'Sacked' for opposing same-sex marriage

by Original Quill Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:16 pm

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."

'Sacked' for opposing same-sex marriage - Page 2 C2bd25e2672650740fc2bffd6acd46d2

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/

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:45 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, that is an unlawful reason for termination. Remember, "You can fire for a right reason; you can fire for a wrong reason; you just can't fire for an illegal reason."

The woman was sacked for voicing her support for the law in Australia to remain as it is...

Is that a right/wrong or illegal reason...!?

The only relevant question is: Is it a reason prohibited by law? Right or wrong doesn't matter. That's the point, if you've been paying attention.

by Guest Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

1. Get gun

2.load gun

3.point gun at foot

4.remove gun and load second barrel

5.point gun at foot.

6.pull both triggers

7.lose argument

I understand your position. Whining that you just shot yourself in the foot is not the answer. There is a level of simplicity to reasoning that you do not yet grasp.

The formula is this: 1) find a relevant principle: eg, "You can fire for a right reason; you can fire for a wrong reason; you just can't fire for an illegal reason"; 2)
apply the principle to facts: is this a factual scenario that the law prohibits?; 3) come up with a solution: if not prohibited, go ahead and hire or fire the person.

Remember smells: Principle; Facts; Solution. Write it on the board a thousand times. If you don't acquire reason instinctively, you must spend time at it.

you can pretend to be super intelligent but while you're high browing it, you don't realize that tommy has just flown in under your radar.

what he did was present a scenario where the situation was almost exactly reversed ie can an anti gay marriage company fire a pro gay marriage employee for expressing that opinion

you said no, it would be illegal

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:31 pm

In the UK, an employer can fire someone any time they like - up until the employee has been employed with them for two years, except in certain circumstances. After that, they can fire them but they might get hit with an unfair dismissal claim.

I would say that generally speaking, firing someone for saying they oppose gay marriage would result in a successful unfair dismissal claim.

However, if she is a contractor, that would make a difference as they are not protected as much as employees.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:42 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I understand your position. Whining that you just shot yourself in the foot is not the answer. There is a level of simplicity to reasoning that you do not yet grasp.

The formula is this: 1) find a relevant principle: eg, "You can fire for a right reason; you can fire for a wrong reason; you just can't fire for an illegal reason"; 2)
apply the principle to facts: is this a factual scenario that the law prohibits?; 3) come up with a solution: if not prohibited, go ahead and hire or fire the person.

Remember smells: Principle; Facts; Solution. Write it on the board a thousand times. If you don't acquire reason instinctively, you must spend time at it.

you can pretend to be super intelligent but while you're high browing it, you don't realize that tommy has just flown in under your radar.

Ouuuu...haha, do I scare you smells? I haven't heard such an anti-intellectual rant since Trump spoke on Charlottesville. Nobody is the trickster here, cause there's no tricks. Just plain reasoning.

SB wrote:what he did was present a scenario where the situation was almost exactly reversed ie can an anti gay marriage company fire a pro gay marriage employee for expressing that opinion

you said no, it would be illegal

It's a faux sense of 'reverse' that is brought up. We're not talking about anti-gay versus gay. We are talking about legal versus illegal. It was you who got off on the tangent of the content of her statement...gay marriage. That's a faux lead.

The real principle is: "You can fire for a right reason; you can fire for a wrong reason; you just can't fire for an illegal reason" Whether you are talking about gay marriage, or genetically modified corn, the question is legality.

by Guest Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

you can pretend to be super intelligent but while you're high browing it, you don't realize that tommy has just flown in under your radar.

Ouuuu...haha, do I scare you smells? I haven't heard such an anti-intellectual rant since Trump spoke on Charlottesville. Nobody is the trickster here, cause there's no tricks. Just plain reasoning.

SB wrote:what he did was present a scenario where the situation was almost exactly reversed ie can an anti gay marriage company fire a pro gay marriage employee for expressing that opinion

you said no, it would be illegal

It's a faux sense of 'reverse' that is brought up. We're not talking about anti-gay versus gay. We are talking about legal versus illegal. It was you who got off on the tangent of the content of her statement...gay marriage. That's a faux lead.

