[Discussion on Issues raised by] AJ getting pie in the face

[Pushka]

Celebrities have been doing this for a long time. Cate Blanchett seems to have a voice on things for which she holds no professional qualification. But she gets the headlines only because of her name. Thinks she is QEI. Remember that series of Public Forums held a few years ago. Cate and Hugh Jackman chaired a couple. Only because they are Cate and Hugh.

And celebrities have been endorsing all manner of luxury items.

 

[ermen]

What i find disgusting that corporate australia is wading into what had traditionally been in the personal and societal domain.

What is even worst is when the public service tries to wade in.

 

[donovan301]

https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/05/2...margaret-courts-gay-marriage-related-boycott/

Nuff said ;-)

 

[Hvr]

What i find disgusting that corporate australia is wading into what had traditionally been in the personal and societal domain.

What is even worst is when the public service tries to wade in.

And why shouldn't corporate Australia wade into these issues? They're people after all. They want to support their employees and make for a better Australia. They have the clout to get a message into the public and raise issues that are otherwise ignored.

They also have a global view and want to be part of the progressive society that is part of their market. Our politicians (both sides) are often beholden to self-interest groups that want to delay or deny the introduction of human rights.

Margaret Court's homophobia is well known and has been aired at various times. Given her opinions (which I personally find offensive) it is remarkable that a stadium was ever named after her.

 

[Pushka]

And why shouldn't corporate Australia wade into these issues? They're people after all. They want to support their employees and make for a better Australia. They have the clout to get a message into the public and raise issues that are otherwise ignored.

They also have a global view and want to be part of the progressive society that is part of their market. Our politicians (both sides) are often beholden to self-interest groups that want to delay or deny the introduction of human rights.

Margaret Court's homophobia is well known and has been aired at various times. Given her opinions (which I personally find offensive) it is remarkable that a stadium was ever named after her.

Maybe her views weren't seen as relevant (nor even mentioned at the time) as her performance as one of the worlds greatest female tennis players? Do people have to demonstrate a particular opinion when their performance in a completely irrelevant area of expertise is recognised? Should the Pope even be acknowledged given his position?

 

[ermen]

And why shouldn't corporate Australia wade into these issues? They're people after all. They want to support their employees and make for a better Australia. They have the clout to get a message into the public and raise issues that are otherwise ignored.

They also have a global view and want to be part of the progressive society that is part of their market. Our politicians (both sides) are often beholden to self-interest groups that want to delay or deny the introduction of human rights.

Margaret Court's homophobia is well known and has been aired at various times. Given her opinions (which I personally find offensive) it is remarkable that a stadium was ever named after her.

1. Because it is likely that a majority (or a large silent minority) of their employees are of a separate view (cf: if they are not - then I do not see why the LGBT movement are so reticent to call a plebiscite once and for all). Anyway a corporation's business is to do whatever it has set out to to do (i.e. if it is a bank - provide banking services, an airline - fly people around safely etc...). If it wants to wade into that domain, then become an NGO, or start a religion...

2. I would disagree that it is a "human rights" issue*. I don't want to wade into the areas of absolute and relative morality.

3. And I would disagree that Margaret Court is a homophobe. That term/slur is unfortunately what the militant LGBT movement likes to brand people who do not subscribe to their view of SST.

Unfortunately, the media discourse has made it such that the only "politically correct" and "expedient" thing to do is to come out in support of the LGBT SSM agenda. And people who say that marriage is defined as between a man and a wife (and has always been, by most observable accounts for the past millenia in the majority of societies) is unfortunately labelled as "bigot" or "homophobe".


*And I think that people in same-sex relationships should not be discriminated against, and should have their rights respective by centrelink payments and the family court etc...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

*And I think that people in same-sex relationships should not be discriminated against, and should have their rights respective by centrelink payments and the family court etc...

