On a scale of 1 to 10 my interest in the Australian Football League and the AFL game is around -4. However I have become more and more irritated by the AFL's insistence in deeply involving themselves in political and social matters - it is not the place of sports organisations to moralise and lecture the public they should concern themselves with matters of sport.
So I was rather pleased and amused to read in today's Age a comment made by Sam Newman on The Footy Show last night: ---- Newman told a cheering Footy Show audience that the AFL were "obsequious, fawning, sycophantic political whores" that had "no right to get involved in political messages". ----
Likewise, Quantas and other businesses should keep their noses well out of giving opinions as to what is morally right and wrong - what nonsense, a company having an opinion; did Joyce consult all 27,000 employees and obtain consensus? What about its passengers and suppliers? It makes as much sense for a company to have an opinion as it does for a brick to hold one and about the same value should be attributed to both.
Ron-D said
09:23 AM Sep 22, 2017
There takeing the high moral ground and playing the Do gooder card to the hilt,they don't live in the real world so they cannot possibly realise that there are a huge number of people out there that dont share there narrow one sided views...
-- Edited by Ron-D on Friday 22nd of September 2017 09:24:28 AM
brickies said
09:26 AM Sep 22, 2017
It's great that is dosen't on this forum .
Bryan said
09:45 AM Sep 22, 2017
I think its obvious why Alan Joyce of Qantas would be a fanatical YES voter and of course it is his right to do so but to mirror his private views on the company he controls in order to put pressure on staff and suppliers is wrong.
Izabarack said
01:07 PM Sep 22, 2017
AFL is doing no more than being consistent with a stated attitude to inclusion and equality. Good on them for doing something to show the commitment. In the same way they have told off the racist fools following the teams, they are telling those who seek to continue the discrimination based on sexuality they are out of step with mature views on equal access to the legal status of marriage.
Iza
hako said
06:16 PM Sep 22, 2017
Alan Joyce stating his views is no different to Tony Abbott or Malcolm Turnbull stating theirs. Politics has nothing to do with it. We still live in a free country (maybe not for long).
Good Luck.
The Belmont Bear said
04:59 AM Sep 23, 2017
Nothing wrong with Alan Joyce stating his own personal view he is entitled to do that the same as anyone else but what gives him the right to say that his view is representative of a company with 27000 employees. The same with the AFL did they actually have a vote to determine what the majority of their members thought - probably not. I'm neither for or against this argument I just wish it would go away, there are 2 guys with dumb haircuts threatening to blow each other up with their nuclear weapons that should be more of a concern to Australia than whether it's legal for a person to marry someone of the same sex.
You think gay people are persecuted in Australia over here in the Gulf it is sometimes difficult to get a double hotel room if a man and a women have different names in their passports. I would hate to think what they would do if same sex couples tried to check in they would probably end up with free accomodation paid for by the government.
dorian said
09:55 AM Sep 23, 2017
Mike Harding wrote:
Newman told a cheering Footy Show audience that the AFL were "obsequious, fawning, sycophantic political whores" that had "no right to get involved in political messages".
Newman was obviously expressing the views of his speech writer. His crass "humour" and puerile antics suggest that he doesn't have the intellectual capacity for such big words.
As for organisations involving themselves in politics, I don't like it either, especially when they surreptitiously influence political decisions with their donations.
-- Edited by dorian on Saturday 23rd of September 2017 10:01:04 AM
RustyD said
03:20 PM Sep 23, 2017
I would feel very uncomfortable working for a company that publicly expresses a political view on a specific subject that is opposite mine. OK for people to express as an individual but not the company. Does the boss of a major corporation ever stand up and say vote Labor or vote Liberal? It's very worrying the way the YES campaigners are belittling anyone who suggests it's OK to vote NO and calling them names, and in one instance, terminating a work contract. The YES campaigners claimed they would be victimised if the public vote went ahead. It looks like the opposite is happening.
I think Sam wrote his own speech because it did ramble on a bit. Not something a professional speech writer would produce.
rockylizard said
04:35 PM Sep 23, 2017
Gday...