The real principle is: "You can fire for a right reason; you can fire for a wrong reason; you just can't fire for an illegal reason" Whether you are talking about gay marriage, or genetically modified corn, the question is legality.

no quill you definitely do not scare me, i could probably stretch to saying you amuse me , i can spot a fake when i see one.

the issue brought up by tommy tripped you up completely because it caused you to contradict yourself.

perhaps tommy was unable to clearly articulate what he meant, but what i believe he was getting at was this:

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

you have expressed the opinion that it would be illegal to fire under the reverse scenario, therefore it must also be illegal to fire under the original scenario.

by HoratioTarr Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:07 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:In the UK, an employer can fire someone any time they like - up until the employee has been employed with them for two years, except in certain circumstances. After that, they can fire them but they might get hit with an unfair dismissal claim.

I would say that generally speaking, firing someone for saying they oppose gay marriage would result in a successful unfair dismissal claim.

However, if she is a contractor, that would make a difference as they are not protected as much as employees.

Although an employee with less than 2 years’ service can’t claim ordinary unfair dismissal, there are nevertheless some types of claim that they can still bring, irrespective of how long they’ve been employed.

Automatically unfair dismissals

There are certain types of dismissals that are automatically unfair. This means that the employee does not have to have worked for 2 years in order to make a claim.

Examples include employees who are dismissed for any of the following reasons:-

They asked to be released for jury service;
The employee is pregnant or has recently given birth;
The employee was intending to take action to enforce a statutory right, such as the right to be paid the National Minimum Wage.

...you may decide to sack someone because of their sickness record. If they have been employed for less than 2 years, they can’t claim unfair dismissal.

However, they may claim that the reason they had so much time off sick was that they had a disability and that, by sacking them, you have discriminated against them on the grounds of their disability. This would potentially be disability discrimination.

You should tread carefully if you’re considering dismissing someone on the grounds of sickness. Ideally obtain an occupational health report first.

A few years ago, I dealt with a case where an employer had sacked an employee because she complained too much. The employee had been employed for less than 2 years and could not therefore claim ordinary unfair dismissal.

However, one of the complaints the employee raised was that she was being treated less favourably because she is a woman. Although that complaint was groundless, the decision to dismiss her on the basis of her complaint amounted to victimisation. She recovered compensation for lost earnings and injury to feelings.

A few other things to bear in mind

All staff have rights set out in the employment contract, irrespective of their length of service.

For example, they have the right to a minimum notice period. They would also be entitled to all of their contractual pay up to the termination date, including a payment for any untaken holiday entitlement.

Always check the employment contract before dismissing someone. We would also recommend that you speak to an employment solicitor to be on the safe side.

In conclusion

Dismissing staff can be a risky business. Although those risks are significantly reduced if the employee has less than 2 years’ service, there are still plenty of pitfalls to avoid.

http://www.masonbullock.co.uk/two-years/

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:46 am

The woman was sacked for voicing her support for the law (in Australia) to remain as it is...

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:55 am

Tommy Monk wrote:The woman was sacked for voicing her support for the law (in Australia) to remain as it is...

which is largely accepted as homophobic Rolling Eyes

so she posted homophobic support on her facebook

by Ben Reilly Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:57 am

I mean, really. If you don't think gay people should have the same rights as straight people, you're homophobic. Is that so hard to understand?

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:56 am

Ben Reilly wrote:I mean, really. If you don't think gay people should have the same rights as straight people, you're homophobic. Is that so hard to understand?

These people will already hold religious beliefs.
I agree people should have equal rights under the law.
Though should people be sacked for their beliefs?
The answer is no, as you open the door up to a can of worms and end up discriminating against a mass of people.

I mean considering in this country, half Muslims believe homosexuality should be criminalized, should they all lose their Jobs or contracts? The same with Christians, who think the same?

It may well be anti-homosexual and I agree completely wrong, but its also wrong to discriminate against people on their beliefs.

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:49 am

Ben Reilly wrote:I mean, really. If you don't think gay people should have the same rights as straight people, you're homophobic. Is that so hard to understand?

there were go

ben swooping in with a SIXHIRB attack

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:51 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:The woman was sacked for voicing her support for the law (in Australia) to remain as it is...

which is largely accepted as homophobic

so she posted homophobic support on her facebook

accepted by who??

if the vote goes to the NO then it wont be homophobic, unless of course you're going to throw a brexit/ trump tantrum and declare that the majority are racist or homophobic in this case??

by eddie Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:55 am

The point is this: it's up to an employer if they think you are suited to their company or not, in this case a sub-contractor. Well, if I didn't like some personal views of someone that made me uncomfortable then I'd not employ them.

Simple.

I'd have let her go too. I wouldn't wish to be associated with people like that.

