Dear phanto,

I think you are attempting to stretch this into something it isn't my friend.

As you say the AFL is not contending those who might vote no are not to be employed within the organisation, the Catholic church however is pretty much taking a stance against employees would would be inclined to vote yes.

You say;

“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”

The gay community is being excluded from the institution of marriage and the AFL, which is independent of government, is perfectly within its ethos or self described mandate to support its inclusion within the wider community.

But the clincher for me is the fact that many positions within the Catholic school and health systems are almost wholly funded by the wider taxpayers of Australia. Why on earth are they getting to dictate acceptable views within those positions to such an extent?

You seem to be struggling with the distinction.

SR,

You said:

"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?"

There is a huge difference, one is a concept (which there is not a jot to suggest that Madeline gave voice to), and one is a direct attack on a singular person, (which is in writing) and unless correct is defamation. That Madlin left little to no doubt about whom she was writing, it will be difficult to dodge that bullet.

Secondly, to be an independent contractor Madeline would have to meet some strict criteria such as having an ABN and submitting invoices for work completed, which as a 18yr old is unlikely:

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-guides/fact-sheets/rights-and-obligations/independent-contractors-and-employees#employeecontractor

Thirdly, the "it's ok to vote No" filter on her profile pic had a short window and was gone before Madeline was fired, and Madlin's anger when she discovered Madeline's views is a strong indicator that the subject was not discussed before.

Fourthly, the issue of the Catholic church is a red herring, as I have yet to see one person fired for advocating a for a yes vote.

Finally, if it does go to court, what is written is gold and hearsay (which makes up most of your argument) is worthless.

Steele makes a valid point about the Catholic Church and taxpayer funding. The threat made to employees by the bigoted bishops, see Foxy's post, should not be tolerated. If the Marriage Act is changed to accommodate SSM, and I confidently expect that will be the case in the not too distant future. Those so licenced by the state to officiate at marriage ceremonies, be they secular or religious, but attempt to discriminate in violation of the law, on the grounds of sexual orientation, should have their authority to perform marriage ceremonies terminated. If that be the case, I expect some bigoted clergy to be in for a rough ride, starting with that bunch or moronic bishops.

Oh! the joys of being a Catholic.

Paul, Foxy,

Public servants can be fired for publically voicing political views, this is because the very nature of the public service requires it to be non-partisan, and employees contracts are very specific in this. However, contractors to the public service are not so constrained.

Similarly, the Catholic church is very specific in its employment terms that employees need to demonstrate Catholic values, but so far I don't believe that there is a single case of anyone being fired for advocating a Yes vote or for SSM, so this is a moot point.

There is no indication that Madlin Sims terms of employment prohibited "No" advocacy, and as the "it's ok to vote no" slogan had been removed by the time she was fired, it appears that Madeline was fired for her political opinion.

As for the wedding cancellation, I personally think that it was going too far, but having grown up Presbyterian, I know that they take their doctrinal preparation for marriage very seriously (which is why I didn't get married in the Presbyterian Church). However, the fact that at the cancellation took place nearly 4 months before the wedding would not have put the couple out of pocket.

Paul, your threat to remove the protections on religion is exactly the type of bigotry that the No campaign is warning against.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Look I think the whole 'contractor' / 'employee' setup which so many small businesses now use to handball their obligations is a complete crock. It is free market, anti-union driven scam. It is very pervasive especially around casual labour of younger people. But it is thoroughly supported by your side of politics so for the moment we have to live with it.

I am heartened to hear you thought it was implausible in this situation. Perhaps you see the injustice of make a young person jump through these hoops just to work at the odd party for the employer and I couldn't agree more.

However in this case the employer stated “She provided a service, sent an invoice, and we paid it”
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/boss-fires-worker-over-same-sex-marriage-views/8961658

I am kind of tickled by the fact that in almost any other circumstance you would be defending the employer's rights to the hilt. Why do you imagine this might be different?

You wrote;
“There is a huge difference, one is a concept (which there is not a jot to suggest that Madeline gave voice to), and one is a direct attack on a singular person”.

Not quite. From the article;
“She also said her views was based on concern for children - similar to the arguments in the Coalition for Marriage's 'Vote No' TV ads, she said same-sex marriage would lead to more 'Safe Schools' sex ed programs. She said it would "change the way things are done in school" and "the way kids are adopted into same-sex families." “

Given the business employed members from the gay community why wouldn't they feel directly implicated by her views especially given the fact that gay couples can adopt children now.

Steele:

What does it really mean to ‘support’ SSM? SSM should come about because it is reasonable that it should. Arguments should be put forth from both sides and the most logical arguments should determine what action is to be taken.

People should not be swayed by anything other than logical arguments. When the AFL says they support SSM what exactly are they doing? Are they trying to get people to vote for SSM because they like footy? What new arguments does the AFL bring to the table that have not already been aired? Do they have special insights or information that makes their opinions more valuable than the average footy fan? Why would they say they support SSM unless they were somehow trying to manipulate the outcome by appealing to the loyalty of AFL fans? “If you really love your footy then you will agree with us about SSM”.

This would be of little comfort to same-sex couples who want SSM because it is reasonable. What value is there in having the support of people because they follow footy?

Unless they have something to add to the arguments in favour of SSM then there is no good reason why any business needs to express an opinion. Again there is little comfort for same-sex couples in knowing that the AFL agrees with them. They want real people to agree with them and not inhuman organisations. The AFL will not be a participant in the postal survey so who cares what they think.

As for the Catholic Church they have specific arguments which are unique to their position. They are trying to protect their position and the position held by most of their members. It is reasonable for them to oppose SSM to protect what they see as their interests. The AFL has no interests in the outcome of the SSM debate. Footy will continue exactly the same whatever the outcome.