you being utterly ignorant on history?

Don't you care about being insulted??

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It has nothing to do with eye colour or the ability to see/hear etc...!!!

But it would, if we applied your flawed methodology on what you class as normal.
Hence the absurdity of your argument.

It is normal and natural for eyes to see, and ears to hear...


Just as it is normal and natural for attraction and sexual interaction to be between male and female...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But it would, if we applied your flawed methodology on what you class as normal.
Hence the absurdity of your argument.

It is normal and natural for eyes to see, and ears to hear...


Just as it is normal and natural for attraction and sexual interaction to be between male and female...

Would you say that to a gay person to their face? About them being unnatural, that is?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


It is normal and natural for eyes to see, and ears to hear...


Just as it is normal and natural for attraction and sexual interaction to be between male and female...

Would you say that to a gay person to their face?  About them being unnatural, that is?

I don't think he is saying gays are unnatural

smelly-bandit wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Would you say that to a gay person to their face?  About them being unnatural, that is?

I don't think he is saying gays are unnatural

I think you'll find he is. But, he's entitled to his opinion as we all are.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

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.  

Unless of course her views on gay marriage are based on her religious beliefs.

Article 18 of the ICCPR states:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching

If your religion teaches that gay marriage is wrong then this law protects your right to not only hold that opinion  but to express it, in public or private

What is the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)? If it is a law directed at employers in Australia, it would be possible. If it is a statement of universal rights, then it applies to the "State Parties" that are signatory to the agreement, and holds no authority. Alas, Article I, paragraph 3 clarifies:

ICCPR wrote:3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

If the Covenant were law, it might be binding. But it is not. It is merely a Covenant of certain states of the United Nations. It's no more than a prospective hope. It's not even as binding as the EU, that was so detested in the UK.

Furthermore, even if it conveyed the power of law, I doubt that it would be permitted to nullify the right to contract.

The purpose governing Civil Rights in work, voting and employment under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is remedial. It is designed to correct conditions brought about by slavery to segregation, and justified to make the correction. Universal statements of civil rights are not corrections, but promises that participants won't fall into situations of slavery to segregation.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Unless of course her views on gay marriage are based on her religious beliefs.

Article 18 of the ICCPR states:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching

If your religion teaches that gay marriage is wrong then this law protects your right to not only hold that opinion  but to express it, in public or private

What is the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)?  If it is a law directed at employers in Australia, it would be possible.  If it is a statement of universal rights, then it applies to the "State Parties" that are signatory to the agreement, and holds no authority.  Alas, Article I, paragraph 3 clarifies:

ICCPR wrote:3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

If the Covenant were law, it might be binding.  But it is not.  It is merely a Covenant of certain states of the United Nations.  It's no more than a prospective hope.  It's not even as binding as the EU, that was so detested in the UK.

Furthermore, even if it conveyed the power of law, I doubt that it would be permitted to nullify the right to contract.

The purpose governing Civil Rights in work, voting and employment under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is remedial.  It is designed to correct conditions brought about by slavery to segregation, and justified to make the correction.  Universal statements of civil rights are not corrections, but promises that participants won't fall into situations of slavery to segregation.

Here you go again with "there has to be Law that specifically prohibits an action or that action is legal"

As far as I can see, no matter what I would say you seem to simply shift the goalposts to suit you.

I ask you if it would be legal to fire the employee if the situation was an exact mirror image of the current scenario ie if the company was anti gay marriage and the employee post support for gay marriage on her FB page, your response was "but that's different"

No Quill it's not , but when your argument cannot withstand logical scrutiny then it means you're argument is wrong

Sure you can bore us with legal jargon but that alone doesn't validate your argument.

The reality is we will probably never know how the issue ends so we can disagree all day long and neither of us will be right or wrong.

The idea that it's legal to do this because there is no specific law to prohibit it is utter nonsense.

The idea that an employer can stalk an employee and then blackmail, extort or dismiss that person for opinions held in private is illegal.