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:01 am

eddie wrote:The point is this: it's up to an employer if they think you are suited to their company or not, in this case a sub-contractor. Well, if I didn't like some personal views of someone that made me uncomfortable then I'd not employ them.

Simple.

I'd have let her go too. I wouldn't wish to be associated with people like that.

im not convinced the law works like that.

if you start down that route you could end up firing a person because you don't like the colour of their eyes

by Syl Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:57 am

eddie wrote:The point is this: it's up to an employer if they think you are suited to their company or not, in this case a sub-contractor. Well, if I didn't like some personal views of someone that made me uncomfortable then I'd not employ them.

Simple.

I'd have let her go too. I wouldn't wish to be associated with people like that.

I think that's harsh and its limiting the people you work with and are friends with.

Should a Conservative not mix with a Labour or Lib supporter?, should a Catholic not mix with a Jew and so on.....everyone has different thoughts and beliefs.
Would a Stepford society....where no one dare have independent thought be preferable?

As long as people accept the law and don't try to push their own ideals on to others surely that's a better way to live amongst people.

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:36 pm

Syl wrote:
eddie wrote:The point is this: it's up to an employer if they think you are suited to their company or not, in this case a sub-contractor. Well, if I didn't like some personal views of someone that made me uncomfortable then I'd not employ them.

Simple.

I'd have let her go too. I wouldn't wish to be associated with people like that.

I think that's harsh and its limiting the people you work with and are friends with.

Should a Conservative not mix with a Labour or Lib supporter?, should a Catholic not mix with a Jew and so on.....everyone has different thoughts and beliefs.
Would a Stepford society....where no one dare have independent thought be preferable?

As long as people accept the law and don't try to push their own ideals on to others surely that's a better way to live amongst people.

its discrimination based on political affiliation and social outlook

you couldn't fire a black or a gay for being black or gay, you cant fire a person for as you say being a con if you as the CEO personally support lab

by HoratioTarr Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:40 pm

eddie wrote:The point is this: it's up to an employer if they think you are suited to their company or not, in this case a sub-contractor. Well, if I didn't like some personal views of someone that made me uncomfortable then I'd not employ them.

Simple.

I'd have let her go too. I wouldn't wish to be associated with people like that.

There is an element of its own intolerances here though. Refusing to work with a person with this view is just as extreme as her views. It won't change her views. It's just mirroring her own intolerance.

by Eilzel Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:15 pm

It's not mirroring the intolerance at all. Whether or not I agree with her being sacked, there is a HUGE difference between 'opposing equal rights' and 'opposing opposition to equal rights.'

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:29 pm

why dont we just burn her at the stake for her heresy?

just like the salem witch trials......

good lord, she has declared her views differ from some others...even...OMG saying she will vote against some legislation she doesnt personally like...oh dear, what a terrible person she is.

on the other hand of course some here will support, encourage and excuse bombings, murder and shed loads of racist sex crime,

and deny that the left isnt dictatorial

well of course it tries to appear not.... UNTILL...some one dares to voice a contrary opinion....

then, like the bible belters of the usa south, its ok to sack/ threaten/generally make life a misery for the pagan....

Its NOT that the R/W isnt dictatorial.....it is BUT the left here is showing its "iron hand in a velvet glove". Demonstrating that unique property of lefty quantum thinking (i.e rampant hypocrisy) denying human rights whilst beleiving that nobody can see right through it all..

human rights ..one of which is the right to hold AND communicate a personal opinion...even if that opinion is unpopular

and if it IS a right, then doing so is lawful...and NO person should be sacked or held in any way to account, by empolyer or other "authority" for carrying out a lawful activity.

(a "lawful" activity, by definition CANNOT be held to be wrong in any way since it has been DECLARED to be within the law.)

the right you can trust to be true to form, generally they at least are open about their ways means and ends....and we KNOW what they are

the left pleads one thing one one hand and has a wholey dark agenda of control and repression on the other ...as the OP and responses to it from some here demonstrate.

anyone reading this thread can be in NO doubt that the left totally oppose freedom of opinion and support the covert bullying (by financial means) of this woman. I have to wonder how many would quietly cheer if their militant wing (like antifa) were to beat this young woman senseless???? after all some actually act as cheer leaders when their pet ideology carry out their atrocities over here so...............

