SR,

You are right, it would appear that Madeline is a contractor which limits her rights. As for the employee benefits, it makes it possible to write off expenses against tax, which probably doesn't help for a 18yr old, but in my time as a contractor, it significantly reduced the tax I paid.

If Madlin had simply not continued to use Madeline and restrained her impulse to virtue signal to the world and vilify Madeline, this would be a non-issue. I heard that in the ACT, that even terminating a contractor based on religious discrimination is an offence.

With respect to Madeline's views, If Madeline had claimed that Madlin Sims was a danger to children because of her views on Facebook, that would be equivalent. However, Madeline saying in an interview that she has concerns for the children of SSM is both after the fact and not even in the same ballpark.

It has been legal for gays to adopt for more than a decade under laws introduced by Howard. As for the other employees are you saying that their difference in political opinion is a cause for termination?

"When the AFL says they support SSM what exactly are they doing?"

Usually, such statements result from an approach being made the for CEO or organisation. The easiest course is taken, otherwise there will be the continuing nuisance likely with serial nags and activists involved, and escalating allegations might even be made. 'Outing' as being 'opposed', where an attempt to sit on the fence is twisted, construed to be opposition or lack of 'sensitivity'.

To take an example, an environmentally conscious' person living near a public park approached the City Council complaining that mowed clippings were being removed from the park and being 'dumped'. She recommended that instead, the clippings be placed around the trunks of trees to 'save' water.

While the clippings were in fact already being used for central composting and used elsewhere and placement of the clippings around the trucks of trees encouraged collar rot (if the brush turkeys left it there), town and city Councils routinely comply with the request. Because to do otherwise wastes hundreds of hours dealing with the repeated complaints and escalation that ensues.

There are many other examples where the squeaky wheel gets the oil. There always were serial complainers. Twitter is ready made for whiners with little to occupy themselves, who get a buzz out of making 'authority' genuflect. That gives the whiners and activist types a feeling of power.

leoj:

That is a good point in which case CEO's should say to 'activists' that it is inappropriate for them to try and emotionally manipulate their followers one way or the other.

Also the organisation does not need to have an opinion since the organisation does not have the right to vote.

phanto,

Also it is a sign of the times that some people, CEOs included but more often fading actresses and wannabes, virtue signal for personal publicity. People wake up to that in time.

Talking about the local netball club right through to major corporations, public embarrassment (deserved or otherwise) can undo the good work over years by many.

To top it off, there is the finding by social psychology that even where a false claim is corrected soon after, the original wrong persists in the mind of those exposed to it and worse, the public correction can increase, cement, the false claim. Activists and propagandists know that. So of course do the social psychologists who are sometimes too willing to put their professional ethics at risk by aiding with suggestions for 'nudges' and so on where they themselves believe a social change is for the 'good'.

Sadly, the ABC often descends to using Twitter comment to sensationalise and provoke a reaction and it has been doing that for years. It doesn't always see a need to get a balancing view, despite its claims to be doing that. But what does (say) the head of the transport department do where the hack journo (speaking of most!) lobs a whinge grenade from some activist with a beaut title who has everything twisted up? What response is possible in seconds of TV video grab, where the reporter is likely talking over the reply, dubbed later?

The best we can hope for is achieved by protecting freedom of speech. But it is a hard fight.

Paul1405 - Quote "Steele makes a valid point about the Catholic Church and taxpayer funding."

Correct me if I am wrong but the stadiums that the AFL play in were built by public money or are given tax breaks etc as well as the clubs themselves.

There is a lot of public money going into sports organizations in one way or another.

Shadow, Australia is a secular society, with authority over marriage vested in the hands of the Federal Government. Any person so licenced by the state to perform a marriage ceremony should be required to act in accordance with the law. Any person who feels that with their conscience being as it is, they cannot act within that law, they should voluntarily surrender their licence, failure to do so should see them stripped of their authority. That should apply to secular marriage celebrants, as well as the religious kind.
That has nothing to do with religious freedom, but much to do with the law.
Any unlicensed person can conduct a "marriage" ceremony, no laws involved. However it will not be recognized by the state, unless the participants go down to the Registry Office and go through the appropriate state required process to register their marriage.

What is disgusting is the misleading advertising by the "No" Campaign, linking SSM to the nonsense that their will be some hellish forced sexual orientation realignment of children in schools. The "No" Campaign with that lie, is pathetic in the extreme.