If you are somehow right, which I doubt, then we should all be very scared because it means that the law can be manipulated to achieve any desired outcome including making what is illegal, legal.

If that is the case then what is the purpose of a such a whimsical legal system??

Better we go back to the laws of strength of arm

HoratioTarr wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

I don't think he is saying gays are unnatural

I think you'll find he is.   But, he's entitled to his opinion as we all are.

You sure about that??

Apparently having the wrong opions is justification for aggression

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What is the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)?  If it is a law directed at employers in Australia, it would be possible.  If it is a statement of universal rights, then it applies to the "State Parties" that are signatory to the agreement, and holds no authority.  Alas, Article I, paragraph 3 clarifies:



If the Covenant were law, it might be binding.  But it is not.  It is merely a Covenant of certain states of the United Nations.  It's no more than a prospective hope.  It's not even as binding as the EU, that was so detested in the UK.

Furthermore, even if it conveyed the power of law, I doubt that it would be permitted to nullify the right to contract.

The purpose governing Civil Rights in work, voting and employment under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is remedial.  It is designed to correct conditions brought about by slavery to segregation, and justified to make the correction.  Universal statements of civil rights are not corrections, but promises that participants won't fall into situations of slavery to segregation.

Here you go again with "there has to be Law that specifically prohibits an action or that action is legal"

As far as I can see, no matter what I would say you seem to simply shift the goalposts to suit you.

I ask you if it would be legal to fire the employee if the situation was an exact mirror image of the current scenario ie if the company was anti gay marriage and the employee post support for gay marriage on her FB page, your response was "but that's different"

No Quill it's not , but when your argument cannot withstand logical scrutiny then it means you're argument is wrong

Sure you can bore us with legal jargon but that alone doesn't validate your argument.

The reality is we will probably never know how the issue ends so we can disagree all day long and neither of us will be right or wrong.

The idea that it's legal to do this because there is no specific law to prohibit it is utter  nonsense.

The idea that an employer can stalk an employee and then blackmail, extort or dismiss that person for  opinions held in private is illegal.

If you are somehow right, which I doubt, then we should all be very scared because it means that the law can be manipulated to achieve any desired outcome including making what is illegal, legal.

If that is the case then what is the purpose of a such a whimsical legal system??

Better we go back to the laws of strength of arm

The fact that there is no action by any government agency means I'm right. No action....no law. That means we already know the outcome.

She will lose the civil lawsuit because there is no authority for intervention by the court.

But it's been fun...

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Here you go again with "there has to be Law that specifically prohibits an action or that action is legal"

As far as I can see, no matter what I would say you seem to simply shift the goalposts to suit you.

I ask you if it would be legal to fire the employee if the situation was an exact mirror image of the current scenario ie if the company was anti gay marriage and the employee post support for gay marriage on her FB page, your response was "but that's different"

No Quill it's not , but when your argument cannot withstand logical scrutiny then it means you're argument is wrong

Sure you can bore us with legal jargon but that alone doesn't validate your argument.

The reality is we will probably never know how the issue ends so we can disagree all day long and neither of us will be right or wrong.

The idea that it's legal to do this because there is no specific law to prohibit it is utter  nonsense.

The idea that an employer can stalk an employee and then blackmail, extort or dismiss that person for  opinions held in private is illegal.

If you are somehow right, which I doubt, then we should all be very scared because it means that the law can be manipulated to achieve any desired outcome including making what is illegal, legal.

If that is the case then what is the purpose of a such a whimsical legal system??

Better we go back to the laws of strength of arm

The fact that there is no action by any government agency means I'm right.  No action....no law.  That means we already know the outcome.

She will lose the civil lawsuit because there is no authority for intervention by the court.

But it's been fun...  

Think you're jumping the gun there Quill and celebrating prematurely.

Like. I said I doubt we will ever know the outcome but if you want to claim victory, then you go right ahead although you run the risk of sounding like didgd

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But it would, if we applied your flawed methodology on what you class as normal.
Hence the absurdity of your argument.

It is normal and natural for eyes to see, and ears to hear...