THAT SAID...I dont agree with the woman in the OP..she is wrong in my view, however she has decalred she will vote NO to this legislation...and thats OK...I would vote YES

that my dear leftys is DEMOCRACY

what is NOT democracy is suppressing peoples rights to hold and declare their POV by allowing individulas to be held to ransom via job security etc as a threat to force their hand in a vote

what will you do next leftys....make all vote visible and punish those who vote the "wrong way" ????? oh my ...I thought THAT was only a tactic of the RIGHT.....

by HoratioTarr Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:33 pm

Eilzel wrote:It's not mirroring the intolerance at all. Whether or not I agree with her being sacked, there is a HUGE difference between 'opposing equal rights' and 'opposing opposition to equal rights.'

She has an opinion. Because we live in a society that encourages free speech and thinking, she's entitled to that. Muslims are perfectly entitled to say they think homosexuality is wrong. That's their opinion and belief. In this country you can voice that.

by Eilzel Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:39 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Eilzel wrote:It's not mirroring the intolerance at all. Whether or not I agree with her being sacked, there is a HUGE difference between 'opposing equal rights' and 'opposing opposition to equal rights.'

She has an opinion. Because we live in a society that encourages free speech and thinking, she's entitled to that. Muslims are perfectly entitled to say they think homosexuality is wrong. That's their opinion and belief. In this country you can voice that.

I'm not disputing what you say there. I'm disputing that people decrying her views is AS BAD as opposing equality.

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:36 pm

actually its worse...no one is saying decrying her views is wrong...thats debate....what IS wrong however is taking that "debate" to the next step and DOING something (like sacking her) ...THAT is supression and bullying and is anti democratic....and once you go down that route...well theres no restraint on anything. including concentration camps gulags and gas chambers

by Eilzel Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:47 pm

Lord Foul wrote:actually its worse...no one is saying decrying her views is wrong...thats debate....what IS wrong however is taking that "debate" to the next step and DOING something (like sacking her) ...THAT is supression and bullying and is anti democratic....and once

It isn't exactly clean cut though, it is? I know that I'd have a very hard time ignoring that person's expressed view if I worked with them, knowing how they felt about me.

I'm still torn here. I agree with what you're saying about it being wrong to fire someone over a view, generally; but what if that view was something worse? And if so, where would you draw the line? (getting back to what Cass said, really.)

Also, I don't think it is outright suppression. I doubt this was done with the foremost intent to 'shut people down'. Suppression is just a bi-product of that. Again, that's not to say it is right.

My problem is with anyone suggesting that being intolerant of bigoted views is the same as being intolerant of people being treated equally.

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:01 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:actually its worse...no one is saying decrying her views is wrong...thats debate....what IS wrong however is taking that "debate" to the next step and DOING something (like sacking her) ...THAT is supression and bullying and is anti democratic....and once

It isn't exactly clean cut though, it is? I know that I'd have a very hard time ignoring that person's expressed view if I worked with them, knowing how they felt about me.

and yet you leftys have whinged about me having reservations about working with/for those of a differing ideology???? whats that about then??

I'm still torn here. I agree with what you're saying about it being wrong to fire someone over a view, generally; but what if that view was something worse? And if so, where would you draw the line? (getting back to what Cass said, really.)

the law is quite clear ...an opinion on the subject is LAWFUL. fully so... on some subjects an opinion may be lawful but support for it may not, or at least may draw the attention of the authorities to you

Also, I don't think it is outright suppression. I doubt this was done with the foremost intent to 'shut people down'. Suppression is just a bi-product of that. Again, that's not to say it is right.

I think you are far too charitable...there is NO doubt that supression is what is foremost in mind...we see it all the time the famous sixhirb being one of its manifestations

My problem is with anyone suggesting that being intolerant of bigoted views is the same as being intolerant of people being treated equally.

nobody is suggesting that this is the case...you are fee to have and voice your opinion as is anyone else BUT what you are NOT allowed to do is to (as in this case) sack someone for their views, which is clearly a message to all others of such views that they are now fair game for discriminatory practices based on their own opinions

in other words, if you dont join the lefty hive mind you will be sent into penury and possibly worse

by Eilzel Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:09 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:actually its worse...no one is saying decrying her views is wrong...thats debate....what IS wrong however is taking that "debate" to the next step and DOING something (like sacking her) ...THAT is supression and bullying and is anti democratic....and once

It isn't exactly clean cut though, it is? I know that I'd have a very hard time ignoring that person's expressed view if I worked with them, knowing how they felt about me.

and yet you leftys have whinged about me having reservations about working with/for those of a differing ideology???? whats that about then??

