Gay colors?

[mrdeux]

I too fly for QF. Some of my friends, and many of the people I fly with are gay. If I am permitted to vote in a plebiscite I will vote for allowing them the same rights as everyone else. Should have happened ages ago.

Nevertheless, I am not a fan of company property being used to push what is mostly a political issue.

[Beer Baron]

Double standards

Keg, you (and others) have made repeated claims that your problem is not what Alan Joyce’s opinion is, but that he is using Qantas and Qantas property to promote them. In fact you suggest it has never happened before.

Ok. I'll say it again. I don't feel it's appropriate for companies to be engaged it socio-political issues- particularly when they're as divisive as this issue is.

I've never argued that Joyce can't speak on behalf of Qantas. I've argued that he shouldn't on this issue and others related to it.

Qantas embarks on a political campaign the likes of which it's never previously done

But you conveniently ignore, or forget, the Recognise campaign to constitutionally recognise Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders that Qantas strongly supported. They didn't just paint 1 aircraft, they put the Recognise logo on 31 aircraft!!

In the media Qantas group executive Olivia Wirth said;

The livery would build on the airline’s longstanding celebration of indigenous culture. As an Australian icon, Qantas is proud to lend its support towards ensuring the first chapter of Australia’s story and the people who forged it are recognised

Yet where were the howls of complaint?? Where were the 20 pages of debate? How dare Qantas try and tell people how to vote in a referendum (a plebiscite’s big brother)?
There wasn't a peep. Yet suddenly now people are fired up.

It is clear that your exception to Alan Joyce speaking in Qantas’s name is not that he does it, but that you don't believe in what he is fighting for. Therefore your argument lacks authenticity.

[jonkster]

To be fair to Keg, that raises complicated messy questions. What happens if you are employed by a company and that company then wants to put forward a public position on a social question that you genuinely disagree with?

I certainly don't share Keg's position on the SSM issue but believe him to sincerely hold it. What does he do if his employer wishes him to help promote the issue he doesn't agree with?

There is no simple answer here. If we want our society to allow diversity of opinion, what happens when your opinion on a social issue differs from that of your employer?

Should you have to promote a view you don't hold? Should you be allowed to express your opposing view? Should you resign? Should you just hide your beliefs?

I sincerely don't hold Keg's views, they are so different from how I see the world but I also see a dilemma here. I think people should be able to express their views and not be made to compromise them providing it is done in a way that doesn't promote vilification or hate.

How that could be achieved here I don't know.

and FWIW I would be more than happy to fly a plane painted in the livery that has prompted this thread and have a very different view than Keg's but I think this raises awkward free speech issues.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by 601

And the one constant through all that which you described is that "marriage" has been between a man and a woman.

No, at times it has been defined as being between one man and several women (polygamy), and as well since 2002 marriage has been described as being between two people of the same gender. Let's not forget the English speaking nations (sans Australia), Western Europe and even places like Brazil, Mexico and South Africa have legal marriage equality. It isn't a concept that is never existed before. A good chunk of the developed world has it, and the sky hasn't fallen in.

[Lookleft]

Beer Baron- you actually hilight Keg's and the others(I assume that's where I fit) quite well.

The key statement is the one you included "Qantas embarks on a political campaign the likes of which it's never previously done"

I don't remember AJ championing Indigenous rights personally. I don't remember the Qantas logo prominent at the Sorry day marches. The referendum regarding Indigenous inclusion in the Constitution has never been held. If it is such a strongly held view by the Qantas executive why is not still being pursued. Personally I wouldn't even know what the Recognise logo looks like but I don't recall any aircraft having the Roo holding the Indigenous flag.

Your post is absolutely correct, but directed at the wrong people-double standards and authenticity indeed.

[psycho joe]

Quote:
The livery would build on the airline’s longstanding celebration of indigenous culture. As an Australian icon, Qantas is proud to lend its support towards ensuring the first chapter of Australia’s story and the people who forged it are recognised
Yet where were the howls of complaint?? Where were the 20 pages of debate? How dare Qantas try and tell people how to vote in a referendum (a plebiscite’s big brother)?
There wasn't a peep. Yet suddenly now people are fired up.

It is clear that your exception to Alan Joyce speaking in Qantas’s name is not that he does it, but that you don't believe in what he is fighting for. Therefore your argument lacks authenticity.

Was Allan Joyce, along with 19 other CEO's attempting to use their perceived power and influence to demand a change to the definition of "indigenous"?