Just as it is normal and natural for attraction and sexual interaction to be between male and female...

So to you, deaf people and blind people are unnatural to you and should be denied marriage based on your flawed methodology.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Here you go again with "there has to be Law that specifically prohibits an action or that action is legal"

As far as I can see, no matter what I would say you seem to simply shift the goalposts to suit you.

I ask you if it would be legal to fire the employee if the situation was an exact mirror image of the current scenario ie if the company was anti gay marriage and the employee post support for gay marriage on her FB page, your response was "but that's different"

No Quill it's not , but when your argument cannot withstand logical scrutiny then it means you're argument is wrong

Sure you can bore us with legal jargon but that alone doesn't validate your argument.

The reality is we will probably never know how the issue ends so we can disagree all day long and neither of us will be right or wrong.

The idea that it's legal to do this because there is no specific law to prohibit it is utter  nonsense.

The idea that an employer can stalk an employee and then blackmail, extort or dismiss that person for  opinions held in private is illegal.

If you are somehow right, which I doubt, then we should all be very scared because it means that the law can be manipulated to achieve any desired outcome including making what is illegal, legal.

If that is the case then what is the purpose of a such a whimsical legal system??

Better we go back to the laws of strength of arm

The fact that there is no action by any government agency means I'm right.  No action....no law.  That means we already know the outcome.

She will lose the civil lawsuit because there is no authority for intervention by the court.

But it's been fun...  

Think you're jumping the gun there Quill and celebrating prematurely.

Like. I said I doubt we will ever know the outcome but if you want to claim victory, then you go right ahead although you run the risk of sounding like didgd

100% know the outcome
she'll get know where as she was never 'employed' as such just a contractor(with her own sole trader license) that will no longer be contracted to preform.
Just like you can choose not to get the same electrician back, she was on a job by job basis.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Good for her if she has.

What has that got to do with once again you being utterly ignorant on history?

Don't you care about being insulted??

Sly insults so many good people on a regular basis on here...

That you should be more worried if she hasn't insulted you yet !!!

veya_victaous wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Think you're jumping the gun there Quill and celebrating prematurely.

Like. I said I doubt we will ever know the outcome but if you want to claim victory, then you go right ahead although you run the risk of sounding like didgd

100% know the outcome
she'll get know where as she was never 'employed' as such just a contractor(with her own sole trader license) that will no longer be contracted to preform.
Just like you can choose not to get the same electrician back, she was on a job by job basis.

If that's the case, then that's the only reason why she won't win, not because what happen was legal and moral

I think what we have in this case is a lot of conflicting freedoms. She has her freedom of speech, but her employer has the freedom of association -- which in this case would be more of a freedom of disassociation. I.E., if I find your views repugnant, I have the right to distance myself from you.

In this case, since the association was employment and the offended party has the power to hire and fire, the offended party is in the right.

Mind you, I'd say the same thing (and have) if it was someone being fired for taking a liberal stance that offended his/her employer. I would say that the employer was in the wrong, but I wouldn't favor legal action to force the employer to rehire the employee.

Nobody took her freedom of speech away -- they just said, if you're going to talk like that in public, you're not hanging around me any more because I don't want the public to think I support you in this.

Funny how some will essentially find ways to argue for some sort of "right to employment" in this case, but I guarantee they would not argue for that right in any other case.

Lastly, and again, voting against people having basic rights is reprehensible. I don't care if it's because of their religion, because religious indoctrination isn't untouchable or unquestionable, just like any other kind of indoctrination.

Straight people would never tolerate gay people getting to vote on whether straight marriage is legal.

Ben Reilly wrote:I think what we have in this case is a lot of conflicting freedoms. She has her freedom of speech, but her employer has the freedom of association -- which in this case would be more of a freedom of disassociation. I.E., if I find your views repugnant, I have the right to distance myself from you.

In this case, since the association was employment and the offended party has the power to hire and fire, the offended party is in the right.

Mind you, I'd say the same thing (and have) if it was someone being fired for taking a liberal stance that offended his/her employer. I would say that the employer was in the wrong, but I wouldn't favor legal action to force the employer to rehire the employee.