I'm still torn here. I agree with what you're saying about it being wrong to fire someone over a view, generally; but what if that view was something worse? And if so, where would you draw the line? (getting back to what Cass said, really.)

the law is quite clear ...an opinion on the subject is LAWFUL. fully so... on some subjects an opinion may be lawful but support for it may not, or at least may draw the attention of the authorities to you

Also, I don't think it is outright suppression. I doubt this was done with the foremost intent to 'shut people down'. Suppression is just a bi-product of that. Again, that's not to say it is right.

I think you are far too charitable...there is NO doubt that supression is what is foremost in mind...we see it all the time the famous sixhirb being one of its manifestations

My problem is with anyone suggesting that being intolerant of bigoted views is the same as being intolerant of people being treated equally.

nobody is suggesting that this is the case...you are fee to have and voice your opinion as is anyone else BUT what you are NOT allowed to do is to (as in this case) sack someone for their views, which is clearly a message to all others of such views that they are now fair game for discriminatory practices based on their own opinions

in other words, if you dont join the lefty hive mind you will be sent into penury and possibly worse

1. It would depend if that ideology was directly attempting to affect your freedom and rights, wouldn't it.

2. So your issue is with what the law states? If the woman were German and had posted something claiming the holocaust to be false, or even supported it, you would be OK with her losing her job? Again, where do you choose to draw the line?

3. We'll have to agree to disagree. Fact is, we cannot know the exact reasons they took this action. And the retort of SIXHIRB is pretty much as redundant as people automatically shouting 'racist' these days.

4. More of the same tbf.

by Original Quill Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:43 pm

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

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

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

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

by Original Quill Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:50 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
eddie wrote:The point is this: it's up to an employer if they think you are suited to their company or not, in this case a sub-contractor. Well, if I didn't like some personal views of someone that made me uncomfortable then I'd not employ them.

Simple.

I'd have let her go too. I wouldn't wish to be associated with people like that.

im not convinced the law works like that.

if you start down that route you could end up firing a person because you don't like the colour of their eyes

@ Eddie: Precisely eddie.

@ SB: If there is no law prohibiting firing because of eye color, it would be perfectly acceptable and legal. The employer/employee relationship is an at-will contract, terminable at any time, for any reason (provided it is not illegal).

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

im not convinced the law works like that.

if you start down that route you could end up firing a person because you don't like the colour of their eyes

@ Eddie: Precisely eddie.

@ SB: If there is no law prohibiting firing because of eye color, it would be perfectly acceptable and legal. The employer/employee relationship is an at-will contract, terminable at any time, for any reason (provided it is not illegal).

jog on quill

no employer anywhere in the world where labour laws apply could hope to possibly get away with FIRING an individual over the colour of their eyes, the same way no employer could fire an employee over the colour of their skin.

unless of course you think that firing a black man for being black is legal???

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:59 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:actually its worse...no one is saying decrying her views is wrong...thats debate....what IS wrong however is taking that "debate" to the next step and DOING something (like sacking her) ...THAT is supression and bullying and is anti democratic....and once

It isn't exactly clean cut though, it is? I know that I'd have a very hard time ignoring that person's expressed view if I worked with them, knowing how they felt about me.

and yet you leftys have whinged about me having reservations about working with/for those of a differing ideology???? whats that about then??

I'm still torn here. I agree with what you're saying about it being wrong to fire someone over a view, generally; but what if that view was something worse? And if so, where would you draw the line? (getting back to what Cass said, really.)

the law is quite clear ...an opinion on the subject is LAWFUL. fully so... on some subjects an opinion may be lawful but support for it may not, or at least may draw the attention of the authorities to you

Also, I don't think it is outright suppression. I doubt this was done with the foremost intent to 'shut people down'. Suppression is just a bi-product of that. Again, that's not to say it is right.

I think you are far too charitable...there is NO doubt that supression is what is foremost in mind...we see it all the time the famous sixhirb being one of its manifestations

My problem is with anyone suggesting that being intolerant of bigoted views is the same as being intolerant of people being treated equally.

nobody is suggesting that this is the case...you are fee to have and voice your opinion as is anyone else BUT what you are NOT allowed to do is to (as in this case) sack someone for their views, which is clearly a message to all others of such views that they are now fair game for discriminatory practices based on their own opinions

in other words, if you dont join the lefty hive mind you will be sent into penury and possibly worse

1. It would depend if that ideology was directly attempting to affect your freedom and rights, wouldn't it.

2. So your issue is with what the law states? If the woman were German and had posted something claiming the holocaust to be false, or even supported it, you would be OK with her losing her job? Again, where do you choose to draw the line?

straw man Eilzel...the issue is she gave a personal opinion on a subject that is up for discussion and vote and moreover one which is thus lawful....she did NOT give a public opinion on a subject considered unlawful. what is happening here is the supression of opinion on a lawful subject by those of one side.......