Simple 'not being discriminated against' is sometimes not enough. Take spousal visas. Heterosexual couples can bring their married partner to Australia no questions. You can even bring someone in under a prospective marriage visa. Same sex? Treated the same as a de facto couple and have to prove all sorts of things such as living together for 12 months, can't have lived apart, have to have set up house with your same sex partner (joint bills), and details about the 'nature of your relationship'. None of which are required if you are heterosexual and married, or intend to be married.

https://www.border.gov.au/FormsAndDocuments/Documents/1127.pdf

Fine once you have jumped through all the hoops to be recognised by centrelink and the family court... but why have to jump through all the hoops in the first place?

Society is happy for LGBTI people to operate on them and care for them as surgeons and nurses. Happy for them to rescue you when you are drowning, happy to have them pick you up after a road crash, to fight your house on fire, or to defend your country. Happy to take their tax. But heaven forbid if they want to get married.

 

[JohnPhelan]

That term/slur is unfortunately what the militant LGBT movement likes to brand people who do not subscribe to their view of SST.

Are they all Platinum One members? What do they say about the SST??

 

[samh004]

If Labour had supported a plebiscite this would all have been done and dusted, wouldn't it?

If we elect people to Parliament and the Senate to debate bills, have divisions and sign them into law, then why do we need a plebiscite?

Or if we have a plebiscite on this issue, why do we need elected officials for other issues? We can just run a plebiscite for each bill! I'm looking forward to voting on the budget.

It may not bother you... but how does it bother a young member of the GLBTI community who's calling lifeline because they're relentlessly bullied for being different? Ms Court has her opinions - that's fine. But using her position to get a platform for divisive comments? Why not use your position for something positive instead of negative?

I've been there. Though I never called lifeline, I took matters into my own hands.

I don't see it as using her position, she is who she is and she aired her views. If you'd seen her interview on The Project you'd have seen her liken gays to child molesters and now know her views are very skewed!

Does that make Rolf Harris gay?

 

[Deleted member]

Maybe someone asked her.



So why the 'like' then. Confusen.

When it comes to free speech, I may not agree with someones opinion, but I would fight for their right to voice it.
Edit. To clear up confusion

 

[JohnPhelan]

I am (apparently) in the minority, because I am in favour of SSM, and also in favour of a plebiscite - because that's the only way in which whichever side loses will shut up about it. Without a plebiscite, the losing side will always claim it was rigged/not the will of the people, etc etc.

Those who claim sexually confused people will be harmed by the debate can be alleviated of much of this risk by not dragging it out!

Who the hell are "sexually confused people" ???

 

[Pushka]

When it comes to free speech, I may not agree with someones opinion, but I would fight for their right to voice it.
And I think you ,wan "confusion"!

But you liked a post that said she shouldn't air her views. Ein confusen is pidgin German.

 

[Pushka]

I am (apparently) in the minority, because I am in favour of SSM, and also in favour of a plebiscite - because that's the only way in which whichever side loses will shut up about it. Without a plebiscite, the losing side will always claim it was rigged/not the will of the people, etc etc.



Who the hell are "sexually confused people" ???

Young people who are just sorting their sexual identity out?

 

[get me outta here]

Seems an overreach to me to be "disgusted" by people who happen to have a job voicing their opinion on things, even if they get attention by the platform of that position. Perhaps only people who don't have a job should be able to voice an opinion. If you take out business people and the public service and people in unpaid jobs, there's not a lot left. Or, would it be OK after work hours?

If if we don't like people's opinion we can simply disagree with it. "Disgust", is voiced as a mask of confected outrage at someone who does not share your view.

What i find disgusting that corporate australia is wading into what had traditionally been in the personal and societal domain.

What is even worst is when the public service tries to wade in.

 

[Hvr]

<snip>

Society is happy for LGBTI people to operate on them and care for them as surgeons and nurses. Happy for them to rescue you when you are drowning, happy to have them pick you up after a road crash, to fight your house on fire, or to defend your country. Happy to take their tax. But heaven forbid if they want to get married.