Nobody took her freedom of speech away -- they just said, if you're going to talk like that in public, you're not hanging around me any more because I don't want the public to think I support you in this.

Funny how some will essentially find ways to argue for some sort of "right to employment" in this case, but I guarantee they would not argue for that right in any other case.

Lastly, and again, voting against people having basic rights is reprehensible. I don't care if it's because of their religion, because religious indoctrination isn't untouchable or unquestionable, just like any other kind of indoctrination.

Straight people would never tolerate gay people getting to vote on whether straight marriage is legal.

So you would back Government funding being stopped to any people that support and promote Stalinist Communism or Communism for that matter? Or any companies refusing to do business with any people that hold these views?

I mean some Universities have Professors who support Stalinist Communism. Should those Universities sack them?

I mean Stalinist Communism, was about one of the most reprehensible regimes that abused countless human rights.

The next point to bring up is whether she would sack any homosexuals who are going to vote against gay marriage in Australia, of which there is. Are they homophobes?

Also, will Madlin Sims break any contracts she has with Muslims, who have also been vocal against Gay marriage in Australia? Or does she only hold this view to Christians?

A raft of Australian Muslim leaders have also come out against same-sex marriage. Islamic Friendship Association of Australia head Keysar Trad compared gay partnerships to incestuous relationships.

“We might love our mum and dad intensively but you don’t denigrate that love with sexual behaviour,” he told The Daily Telegraph.

Meanwhile, a campaign called “Muslims for Marriage Equality” launched in Sydney on Monday night. The group said many Muslims were “supportive” of a yes vote but were unwilling to speak out.

Now I support Gay marriage, but I fail to see how criminalizing peoples views is in anyway Secular. By then taking away their jobs. People have a right to views and to discriminate against them, goes against everything that is what Secularism is.

You are never going to change views that way. Every time we have seen progression with human rights laws. There is always a backlash against this before it happens, but that it soon very much becomes very accepted into society when such laws are passed.

Like I said, this vote really is about making Australia that much more secular.

The REAL point is

unless she spoke on behalf of the company
or
was wearing company uniform in a pic
or
was in any way purporting to represent the company

they should NOT have a say

when NOT under those conditions the company should have no say in your actions (with a very few exceptions), and to suggest they do is bordering on commercial fascism. I suppose those supporting tis compant would support a company having control who you dated or married, when (and indeed IF) you could have children etc etc....

and before you say it YES it IS the same argument. if what this company has done in THIS instance is OK then the same argument can be made for those other things. A companies "right" to control what you do, by whatever means, STOPS at the parking lot. or at best once you remove their uniform and as long as you dont purport to speak for them.

This goes way beyond this individual to become a matter of principle

and it seems to me reading the posts on here that principles are as flexible as india rubber when it suits.

As I asked before would it be ok for a left leaning company to sack a R/W er it found in its midst

and therfore would it be ok for a right leaning company to sack every L/W union member

or do you apply different standards to each?

Ben Reilly wrote:I think what we have in this case is a lot of conflicting freedoms. She has her freedom of speech, but her employer has the freedom of association -- which in this case would be more of a freedom of disassociation. I.E., if I find your views repugnant, I have the right to distance myself from you.

In this case, since the association was employment and the offended party has the power to hire and fire, the offended party is in the right.

Mind you, I'd say the same thing (and have) if it was someone being fired for taking a liberal stance that offended his/her employer. I would say that the employer was in the wrong, but I wouldn't favor legal action to force the employer to rehire the employee.

Nobody took her freedom of speech away -- they just said, if you're going to talk like that in public, you're not hanging around me any more because I don't want the public to think I support you in this.

Funny how some will essentially find ways to argue for some sort of "right to employment" in this case, but I guarantee they would not argue for that right in any other case.

Lastly, and again, voting against people having basic rights is reprehensible. I don't care if it's because of their religion, because religious indoctrination isn't untouchable or unquestionable, just like any other kind of indoctrination.