3. We'll have to agree to disagree. Fact is, we cannot know the exact reasons they took this action. And the retort of SIXHIRB is pretty much as redundant as people automatically shouting 'racist' these days.

4. More of the same tbf.

there is , as I have said to you before, nothing as illiberal as a "liberal".

No one, supporting the premise that what is claimed in the O/P is OK can claim to have any interest in democracy, unless it is the "democracy of aligned agreement" I.E your opinion is only permissible if it agrees with ours, all others are forbidden to even be expressed.

by Original Quill Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:02 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

@ Eddie: Precisely eddie.

@ SB: If there is no law prohibiting firing because of eye color, it would be perfectly acceptable and legal. The employer/employee relationship is an at-will contract, terminable at any time, for any reason (provided it is not illegal).

jog on quill

no employer anywhere in the world where labour laws apply could hope to possibly get away with FIRING an individual over the colour of their eyes, the same way no employer could fire an employee over the colour of their skin.

unless of course you think that firing a black man for being black is legal???

Skin color has nothing to do with it.

If there is no law against firing someone for eye color, then it's legal. You might try to make some derivative claim--eg, only black people have black eyes--but not if you can't prove it. Even then, you would be firing for eye color, and not for race. So it's legal.

Imagine if you tried to sue. First question: what law are you suing under?

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:16 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

@ Eddie: Precisely eddie.

@ SB: If there is no law prohibiting firing because of eye color, it would be perfectly acceptable and legal. The employer/employee relationship is an at-will contract, terminable at any time, for any reason (provided it is not illegal).

jog on quill

no employer anywhere in the world where labour laws apply could hope to possibly get away with FIRING an individual over the colour of their eyes, the same way no employer could fire an employee over the colour of their skin.

unless of course you think that firing a black man for being black is legal???

Skin color has nothing to do with it.

If there is no law against firing someone for eye color, then it's legal. You might try to make some derivative claim--eg, only black people have black eyes--but not if you can't prove it. Even then, you would be firing for eye color, and not for race. So it's legal.

I'd suggest that you are wrong in that assertion Quill....it may not be illegal...but it may be unlawful. (that is to say is NOT backed by law in its favour) In which case it would be for a judge to decide if it was "reasonable and fair" for such a thing to be done.

Imagine if you tried to sue. First question: what law are you suing under?

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

jog on quill

no employer anywhere in the world where labour laws apply could hope to possibly get away with FIRING an individual over the colour of their eyes, the same way no employer could fire an employee over the colour of their skin.

unless of course you think that firing a black man for being black is legal???

Skin color has nothing to do with it.

If there is no law against firing someone for eye color, then it's legal. You might try to make some derivative claim--eg, only black people have black eyes--but not if you can't prove it. Even then, you would be firing for eye color, and not for race. So it's legal.

Imagine if you tried to sue. First question: what law are you suing under?

are you seriously suggesting that any court in the UK or the US would allow a company to fire an employee because of the colour of their eyes??

'Sacked' for opposing same-sex marriage - Page 2 2686688521

'Sacked' for opposing same-sex marriage - Page 2 2686688521

its time to back down quill

by Original Quill Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:28 pm

Victor wrote:I'd suggest that you are wrong in that assertion Quill....it may not be illegal...but it may be unlawful. (that is to say is NOT backed by law in its favour) In which case it would be for a judge to decide if it was "reasonable and fair" for such a thing to be done.

Actually, unless it is a case in equity (which discrimination is not), judges don't decide "reasonable and fair". Dictators and legislators may do that, but under the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, judges many not do that.

Discrimination requires an express law. Absent a law regarding any adverse employment action, everything returns to the status quo. You don't need a law backing a position that is free to begin with...it's in the abyss of freedom anyway.

The status quo is that employment is an at-will relationship, meaning any one, either side, can sever the relationship at-will. You don't even need a reason, but if you proffered eye color as a basis, it would not make an otherwise free choice, unlawful.

by Original Quill Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:31 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Skin color has nothing to do with it.