I reckon everyone should just get orf the extremely emotional bandwagon of their choice/opinion .......
PLEEEEEZE ..... read this from PM targets gays in marriage law - May 27, 2004.................
If the government of the day at that time didn't conduct ANY consultation with the public in any form at that time, then all this emotive, destructive, hurtful and often vindictive c0ck-up called a non-binding Opinion Poll wouldn't have been required.
..... and agen, I include -
Fer gawd's sake ... there are three choices .... YES; NO or don't vote at all. I do beseech everyone to simply VOTE - no matter what your vote will be.
It would be a travesty if after all this angst, cost and emotion there was only a small total vote.
Cheers - John
-- Edited by rockylizard on Saturday 23rd of September 2017 04:41:36 PM
The Belmont Bear said
09:47 PM Sep 23, 2017
Thanks John for the good advice but I personally had no intention of voting in a plebiscite where no one is bound by the outcome regardless of the final tally. Thankfully I won't be given the chance anyhow as I will be in Oman for the next 6 months. Even if I was at home I would have filed my form in the bin as this topic doesn't rank on my list of top ten concerns I have about the way Australia is being governed.
Have fun voting guys at least I won't have to listen to all the whinging about how the whole thing was rigged by which ever side loses.
cheers
BB
dorian said
06:08 AM Sep 24, 2017
I'm amazed at how many people are happy to let a politician make moral judgments on their behalf. A politician (aka a "Member of the House of Representatives") should represent our views, even if they disagree with their own. Their personal opinion should only have value insofar as it represents a single vote at the ballot box, no more, no less.
As for wasting money on a plebiscite, I am outraged that this question was not included in the recent census, especially as it is being conducted by the same body. It would have cost us nothing, and we would have had an answer long ago.
rockylizard said
08:43 AM Sep 24, 2017
dorian wrote:
I'm amazed at how many people are happy to let a politician make moral judgements on their behalf. A politician (aka a "Member of the House of Representatives") should represent our views, even if they disagree with their own. Their personal opinion should only have value insofar as it represents a single vote at the ballot box, no more, no less.
As for wasting money on a plebiscite, I am outraged that this question was not included in the recent census, especially as it is being conducted by the same body. It would have cost us nothing, and we would have had an answer long ago.
Gday...
I can understand why you feel that way. However, our "elected representatives" have been making "moral judgements" on countless occasions over the decades (such as the decision John Howard took, and enacted, back in May 2004).
I shudder to think that every time a 'contentious' or 'moral' decision was needed that there would be a plebiscite or 'non-binding opinion poll'.
The 'system' is too damned lethargic now - it definitely does not need any further costly, time-wasting shirking by our "elected representatives".
If there had been someone actually providing LEADERSHIP in our "elected representatives" over the past twenty years, our country would not be in the wishy-washy state it is in today.
Cheers - John
dorian said
09:06 AM Sep 24, 2017
Technology has marched on. Today there is no reason why we cannot have an electronic plebiscite on every issue that concerns us. It would cost us very little, if anything at all. I certainly wouldn't be leaving important decisions to someone like Howard. He sent us to Iraq when 70% were against. He skittled the NT's euthanasia law when 80% of the electorate supported it.
Bryan said
11:20 AM Sep 24, 2017
My opinion (and it may be interpreted as bordering on the type of political discussion banned on here) is that the leaders of both major parties are so weak and lacking in charisma that they are afraid to make major decisions and in cases when one decides one way, the other immediately goes the other way to entice lost votes.
Unfortunately the older I get, the more cynical I become.
RustyD said
11:52 AM Sep 24, 2017
This vote seems to be all Malcolm Turnbull's fault. However, when Labor was last is power, they were very silent on the issue and had ample opportunities with the alliance with the Greens to push through the YES vote but it never happened. Governments are often quiet on a sensitive topic when in power, then as opposition suddenly become vocal saying the new government of the day is weak.
