Philip S:

It is bullying and intimidation by any other name. When people fear for their jobs because they do not have the same opinions as the organisation about issues which are peripheral to the reason for that organisation's existence then it is a bad look for that organisation.

There is no need for them to take a stance one way or the other. They arrogantly proclaim 'leadership' entitlements which no one has given them. The rest of society does not need 'leadership' and are quite capable of making a decision based on the arguments presented.

Same-sex couples should distance themselves from these organisations who seem to trade on implied threats. If the YES case is strong enough then it does not need to align itself with these kinds of tactics.

SR,

To frame the context, I voted yes because I don't believe that government should determine people's relationships. However, I believe that this is a clear case of bullying and defamation.

In Madlin's Facebook page, her reasons for firing Madeline were solely based on the "it's OK to say No" filter that Madeline added to her profile pic meant that she was a homophobe and a danger to children.

According to Madeline that the filter she added to her profile pic was the only comment that she had on the issue and had no obvious links to Canberra kids parties. Neither had she discussed SSM or homosexuality with her boss.

It is clear that Madlin Sims has gone way past inappropriate and has landed herself in a legal pickle if Madeline chooses to sue.

SM Correct. If the comments were intended as her personal view then the employer is at fault. If on the other hand the comments in some way led back to the employers site and appeared to give the perception that the employer was on her side as well, then the employee was at fault.

Forget yes or no to SSM, I think the person doing the firing is going to find herself coughing up big bikkies when she is taken to court on 'wrongful dismissal' charges. The fallout from this ridiculous attempt to change the Marriage Act will be horrendous and very bitter, irrespective of the result.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I think there are a number of questions that need to be answered especially around the facebook page.

Under what circumstances was the employer accessing Madeline's facebook page. Was it a prerequisite of employment? Was it part of an employee profile? Or was it simply because Madeline was a friend of her brother so facebook linkages would mean those accessing his fb page also meant accessing hers?

The fact that she was asked to take it down the offending filter, extensibility as a condition of continued employment, yet refused to do so does put some of the onus back on her don't you think?

I have let employees go because of their attitude toward the opposite sex. If it was raised in a court of law I probably would have had a hard time showing convincing evidence that my actions were justified.

Further I think the Catholic Church, which accepts billions of dollars of taxpayer's money, should probably be held to a higher standard than a private employee. Don't you?

Anyway I do not think the employee Madeline has any recourse for unfair dismissal as she was obviously a contractor. Religious discrimination is a maybe. Defamation? Unlikely given that she wasn't named in any of the employer's public posts.

You wrote;

“Neither had she discussed SSM or homosexuality with her boss.” That is not clear however she did have a long conversation about her views with the boss's brother.

Finally I find little difference between the employee claiming SSM will mean a risk to children and the boss claiming the same for her. Do you see any?

Steele:

“Do you think that would extend to those within the Catholic system that Foxy referred to?”

When people apply for work in the Catholic Church they are asked quite openly whether they are prepared to support the Catholic ‘ethos’. Either you agree or you don’t and that would determine whether you are considered for the job. SSM is clearly not part of the Catholic ethos.

Is it part of the AFL’s ethos? They claim they are about inclusivity and good for them but inclusivity means that you allow all people to be involved in AFL. Anyone who excludes people from being involved in AFL should be punished for not upholding the company ethos. Voting NO does not exclude anyone from being involved in AFL. It is a personal opinion held by employees about a situation which has nothing to do with the ethos of the AFL.

This is the problem with these organisations. They seek to control situations which are outside their stated responsibility. It is up to the AFL to protect inclusivity. It is not up to them to dictate or seek to influence what the marriage law should be.