If there is no law against firing someone for eye color, then it's legal. You might try to make some derivative claim--eg, only black people have black eyes--but not if you can't prove it. Even then, you would be firing for eye color, and not for race. So it's legal.

Imagine if you tried to sue. First question: what law are you suing under?

are you seriously suggesting that any court in the UK or the US would allow a company to fire an employee because of the colour of their eyes??

its time to back down quill

Fine...you tell me: what law is there to prohibit it?

A judge has to have an express law to make a determination. I challenge you to identify that law in the US.

by Syl Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:00 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

I think that's harsh and its limiting the people you work with and are friends with.

Should a Conservative not mix with a Labour or Lib supporter?, should a Catholic not mix with a Jew and so on.....everyone has different thoughts and beliefs.
Would a Stepford society....where no one dare have independent thought be preferable?

As long as people accept the law and don't try to push their own ideals on to others surely that's a better way to live amongst people.

its discrimination based on political affiliation and social outlook

you couldn't fire a black or a gay for being black or gay, you cant fire a person for as you say being a con if you as the CEO personally support lab

Well its not really the same thing, people are born black and their sexuality isn't a choice either....a persons viewpoint IS choice.

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:03 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

are you seriously suggesting that any court in the UK or the US would allow a company to fire an employee because of the colour of their eyes??

its time to back down quill

Fine...you tell me: what law is there to prohibit it?

A judge has to have an express law to make a determination. I challenge you to identify that law in the US.

you're judge Dredd mate

you tell me what would happen if a black man in America with green eyes got fired because of his green eyes

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:04 pm

A viewpoint is not choice... it is how you genuinely feel about something... and you can't change that...!

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:05 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

its discrimination based on political affiliation and social outlook

you couldn't fire a black or a gay for being black or gay, you cant fire a person for as you say being a con if you as the CEO personally support lab

Well its not really the same thing, people are born black and their sexuality isn't a choice either....a persons viewpoint IS choice.

no its not

every one of us is product of indoctrination.

by Original Quill Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:17 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Fine...you tell me: what law is there to prohibit it?

A judge has to have an express law to make a determination. I challenge you to identify that law in the US.

you're judge Dredd mate

you tell me what would happen if a black man in America with green eyes got fired because of his green eyes

So, you can't specify the law. I told you so.

Anglo-American jurisprudence is based upon express laws. If there isn't an express law prohibiting something, no action can be taken.

To answer your rhetorical question, if he was fired for his eye color he would not be filing a suit. Eye color is not a protected classification under Title VII, of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

by Syl Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:26 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

Well its not really the same thing, people are born black and their sexuality isn't a choice either....a persons viewpoint IS choice.

no its not

every one of us is product of indoctrination.

Opinions and viewpoints can and do change.... skin colour and sexuality cannot.
If peoples opinion didn't change we would still see notices up banning Irish and Blacks and practicing gays could be imprisoned.

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:36 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

no its not

every one of us is product of indoctrination.

Opinions and viewpoints can and do change.... skin colour and sexuality cannot.
If peoples opinion didn't change we would still see notices up banning Irish and Blacks and practicing gays could be imprisoned.

errrrrrrrrrrrrr

i refer you to my thread on "the second transracial" and sexuality can change, my cousin was a full blown lesbian in a relationship with her partner for years, now she is married to a man and has a kid.

as for for changing opinions,what you're referring to is a change in law, those opinions are still around today

would you Change your opinion on abortion if it meant losing or keeping your job??

would you change your opinion on abortion t please me??

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:46 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As seen above that is a big no, no.

by Syl Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:50 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

Opinions and viewpoints can and do change.... skin colour and sexuality cannot.
If peoples opinion didn't change we would still see notices up banning Irish and Blacks and practicing gays could be imprisoned.

errrrrrrrrrrrrr

i refer you to my thread on "the second transracial" and sexuality can change, my cousin was a full blown lesbian in a relationship with her partner for years, now she is married to a man and has a kid.

as for for changing opinions,what you're referring to is a change in law, those opinions are still around today

would you Change your opinion on abortion if it meant losing or keeping your job??

would you change your opinion on abortion t please me??

Your cousin is bi sexual. Rolling Eyes

The law changes because opinion, morals and values change.....usually laws change for the best as people evolve.
I cant think of any old defunct laws that would be welcomed back into society, can you?