Stolen from above "Unfortunately the older I get, the more cynical I become"
PeterD said
04:23 PM Sep 24, 2017
Mike Harding wrote:
Likewise, Quantas and other businesses should keep their noses well out of giving opinions as to what is morally right and wrong - what nonsense, a company having an opinion; did Joyce consult all 27,000 employees and obtain consensus? What about its passengers and suppliers? It makes as much sense for a company to have an opinion as it does for a brick to hold one and about the same value should be attributed to both.
Why does he have to get the opinions of all his employees and passengers. He made the statement as a private citizen. Are not high flyers allowed to have a private opinion? News broadcasts may have identified that he was Qantas chief but he did not say it was a Qantas statement.
You are off the beam again. Also please learn how to spell the name of the Company.
PeterD said
04:32 PM Sep 24, 2017
RustyD wrote:
However, when Labor was last is power, they were very silent on the issue and had ample opportunities with the alliance with the Greens to push through the YES vote but it never happened.
They were smart at that time. Public opinion was not clear as to whether the great unwashed were in favour of alternate marriages. It was also doubtful if it would get through parliament at the time.
Since that time the tide of opinion has swung largely in favour in the affirmative. It was time to strike around the time Malcolm arose to power. However the big problem is Malcolm is being controlled by a handful of Neanderthals.
Mike Harding said
05:14 PM Sep 24, 2017
>PeterD wrote: Why does he have to get the opinions of all his employees >and passengers. He made the statement as a private citizen. Are not >high flyers allowed to have a private opinion? News broadcasts may >have identified that he was Qantas chief but he did not say it was a >Qantas statement.
----
Is the ABC incorrect? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-21/same-sex-marriage-alan-joyce-yes-campaign-support/8826682 "I think it is very important for our employees, customers and our shareholders, and that is why Qantas is a supporter of marriage equality and a supporter of gender equality and a supporter of Indigenous rights."
Is the Sydney Morning Herald incorrect? http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/order-of-australia-samesex-marriage-support-pays-off-for-qantas-joyce-says-20170609-gwnyv5.html "But the airline's public support of same-sex marriage has been good for business, too, he says"
Is the Q'u'antas website wrong? https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/speeches/alan-joyce-opinion-piece-from-economics-to-equality-why-companies-speak-up-on-the-big-issues/ "Thats why Qantas speaks up on gender equality. And recognising our Indigenous people. And for marriage equality."
>You are off the beam again.
It doesn't seem that way, does it?
>Also please learn how to spell the name of the Company.
It's a noun - I confess to getting it wrong.
PeterD said
11:46 PM Sep 24, 2017
Yes mike, he does say he feels it is good for the company and its employees but no where does he actually say it is official Qantas policy. You are reading too much into the press reports.
The above webpage is displaying the Qantas logo. Are you suggesting
they are doing so without the permission of Qantas?
PeterD said
10:16 AM Sep 25, 2017
You are quoting older documents, the first dates from 2015. I still do not see where he is actually quoting actual Qantas press releases or policy released since the current plebiscite commenced.
If you are going to steer clear all those in the second link you are not leaving yourself much choice to purchase are you.
I still maintain that Alan has the right to participate in the campaigning with his current personal comments.
rockylizard said
10:46 AM Sep 25, 2017
Gday...
Pete - Mr Harding's 2nd link shows that there are 765 organisations that have contributed an 'open letter of support' on the Marriage Equality site - one of which is QANTAS - and I would bet London to a brick (as they say) that not one of those 765 conducted an opinion poll of their staff/shareholders/customers ... let alone denigrate any of their staff/shareholders/customers for not having the same view of the 'corporate opinion'.
But, hey, like most info posted on forums, it is selective bits of collaborating evidence that is quoted. Try not to worry about it.
If the Marriage Equality Site link provided by Mr Harding is visited and read, it makes one wonder why it seems only QANTAS and AFL are getting the rather off-colour prawn here.
I snipped this from that web site - but feel free to visit the site to see the organisations, individuals and others who have opted to voice their opinion/support ...