Straight people would never tolerate gay people getting to vote on whether straight marriage is legal.

Extremely well put

I must admit, I try hard to be impartial and tolerate alternative views as much as possible, for personal reasons, I find it very hard sometimes. IF someone objects to my equality, for any reason, I can't honestly say I have anything but contempt for those people.

I think this employer was really more concerned about damage limitation to her business.   She sacked the offender so quickly, with no formal warnings, that is had to be more about her fear she'd lose money/clients.  

The majority of people are neither racist nor homophobic.   But there is an element of certain factions who jump up and start screaming RACIST or HOMOPHOBE the minute someone steps out line as they see it or expresses an opinion they don't agree with, or, in this case, puts their livelihood at risk.   It's as much a knee jerk reaction as spouting off on Facebook.  In fact, it's worse...because it's an action, rather than just words.

And here's the woman who sacked the Vote No.  

Meanwhile, Madeline said her views were based on her faith.

"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 believe that man and woman were created for each other and that when we're together it's a beautiful thing.

"I also understand that people are born gay and with same-sex attraction and that is not their fault. I think that is a beautiful thing sometimes. I have gay Christian friends and they are wonderful, wonderful people and they are wonderful ministers to other same-sex attracted Christians.

"I love everyone. I'm not a hateful person and I do believe that everyone should have equality, but to vote yes, to me, is something that I can't do. I simply cannot do it."

Madeline said she was "tempted" to take legal action for unfair dismissal but did not feel it would do any good.

"I was thinking about it, just because I wanted that recognition of tolerance for both sides, but in the end I don't think it would actually get anyone anywhere," she said.

When Ms Sims was asked whether her views were hypocritical and counter-productive to her message of equality, she said: "We've got views and then we've got sexuality and it really breaks my heart that in this day and age it seems to be a common theme that … you get into more trouble for being a hypocrite than you will for being a homophobe."

Meanwhile, the Fair Work Ombudsman is to investigate the case. A FWO spokesman said: "The Fair Work Ombudsman is aware of this matter and in order to form an assessment as to whether any workplace laws have been breached will be contacting the parties involved as part of its inquiries."

Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, a former Employment Minister, said yesterday the action could be a breach of Fair Work laws.

"It is unlawful for an employer to take any action against an employee on the basis of a political opinion," he said.

"Apart from being a fundamental attack on free speech, it is unlawful for an employer to sack an employee on the basis of a political opinion - including voting 'no' on the marriage survey," Senator Abetz said.

https://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/news/ive-been-called-putrid-skank-woman-who-sacked-yes-/3226009/

From HTs article...


Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, a former Employment Minister, said yesterday the action could be a breach of Fair Work laws.

"It is unlawful for an employer to take any action against an employee on the basis of a political opinion," he said.

"Apart from being a fundamental attack on free speech, it is unlawful for an employer to sack an employee on the basis of a political opinion - including voting 'no' on the marriage survey," Senator Abetz said.

Tommy Monk wrote:From HTs article...


Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, a former Employment Minister, said yesterday the action could be a breach of Fair Work laws.

"It is unlawful for an employer to take any action against an employee on the basis of a political opinion," he said.

"Apart from being a fundamental attack on free speech, it is unlawful for an employer to sack an employee on the basis of a political opinion - including voting 'no' on the marriage survey," Senator Abetz said.

I've just posted that, ya twonk

Vic wrote:A companies "right" to control what you do, by whatever means, STOPS at the parking lot. or at best once you remove their uniform and as long as you dont purport to speak for them.

But what the employer did, actually did stop at the parking lot. It fired the employee. It prevented the employee from entering the workplace, entrance to which I assume is at the parking lot.

Stripped of all rhetoric, the employer didn't try to "control" the employee, but (as Ben so eloquently put it) the employer just disassociated from the employee. If this were a marriage, would anyone take the position that a wife could not divorce her husband because of his political views? Who would characterize divorce as trying to "control" the husband's political views? The right to associate (or disassociate) is at least as fundamental as those political views.

so if your employer decided to terminate you for NOT being a Trump supporter....you would endorse that?

