Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[The DoggFather]

I was in a conversation about the SSM vote at work and a single white male (who also hates the bulldogs )went all feral and ballistic on me because I said I was voting no.. Told me I was a bigot and that there is no good reason to obstruct people's rights to get married apart from pure hatred and bigotry.. He then left , went for a smoke came back and apologised profusely..

Surprise surprise went at me again after I egged him on with a mock convo lol

I just play games with people and say I'm voting the opposite way they are for shits and giggles.

I was thinking of using a hidden camera and making a mockumentary to show how fucking stupid both sides are lol

 

[Wolfmother]

I just play games with people and say I'm voting the opposite way they are for shits and giggles.

I was thinking of using a hidden camera and making a mockumentary to show how fucking stupid both sides are lol

Haha would be some very angry reactions.. These avangelistic yes voters are highly strung people and get easily rev'd up..
I can't help myself sometimes hehe

 

[Indiandog]

I respect both of you and you are entitled to your own opinions but the hidden hand is sitting back laughing at us because we are doing exactly what they planned us to do.

Divide and conquer.

exactly , fucken useless time wasting arguments. it is going to achieve didly squat even if you "win" the argument over here.

I guess it took me ages to figure that out myself after debating with Papa het endlessly for hours and hours and days and wasting my precious years chasing stupid cyber space glory

but when it comes to 911 attacks and twin towers collapse, it is a different story. lol

 

[Dingo]

Its okay to vote No.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Just to elaborate on what i was trying to get at before, lets use this children's party contractor as an example. Employee fired because of their personal beliefs (*disclaimer i am not a lawyer lol):

*Contractor for a local business: Local business most likely ok due to the contractor thing.
*Full/part time employee for a local business or even large company: business/company in the shit for discrimination.
*Full/part time employee for a religious institution(e.g a school): Religious institution covered by religious freedom laws.

Like in all three cases the employee has done the exact same thing yet there are vastly different outcomes.

That's true but there is one key part to remember.

While the contractor is technically a contractor and the person employing her can fire cease the contract without reason, if the person says that she ceased the contract for discriminatory reasons then it's still considered unfair dismissal. Similar to a person refusing to hire someone 'cause they're gay.

But here's where it falls through for the contractor. The contractor linked her personal profile with the business. Every contract mentions acting as an agent of the business while representing the business. Posting something that potentially brings the business into disrepute automatically cancels the contract and any protections.

 

[Dawgfather]

That's true but there is one key part to remember.

While the contractor is technically a contractor and the person employing her can fire cease the contract without reason, if the person says that she ceased the contract for discriminatory reasons then it's still considered unfair dismissal. Similar to a person refusing to hire someone 'cause they're gay.

But here's where it falls through for the contractor. The contractor linked her personal profile with the business. Every contract mentions acting as an agent of the business while representing the business. Posting something that potentially brings the business into disrepute automatically cancels the contract and any protections.

Voting no on a federal survey does nothing to bring a business into disrepute.

Judging from what I've seen across multiple news shows media over the last couple of day, the consensus across most 'legal experts' they've had on is that she can sue for unfair dismissal and defamation.

I also heard she would be able to raise a claim under the new laws George Brandis brought in for this SSM survey and she would have a very strong case under that also.

The issue is, it seems this poor young girl is not a f*cktard like most Yes voters are and doesn't want the notoriety and her name splashed about everywhere.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

But here's where it gets even more complicated. The business owner must give the contractor a chance to rectify her mistake. The business owner is saying that they approached the contractor and the contractor refused to remove the post and went on a homophobic rant.

The contractor is saying that the business owner messaged her once then blocked her giving her no chance to rectify the issue.

So it's she said/she said. But the contractor made one crucial error. When the news story broke the contractor jumped on posts and article about it and started ranting about how gays shouldn't be allowed to marry and how Australian belongs to the whites. She basically destroyed any credibility she had when she posted this stuff.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Voting no on a federal survey does nothing to bring a business into disrepute.

Judging from what I've seen across multiple news shows media over the last couple of day, the consensus across most 'legal experts' they've had on is that she can sue for unfair dismissal and defamation.

I also heard she would be able to raise a claim under the new laws George Brandis brought in for this SSM survey and she would have a very strong case under that also.

The issue is, it seems this poor young girl is not a f*cktard like most Yes voters are and doesn't want the notoriety and her name splashed about everywhere.

The legal wording on contracts really doesn't leave any room for error. It basically says "anything that could potentially offend a customer". It can be overruled by workplace laws though and it's not hut and miss. It has the potential to spend a fair amount of time in court.

 

[Dawgfather]

I think this is partly why the SSM Yes campaign is always in your face and appearing to be 'everywhere' but the No campaign not so much.

The Yes campaign (I'm generalising in a big way here), appear to often be feral, activists, loud, obnoxious, rude and will do anything to make a scene.

The No campaign (again generalising) appear to be more likely to just state their opinion in a relatively calm way and generally want to avoid the spotlight because of the 5hitfight they have to deal with if they rub a Yes campaigner the wrong way.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I think this is partly why the SSM Yes campaign is always in your face and appearing to be 'everywhere' but the No campaign not so much.

The Yes campaign (I'm generalising in a big way here), appear to often be feral, activists, loud, obnoxious, rude and will do anything to make a scene.

The No campaign (again generalising) appear to be more likely to just state their opinion in a relatively calm way and generally want to avoid the spotlight because of the 5hitfight they have to deal with if they rub a Yes campaigner the wrong way.