Let all have their opinion and so be it - that is what makes Straya great - freedom of choice/speech etc.
As I have said previously, given this government has decided to use our money to run the 'non-binding opinion poll' PLEEEZE make sure you VOTE ... how you vote doesn't matter to me one iota ....... BUT make sure you send it back and be counted.
It would be a travesty if only a small total of the eligible population voted, providing a result that would not be truly representative of the people.
Cheers - John
-- Edited by rockylizard on Monday 25th of September 2017 10:50:21 AM
rockylizard said
11:06 AM Sep 25, 2017
Gday...
Just for interest ... and perhaps balance ... this is the CURRENT law regarding exemptions to the Anti-discrimination Law pertaining to religious organisations/bodies.
It is disappointing that those advocating the NO case and stressing the 'possible impact' on their organisations "free speech/choice" fail to be reminded of these exemptions that are currently in law as their 'protection'.
Read the above site ... or just read this I have taken from that site (the underlining is mine) -
Religious exceptions
Religious bodies and religious schools can discriminate against a person on the basis of a personal characteristic in certain circumstances that include:
ordinating or appointing priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order
training or educating people seeking ordination or appointment as priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order
selecting or appointing people to perform functions relating to, or participating in, any religious observance or practice.
Religious bodies and religious schools can discriminate on the basis of a persons religious belief or activity, sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity where the discrimination conforms to the doctrines, beliefs or principles of the religion or is reasonably necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of people who follow the religion.
However, religious bodies and religious schools cannot discriminate on the grounds of race, disability, age, physical features, industrial or employment activity, carer status, political belief or activity, pregnancy, breastfeeding or on the basis of a personal association with a person with any protected characteristic.
Religious bodies and religious schools can also allow a person to discriminate against another person on the grounds of the person's religious belief or activity, sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity if the discrimination is reasonably necessary for the first person to comply with the doctrines, beliefs or principles of their religion.
The term reasonably necessary requires an objective assessment of whether the discrimination is necessary.
Cheers - John
PeterD said
12:33 PM Sep 25, 2017
rockylizard wrote:
Gday...
Pete - Mr Harding's 2nd link shows that there are 765 organisations that have contributed an 'open letter of support' on the Marriage Equality site - one of which is QANTAS - and I would bet London to a brick (as they say) that not one of those 765 conducted an opinion poll of their staff/shareholders/customers ... let alone denigrate any of their staff/shareholders/customers for not having the same view of the 'corporate opinion'.
It's not me that's getting hung up on this. I did not start the thread. It's Harding that saying that the first quotes he gave were Qantas pushing the yes barrow during the plebiscite period. I just keep reminding him that I believe there is nothing to support his claims. Everything I have seen from Alan lately is him expressing his personal views. Hading seems to be trying to convince me I should change my mind.
brickies said
12:39 PM Sep 25, 2017
I am sure if Qantas wanted to support anybody cause they would be happy to receive it , Qantas are returning great profits so I am sure they know who their supporters are and they are not Grey Nomads who sit around a camp fire at a free camp .
jules47 said
01:02 PM Sep 25, 2017
How about a bit of CHILLIN' guys - getting a bit personal here - each and every one of us is entitled to his or her own opinion - and if an employer of mine tried to "convince" me that I should vote his way - I would no longer work for him.
Personal choice is what our life should be all about - not intimidation.
The Belmont Bear said
03:33 PM Sep 25, 2017
Sorry John not saying that you're wrong but I have the opposite view to you on participation in this plebiscite. From what I gather the majority of people whether for, against or fence sitters (like myself) think that it is both a waste of time and tax payers money. Maybe if they did only get a handful of respondents they would reconsider doing this sort of thing again but then I am assuming politicians have some common sense and thats not really standing out on either side of the house..