Ben Reilly wrote:I think what we have in this case is a lot of conflicting freedoms. She has her freedom of speech, but her employer has the freedom of association -- which in this case would be more of a freedom of disassociation. I.E., if I find your views repugnant, I have the right to distance myself from you.

In this case, since the association was employment and the offended party has the power to hire and fire, the offended party is in the right.

Mind you, I'd say the same thing (and have) if it was someone being fired for taking a liberal stance that offended his/her employer. I would say that the employer was in the wrong, but I wouldn't favor legal action to force the employer to rehire the employee.

Nobody took her freedom of speech away -- they just said, if you're going to talk like that in public, you're not hanging around me any more because I don't want the public to think I support you in this.

Funny how some will essentially find ways to argue for some sort of "right to employment" in this case, but I guarantee they would not argue for that right in any other case.

Lastly, and again, voting against people having basic rights is reprehensible. I don't care if it's because of their religion, because religious indoctrination isn't untouchable or unquestionable, just like any other kind of indoctrination.

Straight people would never tolerate gay people getting to vote on whether straight marriage is legal.

This is by far the best characterization of the facts presented by this case.  From any civil rights perspective, it is at best a situation of two competing civil rights: Freedom of thought/speech, and Freedom of association.

But one more thing needs mentioning: who has power?  The idea of civil rights comes directly out of the French Revolution, and French Enlightenment.  Previously, the king had all the power.  Civil rights was opposed to political power.  The point is that civil rights is always put forth as the opposite of absolute State control.

Now, we are suddenly talking about an employer.  He (or she) is not the king.  S/he is not even the state or 'the authorities'.  The employer is just another citizen.  So the civil rights question here goes only to what the state does (hence my repeated question of what law is involved) by way of passing laws.

The employer and employee are just two citizens who have had a falling out.  Neither controls the other.  Sure they have an economic relationship, but it is terminable at-will.  (In the US this is limited only in that the relationship is not terminable for motives made illegal by law).  Again, using the example of marriage, if two people can't get along, they should divorce right?  Here, two independent citizens could not get along.  Divorce, in the general sense of termination of the relationship, was inevitable.

The only thing that changes things would be (in the parenthetical remark, above) if the state had promulgated a law making adverse employment action illegal for reasons of discrimination against a specified class.  In America's case, that class is race, color, sex, religion or national origin.

This is a dispute between two competing citizens.  It is not a dispute involving the state.  The power of each is equal, unless the state intervenes and passes a law altering the power.  Hence, my questions as to what law is involved.  Absent a law, the two are equally empowered (or disempowered) to do what they want.

Lord Foul wrote:so if your employer decided to terminate you for NOT being a Trump supporter....you would endorse that?

In the absence of a law? No question. In an at-will situation, the employer is simply a co-equal citizen.

so, Quill you endorse, in the absence of law, a slave economy then.

or perhaps more pointedly you endorse a "selective" program wherby whats of interest to you is allowable but what isnt is prevented, without regard to equity (as it were)

this is why I dislike even the moderate left, in matters such as this they have a distinct tendency to throw "fairness" out of the window to the same extent as the FAR right.
there is a dichotomy between what they say and what they wish to see in practice...

god preserve us from a "L/W utopia"

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:From HTs article...


Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, a former Employment Minister, said yesterday the action could be a breach of Fair Work laws.

"It is unlawful for an employer to take any action against an employee on the basis of a political opinion," he said.

"Apart from being a fundamental attack on free speech, it is unlawful for an employer to sack an employee on the basis of a political opinion - including voting 'no' on the marriage survey," Senator Abetz said.

I've just posted that, ya twonk

Yes I know, you twonk...!!!


I was highlighting that part just in case anyone missed it in your post by 'skim reading' etc...

Thanks, Quill. I was thinking of another way you could characterize what has happened in this case -- would anybody support an employer being forced by the government to retain a bigot on their staff?

I don't think anyone would support the government forcing an employer to retain a black separatist or a member of NAMBLA on their staff -- their freedom of thought be damned.