Fly and staff our planes and even run a major airline.


Here is the letter Mrs Court sent to the paper.

Tennis great accuses gay community of 'bullying' over Margaret Court Arena name change

 

[Deleted member]

But you liked a post that said she shouldn't air her views. Ein confusen is pidgin

You seem determined to take me to task. So let me deal with the "Like". Unfortunately there isn't a process (that I am aware of) to indicate I like a "part" or "portion" of what was said. So sue me !

If you're going to use pidgin German, have the courtesy of letting us poor unfortunates know in advance. And then have the courtesy of using the "full" expression up front rather than just part of it. Further adding to the confusion. And then maybe, just maybe give an actual translation to clarify.
To take a condescending manner because I either don't know or wasn't given the chance to know is just plain rude.

I hope that clears up any "confusion " you may have about my position?

Back to the debate , I don't give a Fig if Margaret Court approves of Same sex marriage, I don't care if she disapproves of sex before marriage. I frankly don't care one way or the other what she believes in.

What I do care about is (in the context of this discussion) is her right to an opinion.
I also care that AJ is equally entitled to an opinion.
I haven't been present at any Qantas Board meeting (ever) so I don't know what has gone on behind closed doors.
But I have a fairly strong suspicion that AJ doesn't get to make unilateral Qantas policy on the run. I may be wrong, but I reckon he needs board and overall corporate support to voice a position on behalf of Qantas.

As for Margaret Court, she is (I believe) a member of some evangelical church with (IMHO) fairly outdated views on society and how we should behave and how we should accept difference in our fellow members of society.
However in spite of her views being unpalatable to many, she does have a right to them.

Now we get back to my "like" again. What I "liked" was the comment that if she doesn't want to fly Qantas, then don't fly Qantas.

I don't like things that happen in the world. Some of the things I don't lie are minor and insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
I don't like self serve checkouts in Coles and Woolies, so I vote with my feet, and refuse to use them.
I don't like throw away pens, so I use a fountain pen or a ball point that takes a refill. But until now, no one knew any of that. Why?
Because like Margaret Court, it's just not interesting.

One of the great things about social media is it gives voice to the dull and uninteresting of this world, one of the worst things about social media is that it gives voice to the dull and uninteresting of this world.

That is my opinion and I don't much care if anyone agrees with it. Because like noses, everyone has one (an opinion)

 

[RooFlyer]

If we elect people to Parliament and the Senate to debate bills, have divisions and sign them into law, then why do we need a plebiscite?

Or if we have a plebiscite on this issue, why do we need elected officials for other issues? We can just run a plebiscite for each bill! I'm looking forward to voting on the budget.
<snip>?

We've discussed these pretty thoroughly above. The main reason for holding a plebiscite is to demonstrate to the naysayers that this socially very contentious change, is in fact the will of the majority, so we can all calm down afterwards. It's a social issue, not political, so society would be the main arbiters and Parliament just legislates what society is majority in favour of.

And if this Parliament was simply to legislate without a positive plebiscite vote, then a future Parliament could simply vote to change the same law back. That OK?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And if this Parliament was simply to legislate without a positive plebiscite vote, then a future Parliament could simply vote to change the same law back. That OK?

Even with a plebiscite a future parliament can simply vote to change the law back again. They're not binding, and even a 'yes' vote doesn't bind the current members to vote in a certain way.

You'd need something like a Bill of Rights (which includes same sex equality) to be enshrined via a referendum.

 

[Deleted member]

Maybe we can have a plebiscite and tag on polygamy at the same time. I reckon there would be a few takers .

 

[drron]

Fly and staff our planes and even run a major airline.


Here is the letter Mrs Court sent to the paper.

Tennis great accuses gay community of 'bullying' over Margaret Court Arena name change

You do realise that letter was written in August 2013 and there wasn't a twitterstorm then.