Peter I also think Alan Joyce was speaking on the behalf of Qantas as a company not voicing his own personal opinion, maybe it wasn't intended that way but that's the way I took his comments. Companies need to be careful supporting either side of this argument as they place themselves in danger of losing customers from the other side of the debate - IMHO it would'd make better business sense to just stay out of it completely.
-- Edited by The Belmont Bear on Monday 25th of September 2017 03:35:46 PM
rockylizard said
05:01 PM Sep 25, 2017
The Belmont Bear wrote:
SNIP~~~From what I gather the majority of people whether for, against or fence sitters (like myself) think that it is both a waste of time and tax payers money. Maybe if they did only get a handful of respondents they would reconsider doing this sort of thing again ~~~SNIP
Gday...
We are in agreement on the worth of this "non-binding opinion poll".
However, let's play a game ...
only 49% of the population responds;
49% of those returns are for YES and 47% are for NO - with 4% informal/invalid.
Many of the pollies will take that as insufficient to 'prove' that the 'survey' should become 'binding' on them ... and the legislation, if introduced, will be lost on their vote.
Rather than make them 'reconsider' this sort of time and money wasting invective it is more likely something they may use again as a way to avoid a decision.
EVERYONE should vote ... no matter what your opinion or positive is.
Cheers - John
Bryan said
05:48 PM Sep 25, 2017
I agree with you John.
My vote is done, ready to drop in the post box tomorrow.
On a scale of 1 to 10 my interest in the Australian Football League and the AFL game is around -4. However I have become more and more irritated by the AFL's insistence in deeply involving themselves in political and social matters - it is not the place of sports organisations to moralise and lecture the public they should concern themselves with matters of sport.
So I was rather pleased and amused to read in today's Age a comment made by Sam Newman on The Footy Show last night:
----
Newman told a cheering Footy Show audience that the AFL were
"obsequious, fawning, sycophantic political whores" that had "no
right to get involved in political messages".
----
Likewise, Quantas and other businesses should keep their noses well out of giving opinions as to what is morally right and wrong - what nonsense, a company having an opinion; did Joyce consult all 27,000 employees and obtain consensus? What about its passengers and suppliers? It makes as much sense for a company to have an opinion as it does for a brick to hold one and about the same value should be attributed to both.
There takeing the high moral ground and playing the Do gooder card to the hilt,they don't live in the real world so they cannot possibly realise that there are a huge number of people out there that dont share there narrow one sided views...
-- Edited by Ron-D on Friday 22nd of September 2017 09:24:28 AM
I think its obvious why Alan Joyce of Qantas would be a fanatical YES voter and of course it is his right to do so but to mirror his private views on the company he controls in order to put pressure on staff and suppliers is wrong.
Iza
Good Luck.
You think gay people are persecuted in Australia over here in the Gulf it is sometimes difficult to get a double hotel room if a man and a women have different names in their passports. I would hate to think what they would do if same sex couples tried to check in they would probably end up with free accomodation paid for by the government.
Newman was obviously expressing the views of his speech writer. His crass "humour" and puerile antics suggest that he doesn't have the intellectual capacity for such big words.
As for organisations involving themselves in politics, I don't like it either, especially when they surreptitiously influence political decisions with their donations.
-- Edited by dorian on Saturday 23rd of September 2017 10:01:04 AM
I think Sam wrote his own speech because it did ramble on a bit. Not something a professional speech writer would produce.
Gday...
I reckon everyone should just get orf the extremely emotional bandwagon of their choice/opinion .......
PLEEEEEZE ..... read this from PM targets gays in marriage law - May 27, 2004.................
How it all began
If the government of the day at that time didn't conduct ANY consultation with the public in any form at that time, then all this emotive, destructive, hurtful and often vindictive c0ck-up called a non-binding Opinion Poll wouldn't have been required.
..... and agen, I include -
Fer gawd's sake ... there are three choices .... YES; NO or don't vote at all. I do beseech everyone to simply VOTE - no matter what your vote will be.
It would be a travesty if after all this angst, cost and emotion there was only a small total vote.