So what we see here is actually no defense of freedom of thought in general, but rather a defense of homophobia, and coming from people who have expressed homophobic views here well before this thread.

Ben Reilly wrote:I think what we have in this case is a lot of conflicting freedoms. She has her freedom of speech, but her employer has the freedom of association -- which in this case would be more of a freedom of disassociation. I.E., if I find your views repugnant, I have the right to distance myself from you.

In this case, since the association was employment and the offended party has the power to hire and fire, the offended party is in the right.

Mind you, I'd say the same thing (and have) if it was someone being fired for taking a liberal stance that offended his/her employer. I would say that the employer was in the wrong, but I wouldn't favor legal action to force the employer to rehire the employee.

Nobody took her freedom of speech away -- they just said, if you're going to talk like that in public, you're not hanging around me any more because I don't want the public to think I support you in this.

Funny how some will essentially find ways to argue for some sort of "right to employment" in this case, but I guarantee they would not argue for that right in any other case.

Lastly, and again, voting against people having basic rights is reprehensible. I don't care if it's because of their religion, because religious indoctrination isn't untouchable or unquestionable, just like any other kind of indoctrination.

Straight people would never tolerate gay people getting to vote on whether straight marriage is legal.

As it happens, this woman doesn't appear to have a case because she's a contractor, but in the UK at least, as long as someone has been employed with a company for two years you can't just sack them because you don't like their views, especially views which they don't express at work. If you did, you'd probably be taken to a tribunal and have to pay them compensation.

Ben Reilly wrote:Thanks, Quill. I was thinking of another way you could characterize what has happened in this case -- would anybody support an employer being forced by the government to retain a bigot on their staff?

I don't think anyone would support the government forcing an employer to retain a black separatist or a member of NAMBLA on their staff -- their freedom of thought be damned.

So what we see here is actually no defense of freedom of thought in general, but rather a defense of homophobia, and coming from people who have expressed homophobic views here well before this thread.

Unless such a person lets it influence their job, they have a right to not be sacked for their views.

You know, if she was saying it was okay to vote for lower taxes, or fewer workplace regulations, or fewer environmental laws, etc., I'd probably be taking her side a lot more.

But there's no difference between opposing gay marriage and opposing interracial marriage -- or straight marriage, for that matter. Your beliefs, religious or otherwise, are less important than the right of people to pursue happiness in a manner which does no harm to others.

Lord Foul wrote:so, Quill you endorse, in the absence of law, a slave economy then.

or perhaps more pointedly you endorse a "selective" program wherby whats of interest to you is allowable but what isnt is prevented, without regard to equity (as it were)

this is why I dislike even the moderate left, in matters such as this they have a distinct tendency to throw "fairness" out of the window to the same extent as the FAR right.
there is a dichotomy between what they say and what they wish to see in practice...

god preserve us from a "L/W utopia"

I've not endorsed anything.  All of my posts have been descriptive, not prescriptive.  I've simply been trying to clarify the picture, from the perspective of Anglo-American law.

The reason why you dislike the left is because you have a bias against non-conservative views.  It's a perceptual bias.  Just as you misinterpret me--attributing values that I neither endorse, nor hold--you twist all depiction of the world as 'fact into value'.  I describe the law as it is, and you accuse me of endorsing the law as it is.

You need to go back to your philosophy course at university and study the fact-value distinction.  A fact is a materially-verified reality.  A value is a will, or wish as to the way things should be.  Stress the verbs: IS versus SHOULD BE.  They are two entirely different questions.

If I describe the law, it is the way it IS.  Should I run for the Legislature, and successfully write laws, it will be the way I feel it SHOULD BE.  Why do you think laws are written in books.  It's because they ARE...they are relatively permanent and they exist.  If you are talking about what you endorse--what you value--you've got to change the expression.

I have never deviated from describing the law, as it exists.  I've not endorsed anything.  I have repeatedly insisted that I need to see what the specific law or contract is, before I can even approach a discussion of what I feel or endorse.