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:06 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

errrrrrrrrrrrrr

i refer you to my thread on "the second transracial" and sexuality can change, my cousin was a full blown lesbian in a relationship with her partner for years, now she is married to a man and has a kid.

as for for changing opinions,what you're referring to is a change in law, those opinions are still around today

would you Change your opinion on abortion if it meant losing or keeping your job??

would you change your opinion on abortion t please me??

Your cousin is bi sexual.

The law changes because opinion, morals and values change.....usually laws change for the best as people evolve.
I cant think of any old defunct laws that would be welcomed back into society, can you?

my cousin is straight by her own admission after being gay by her own admission and im not sure its really appropriate for you to second guess her, its down right disrespectful to be honest, i don't imagine you would dare show such disrespect to a person who comes out as gay after being straight

you see?? peoples do change their sexuality.

now on opinions,would you change your opinion to please me???

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:10 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

Your cousin is bi sexual.

The law changes because opinion, morals and values change.....usually laws change for the best as people evolve.
I cant think of any old defunct laws that would be welcomed back into society, can you?

my cousin is straight by her own admission after being gay by her own admission and im not sure its really appropriate for you to second guess her, its down right disrespectful to be honest, i don't imagine you would dare show such disrespect to a person who comes out as gay after being straight

you see?? peoples do change their sexuality.

now on opinions,would you change your opinion to please me???

She was bisexual, if she is attracted to both sexes.

Its a simple fact and would argue any man that comes out gay having been with a woman is also bisexual, but prefers men.

Not disrespectful at all, just being honest to the reality here.

You cannot change your sexuality, as you cannot force yourself to be attracted to someone you are not attracted to.

by HoratioTarr Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:43 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

Your cousin is bi sexual.

The law changes because opinion, morals and values change.....usually laws change for the best as people evolve.
I cant think of any old defunct laws that would be welcomed back into society, can you?

my cousin is straight by her own admission after being gay by her own admission and im not sure its really appropriate for you to second guess her, its down right disrespectful to be honest, i don't imagine you would dare show such disrespect to a person who comes out as gay after being straight

you see?? peoples do change their sexuality.

now on opinions,would you change your opinion to please me???

So, by your standard, your cousin is mentally ill?

by Syl Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:52 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

Your cousin is bi sexual.

The law changes because opinion, morals and values change.....usually laws change for the best as people evolve.
I cant think of any old defunct laws that would be welcomed back into society, can you?

my cousin is straight by her own admission after being gay by her own admission and im not sure its really appropriate for you to second guess her, its down right disrespectful to be honest, i don't imagine you would dare show such disrespect to a person who comes out as gay after being straight

you see?? peoples do change their sexuality.

now on opinions,would you change your opinion to please me???

If a person came out as gay after being straight..(your words) he/she would be bisexual also.

Why would I want to change any of my own opinions to please you? scratch

by Ben Reilly Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:23 pm

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

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

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

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

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

'Sacked' for opposing same-sex marriage - Page 2 Geris-hilton-600

'Sacked' for opposing same-sex marriage - Page 2 Geris-hilton-600

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

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

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:28 pm

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

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

I got to know some gay people and some black people and realized I was wrong.

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

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

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

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

I agree on many points

So are you going to apply your principle of being ashamed to many Muslims or Christians that think homosexuality should be criminalized?

Now I think they are wrong and will spend my time arguing why they are wrong on this based on equality they have.

So are you going to be a bigot and fire people based on their beliefs?

You cannot change people with forcing views.

History will teach you they become accepted and they become accepted by challenging those who hold those poor beliefs.

You do not want to do that though Ben.

So you are at an impasse

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:41 pm

This is what really annoys me.

Yes like Ben, we share a trait, we were raised Catholics and I saw first hand how people can forgo love based on such religious gibberish.

There is one thing Ben does not argue off. Which I would always do so, as two cousins of mine are gay. One that is Universal love. Universal love when argued, champions anything. Sadly, leftists never know how to argue this and in the end. Argue to discriminate against the people they wish to win over. Neglecting they themselves were won over with reason themselves.

It shows they lack faith. I do not even dream I can sway all people I debate but sow the seeds of doubt in their views. In the hope they will think for themselves what is right or wrong. I hope they come to this conclusion, by what I say. If not, so be it, but I will continue to try.

What is wrong here, is that it opens up a can of worms, when people decide to discriminate on people based on views they hold. They become one with those who were and are anti-homosexual. As you then dictate what people believe. Where you will never change views that way. That is trying to force a view and not reason it.