Cheers - John
-- Edited by rockylizard on Saturday 23rd of September 2017 04:41:36 PM
Have fun voting guys at least I won't have to listen to all the whinging about how the whole thing was rigged by which ever side loses.
cheers
BB
As for wasting money on a plebiscite, I am outraged that this question was not included in the recent census, especially as it is being conducted by the same body. It would have cost us nothing, and we would have had an answer long ago.
Gday...
I can understand why you feel that way. However, our "elected representatives" have been making "moral judgements" on countless occasions over the decades (such as the decision John Howard took, and enacted, back in May 2004).
I shudder to think that every time a 'contentious' or 'moral' decision was needed that there would be a plebiscite or 'non-binding opinion poll'.
The 'system' is too damned lethargic now - it definitely does not need any further costly, time-wasting shirking by our "elected representatives".
If there had been someone actually providing LEADERSHIP in our "elected representatives" over the past twenty years, our country would not be in the wishy-washy state it is in today.
Cheers - John
My opinion (and it may be interpreted as bordering on the type of political discussion banned on here) is that the leaders of both major parties are so weak and lacking in charisma that they are afraid to make major decisions and in cases when one decides one way, the other immediately goes the other way to entice lost votes.
Unfortunately the older I get, the more cynical I become.
Stolen from above "Unfortunately the older I get, the more cynical I become"
Why does he have to get the opinions of all his employees and passengers. He made the statement as a private citizen. Are not high flyers allowed to have a private opinion? News broadcasts may have identified that he was Qantas chief but he did not say it was a Qantas statement.
You are off the beam again. Also please learn how to spell the name of the Company.
They were smart at that time. Public opinion was not clear as to whether the great unwashed were in favour of alternate marriages. It was also doubtful if it would get through parliament at the time.
Since that time the tide of opinion has swung largely in favour in the affirmative. It was time to strike around the time Malcolm arose to power. However the big problem is Malcolm is being controlled by a handful of Neanderthals.
>PeterD wrote: Why does he have to get the opinions of all his employees
>and passengers. He made the statement as a private citizen. Are not
>high flyers allowed to have a private opinion? News broadcasts may
>have identified that he was Qantas chief but he did not say it was a
>Qantas statement.
----
Is the ABC incorrect?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-21/same-sex-marriage-alan-joyce-yes-campaign-support/8826682
"I think it is very important for our employees, customers and our
shareholders, and that is why Qantas is a supporter of marriage
equality and a supporter of gender equality and a supporter of
Indigenous rights."
Is the Sydney Morning Herald incorrect?
http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/order-of-australia-samesex-marriage-support-pays-off-for-qantas-joyce-says-20170609-gwnyv5.html
"But the airline's public support of same-sex marriage has been good
for business, too, he says"
Is the Q'u'antas website wrong?
https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/speeches/alan-joyce-opinion-piece-from-economics-to-equality-why-companies-speak-up-on-the-big-issues/
"Thats why Qantas speaks up on gender equality. And recognising our
Indigenous people. And for marriage equality."
>You are off the beam again.
It doesn't seem that way, does it?
>Also please learn how to spell the name of the Company.
It's a noun - I confess to getting it wrong.
I'm not sure how much evidence you need Peter:
http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/investors/2015AnnualReview.pdf
Page 29
----
"This includes a new partnership with the Sydney Mardi Gras and
Qantas support for the campaign for marriage equality in Australia"
----
The above is a formal document written and issued by Qantas and
residing on their website.
http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/open-letter-of-support/
The above webpage is displaying the Qantas logo. Are you suggesting
they are doing so without the permission of Qantas?
If you are going to steer clear all those in the second link you are not leaving yourself much choice to purchase are you.
I still maintain that Alan has the right to participate in the campaigning with his current personal comments.
Gday...
Pete - Mr Harding's 2nd link shows that there are 765 organisations that have contributed an 'open letter of support' on the Marriage Equality site - one of which is QANTAS - and I would bet London to a brick (as they say) that not one of those 765 conducted an opinion poll of their staff/shareholders/customers ... let alone denigrate any of their staff/shareholders/customers for not having the same view of the 'corporate opinion'.