It all depends on which news websites you visit. For example, if you visit Daily Telegraph you just see articles about Yes voters causing violence and trashing things. If you visit the Guardian then you see articles about No voters wearing swastikas and trashing things.

Fact is that there's bad seeds on both sides of it, but the majority of yes and no voters are reasonable people.

 

[JayBee]

It all depends on which news websites you visit. For example, if you visit Daily Telegraph you just see articles about Yes voters causing violence and trashing things. If you visit the Guardian then you see articles about No voters wearing swastikas and trashing things.

Fact is that there's bad seeds on both sides of it, but the majority of yes and no voters are reasonable people.

I don't say No voters wasting perfectly good Hummus!

That shit should be illegal

 

[Hacky McAxe]

It could of been a non-issue if they used business logic. They could of said they are booked or overprice the service.

Like I said, it's like they are scared the money will give them the gay or something.

We've been hit by that. My Mrs works in child care and she has a disability that prevents her from doing certain things. She can do literally 99% of the tasks, there's just some tasks that they want done one way but she has to do it another, slower way due to her disability.

She was working for one child care centre for a few months. She was asked to do something she couldn't do and she said that she couldn't do it because of her disability but would try do it another way. The next day the manager called her in and said that she's been sacked. She said "Is this 'cause I couldn't do my tasks due to my disability". The manager said "No, no, no. Nothing to do with your disability. Your attitude has changed and we're not happy with your attitude". She told the other staff while leaving and they kicked up a massive stink saying that she was the hardest worker there. Some of them threatening to walk off the job if the boss didn't retain her. But she left quietly.

I told her to take it to the workplace ombudsmen but she didn't want to. I talked to a friend who works for the workplace ombudsmen and he said that she definitely has a case but she didn't want to push it any further.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

1. I'm not Catholic so I can't comment on them.
2. Bolt is just another MSM shit talker and have no respect for anyone involved in the MSM
3. ALL fucking sides are hypocritical to further their agenda

I've made my agenda clear. I hate the government and don't give a fuck who wins because it's got nothing to do with me and it's a waste of time and money and it's just another tool to keep the sheep divided.

My agenda is to protect my family and my faith.

Sounds like you should be a Libertarian or an Anarchist. Both pushing to get rid of the government.

 

[Dawgfather]

It all depends on which news websites you visit. For example, if you visit Daily Telegraph you just see articles about Yes voters causing violence and trashing things. If you visit the Guardian then you see articles about No voters wearing swastikas and trashing things.

Fact is that there's bad seeds on both sides of it, but the majority of yes and no voters are reasonable people.

I've been looking at a variety. Sky news, smh, news.com.au, abc and the guardian

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Lmfao fucken typical. Firstly the crusades were part of the actual government system, they weren't a terrorist organisation like Isis who wasn't formally backed by an country or government, whilst the crusaders were. And get with the fkn times to those ***** not even knowing their history. The crusades were justified for that era and in the context of what was happening in Christian lands for centuries before the church had enough. I don't get why leftists need to go back a thousand years to justify shit lol it's so bullshit.

It's the Hollywood effect. Hollywood makes movies that put a bad light on the Crusades and people believe it. You see it with everything. People can't tell the difference between actual history and Hollywood history. One of my favourite examples of this is Joan of Arc. If you watch the Hollywood films you'd believe that she was actually a woman pretending to be a man so she could serve in the military.

BTW, you must love that story. A woman who became the leader of the French armies in one of their most successful campaigns.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Lollll using a journo just as bad as bolt but from the left. Also what's wrong with a catholic arch bishop doing what he's religion tells him to do? Heard of religious freedoms? He's not sacking people from government owned companies etc. learn the difference

Bit of a difference between the two. Michael Koziol is an actual reporter. Bolt isn't. He's a blogger.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Yeh I listened to the interview yesterday on Triple J.

This employer sounds like a fucking 12 year bitch born with a silver spoon, who use to sack daddies maids because they brought her the wrong fork at brunch.

Which is a pity 'cause she's pretty good looking.

I really couldn't give a fuck which way this vote swings, but it seems a bit hypocritical that anyone who doesn't vote yes is crucified and labelled as a homophobe.
Btw.. What the fuck does being scared of cock jockies have to do with peoples opinions on them getting married?
If your scared of being raped by a bloke, I think you'd be more inclined to vote yes so they'd be stuck at home with their whinging partner for the rest of their miserable lives and not prowling the streets looking to rape unsuspecting straight men [emoji39]

"Phobia" has different definitions depending on the context its used in. The psychological definition is "an irrational and persistent fear". But it's different depending on the use. For example, when used in "homophobia" or "Islamaphobia" the description is "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against..."

 

[CroydonDog]

Its okay to vote No.

Also ok to vote Yes tbh.

 

[CroydonDog]

[QUOTE="Hacky McAxe, post: 3231813, member: 16351"

BTW, you must love that story. A woman who became the leader of the French armies in one of their most successful campaigns.[/QUOTE]

Eventually burned at the stake though...

 

[CaptainJackson]

So it's she said/she said. But the contractor made one crucial error. When the news story broke the contractor jumped on posts and article about it and started ranting about how gays shouldn't be allowed to marry and how Australian belongs to the whites. She basically destroyed any credibility she had when she posted this stuff.

That's where the technicality may lie, though also in her post she mentioned that her clientele included homosexuals and that she couldn't have prejudices against her clientele.

So then it falls down to the technicality of the law. Very easily it can be found as for the business owner, based on past legal findings of businesses dismissing staff/contractors for views that were associated with the business, but also it can be found in favour of the contractor if she wasn't given a chance to rectify it.