Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Not Voting


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,410
I take no issue with any individual using their democratic right to vote Yes or to vote No.

I take huge exception when organisations use their position to take political stances that are not supported by their entire work force.

Even the Australian Medical Association issued a public statement supporting SSM. Who is the head of the AMA? Oh I don't know, a huge SSM advocate and publicly declared lesbian.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e/news-story/ad30aaab46c4e97472fa7d7523a09f34

Or the NSW Law Society issuing a public statement which potentially misrepresents the views of many of it's lawyers who DO NOT support SSM.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...e/news-story/acb44cd29bf8276badb30f219ed0eda9
And if the employees don't support the business operation then they have full right to leave that business.

A business is a private entity. They can do what they want as far as representing a view goes. It's not bullying, it's just representing their own belief.
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
And if the employees don't support the business operation then they have full right to leave that business.

A business is a private entity. They can do what they want as far as representing a view goes. It's not bullying, it's just representing their own belief.
Exactly. I used to work for a company I didn't see eye to eye with from an ideological POV. I left. It's the only real course of action available (assuming convictions are strong enough.)
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,732
This whole public "debate" is ludicrous

SSM advocates are saying they'll respect your religious rights, they just want equal rights in the eyes of the secular state law.

Businesses for the Yes campaign have put Yes banners up and put their support behind the Yes campaign

LGBT have been linked to disgusting acts that have nothing to do with SSM

An anti-bullying product has been linked to SSM when it has nothing to do with SSM

SSM isn't the topic of discussion but Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and PC have been made the topic of discussion

A complete avoidance of the actual topic at hand - SSM

Religions already have the LEGAL POWER to discriminate

Religious organisations have a charity, tax free status, but with this comes the law that they are to stay out of political campaigns

But yet in the eyes of some, the people who are being discriminated against (via the current law) are the one's bullying

Completely laughable.
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,732
Exactly. I used to work for a company I didn't see eye to eye with from an ideological POV. I left. It's the only real course of action available (assuming convictions are strong enough.)
I told you before that I refused work with a company that I didn't agree with

Didn't kick up a fuss, didn't claim bullying, didn't insult, it was a simple, no thanks
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,410
Personally I don't care how anyone defines a journalist v blogger. I care about how factual they are.

Given that organisations full of "journalists" like the ABC are almost entirely 100% biased to left wing issues (despite it being a public organisation that promises to maintain balance), I don't particularly care what label is put on anyone.
There's a big legal difference. A journalist has to report the facts or they're liable to be sued. A blogger only reports their opinion. Facts don't matter.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
their own belief.
Corporate Governance 101 - Who exactly is the organisation? Who owns the organisation? Who's beliefs are the organisations?

Most of these companies are listed while other organisations who have supported SSM are member funded organisations.

In the case of listed companies, shareholders (i.e. mums and dads and individuals as well as institutional investors own it).

Should Qantas support SSM simply because their CEO is gay? Should the views of one individual be allowed to represent 20,000 other staff?

Same goes with AMA.

My personal view is that organisations have no place to be putting out statements on this as a social issue. Whether they are voting yes or no, they should be leaving it up to individuals to make their own minds up and stick to the business of making profits for their shareholders.
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,732
There's a big legal difference. A journalist has to report the facts or they're liable to be sued. A blogger only reports their opinion. Facts don't matter.
Bingo.

A blogger even has the added bonus of cherry picking their stats when making a point

A journalist may report on a biased, incorrect study, but they are only reporting on that study and what it has found.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Maybe the manager should just get on with his job.....which is managing a bank, not political campaigning.
My EXACT point. Companies and CEOs should get on with their job - making profits for their shareholders. Not grandstanding on social issues and political campaigning.
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,732
Should Qantas support SSM simply because their CEO is gay? Should the views of one individual be allowed to represent 20,000 other staff?
Actually you'll find that even though Alan Joyce is the figurehead, things like this would be voted on by the Board. So it isn't one individual
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
My EXACT point. Companies and CEOs should get on with their job - making profits for their shareholders. Not grandstanding on social issues and political campaigning.
There's a pretty important difference. Public relations are not part of the manager's job description. They are part of any CEOs job description. Keeping the majority of customers and shareholders happy is important to a business and many companies obviously feel supporting a yes vote is what their shareholders want.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,410
Exactly. I used to work for a company I didn't see eye to eye with from an ideological POV. I left. It's the only real course of action available (assuming convictions are strong enough.)
I work for a company that is run by devout Christians. I think me and one other in the company are the only people that are voting Yes. Everyone in the office is happy to rant about why they're voting No. I don't take any offence to it. It's not my company.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
There's a pretty important difference. Public relations are not part of the manager's job description. They are part of any CEOs job description. Keeping the majority of customers and shareholders happy is important to a business and many companies obviously feel supporting a yes vote is what their shareholders want.
So I'm assuming CEO's have taken a survey or poll of their MILLIONS of shareholders who live in Australia as well as around the world and asked them what their stances are?
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
For those big corporations, one of the maing functions of CEO's is that of a PR one.
I agree. It's also worth delving into the reasons why these companies are supporting the yes vote.

It's often because they are hell scared of the gay activities who will literally stop at nothing to ruin anyone or any company that dares vote no.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,410
Corporate Governance 101 - Who exactly is the organisation? Who owns the organisation? Who's beliefs are the organisations?

Most of these companies are listed while other organisations who have supported SSM are member funded organisations.

In the case of listed companies, shareholders (i.e. mums and dads and individuals as well as institutional investors own it).

Should Qantas support SSM simply because their CEO is gay? Should the views of one individual be allowed to represent 20,000 other staff?

Same goes with AMA.

My personal view is that organisations have no place to be putting out statements on this as a social issue. Whether they are voting yes or no, they should be leaving it up to individuals to make their own minds up and stick to the business of making profits for their shareholders.
Again. Organisations are private entities. Even if they're publicly owned, they're still private entities. Publicly owned companies answer to the stock holders. If the stock holders don't like something then they can do something against it. If 1% of the stock holders aren't happy with what the other 99% are doing, they can sell their stocks or just live with it. That's how business works.

The business has no duty to appease every person in the organisation. They're not the government. They're private entities.
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,732
I agree. It's also worth delving into the reasons why these companies are supporting the yes vote.

It's often because they are hell scared of the gay activities who will literally stop at nothing to ruin anyone or any company that dares vote no.
Do you have ANY proof that they're scared of the consequences of saying No?
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,410
My EXACT point. Companies and CEOs should get on with their job - making profits for their shareholders. Not grandstanding on social issues and political campaigning.
Unless grandstanding is profitable. And as you've already pointed out, supporting SSM is popular. I'm under no illusion here. I'm sure most of these companies are doing it for popularity purposes rather than supporting their actual beliefs, but the point is that they have every right to do that and there's nothing even remotely wrong with it.
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,077
Actually you'll find that even though Alan Joyce is the figurehead, things like this would be voted on by the Board. So it isn't one individual
If you're telling me that Joyce's sexual orientation has nothing to do with Qantas being on-board then LOL. There are a heap of big companies who have not gotten into which side of the debate they are on!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top