But, hey,
like most info posted on forums, it is selective bits of collaborating evidence that is quoted. Try not to worry about it.
If the Marriage Equality Site link provided by Mr Harding is visited and read, it makes one wonder why it seems only QANTAS and AFL are getting the rather off-colour prawn here.
I snipped this from that web site - but feel free to visit the site to see the organisations, individuals and others who have opted to voice their opinion/support ...
Let all have their opinion and so be it - that is what makes Straya great - freedom of choice/speech etc.
As I have said previously, given this government has decided to use our money to run the 'non-binding opinion poll' PLEEEZE make sure you VOTE ... how you vote doesn't matter to me one iota ....... BUT make sure you send it back and be counted.
It would be a travesty if only a small total of the eligible population voted, providing a result that would not be truly representative of the people.
Cheers - John
-- Edited by rockylizard on Monday 25th of September 2017 10:50:21 AM
Gday...
Just for interest ... and perhaps balance ... this is the CURRENT law regarding exemptions to the Anti-discrimination Law pertaining to religious organisations/bodies.
It is disappointing that those advocating the NO case and stressing the 'possible impact' on their organisations "free speech/choice" fail to be reminded of these exemptions that are currently in law as their 'protection'.
Human Rights Commission Exceptions
Read the above site ... or just read this I have taken from that site (the underlining is mine) -
Religious exceptions
Religious bodies and religious schools can discriminate against a person on the basis of a personal characteristic in certain circumstances that include:
Religious bodies and religious schools can discriminate on the basis of a persons religious belief or activity, sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity where the discrimination conforms to the doctrines, beliefs or principles of the religion or is reasonably necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of people who follow the religion.
However, religious bodies and religious schools cannot discriminate on the grounds of race, disability, age, physical features, industrial or employment activity, carer status, political belief or activity, pregnancy, breastfeeding or on the basis of a personal association with a person with any protected characteristic.
Religious bodies and religious schools can also allow a person to discriminate against another person on the grounds of the person's religious belief or activity, sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity if the discrimination is reasonably necessary for the first person to comply with the doctrines, beliefs or principles of their religion.
The term reasonably necessary requires an objective assessment of whether the discrimination is necessary.
Cheers - John
It's not me that's getting hung up on this. I did not start the thread. It's Harding that saying that the first quotes he gave were Qantas pushing the yes barrow during the plebiscite period. I just keep reminding him that I believe there is nothing to support his claims. Everything I have seen from Alan lately is him expressing his personal views. Hading seems to be trying to convince me I should change my mind.
Personal choice is what our life should be all about - not intimidation.
Sorry John not saying that you're wrong but I have the opposite view to you on participation in this plebiscite. From what I gather the majority of people whether for, against or fence sitters (like myself) think that it is both a waste of time and tax payers money. Maybe if they did only get a handful of respondents they would reconsider doing this sort of thing again but then I am assuming politicians have some common sense and thats not really standing out on either side of the house..
Peter I also think Alan Joyce was speaking on the behalf of Qantas as a company not voicing his own personal opinion, maybe it wasn't intended that way but that's the way I took his comments. Companies need to be careful supporting either side of this argument as they place themselves in danger of losing customers from the other side of the debate - IMHO it would'd make better business sense to just stay out of it completely.
-- Edited by The Belmont Bear on Monday 25th of September 2017 03:35:46 PM
Gday...
We are in agreement on the worth of this "non-binding opinion poll".
However, let's play a game ...
Many of the pollies will take that as insufficient to 'prove' that the 'survey' should become 'binding' on them ... and the legislation, if introduced, will be lost on their vote.
Rather than make them 'reconsider' this sort of time and money wasting invective it is more likely something they may use again as a way to avoid a decision.
EVERYONE should vote ... no matter what your opinion or positive is.
Cheers - John
I agree with you John.
My vote is done, ready to drop in the post box tomorrow.