[Hoofharted]

It's not just the livery change or Joyce using the brand to further a particular agenda, there is also the use of company email to push the issue internally. Prior to Mardi Gras my company email was bombed on a daily basis promoting the gay380, the new 330 livery and messages urging me to join in on "rainbow" week.

I have no agenda either way on the marriage issue and I certainly have no bias against anyone based on their sexuality. I do however have a very large issue on a large corporate machine blatantly trying to coerce it's workforce into thinking/believing/supporting a particular belief or thought process that has absolutely nothing to do with corporate governance or SOP. Could this not be viewed as company sanctioned harassment or bullying? What if my beliefs (as some of my work colleagues) ran contrary to the message being promoted via the company's emails? Where is the "safe work place" for these people?

I will vote yes when the plebiscite finally arrives as I have many friends and relatives that are affected by this decision and who truly feel that they would like the opportunity to "marry". However, I must confess to feeling very anti during the company's overt campaign in social engineering.

[Beer Baron]

I don't remember AJ championing Indigenous rights personally. I don't remember the Qantas logo prominent at the Sorry day marches. The referendum regarding Indigenous inclusion in the Constitution has never been held. If it is such a strongly held view by the Qantas executive why is not still being pursues . Personally I wouldn't even know what the Recognise logo looks like but I don't recall any aircraft having the Roo holding the Indigenous flag.

Well you may not remember it but Qantas has pushed for Indigenous reconciliation for many years and continues to do so. As far back as Dixon’s days Qantas were demonstrating their overt support for the issue:
In addition, from 2009, Qantas will have Qantas Cabin Crew make an Acknowledgement of Country announcement on all international flights landing in Australia on Sorry Day in February, during Reconciliation Week in May and during NAIDOC Week in July.

There is a current Reconciliation Action Plan 2015-18 on the website.
Qantas officially launched its Reconciliation Action Plan today, becoming only the third Australian major corporate to lodge a formal Indigenous Reconciliation Plan www.reconciliation.org.au/raphub/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/reconciliation-action-plan-2015-2018.pdf

And no, there is no “Roo holding the Indigenous flag” but there have been numerous jets painted with an Indigenous livery or name.

Was Allan Joyce, along with 19 other CEO's attempting to use their perceived power and influence to demand a change to the definition of "indigenous"?

No, but he was championing a change to the Australian Constitution! A far more important document.


So, significant input on socio-political issues including; painting planes, public statements, involving staff in making announcements and a stated goal of changing the constitution. But did I hear any complaints then?????

[kaz3g]

Originally Posted by Keg

So let me understand this correctly...<big snip>

Alan Joyce can comment on whatever he likes. I don't give two hoots. However his comments aren't made by Alan Joyce, Northern Beaches. They've been championed as the official position of the company I work for and am a shareholder of. The airline of which I'm an employee of has engaged in a political issue that in my opinion it has no place engaging in. We agree to disagree on whether this is appropriate.

With such strongly held principles, you and those others who are so deeply offended will undoubtedly immediately resign your positions and leave this enclave of activists so you are no longer tainted by their proclivities.

Kaz

Edited out "Christian" principles because I realise that was unfair to the many Christians who embrace a wider theology.

[Keg]

Your formatting was a bit hard to follow Derfred so I may not have gotten this 100% accurate but it's in good faith.

Originally Posted by Derfred

Yes, it does affect society, but I disagree that it affects us all.

It won't affect my marriage, nor my family, whether it comes into effect now, later or never. Unless of course one of my sons turns out to be gay, and wants to get married to a loving partner.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. As an example to the principle, abortion is an issue that affects us all in society. It changes how we view ourselves, how we view others, how we view life and how we view infants. Euthanasia is the same. Irrespective of whether it has an immediate, direct impact on me (which SSM won't as I don't expected I'll be invited to a gay wedding any time soon) it has an impact on society and therefore me. As a result don't expect me to 'get over it'. I care about society and where it's going. You can describe it as a 'hang up' all day but that doesn't make me wrong.

Originally Posted by Derfred

So, yes it affects society, but not everyone in the society. In my opinion, SSM will affect society positively. In particular, those who want SSM will benefit. They will finally receive equal rights.

What about polygamists? Why are they not deserving of the 'rights' you're demanding for people of the same sex? Who are you to tell them the can't marry whomever they want? What about those people have 'genetic sexual attraction'. And want to marry? Apparently this is becoming more common with the increasing number of broken homes and kids growing up without knowing their biological parents or siblings and meeting them later in life? Do they deserve to marry whom they love?

This is the principle you're championing when you champion 'equality'. Are you consistent with your principles? Do you think legalising these types of relationships in the form of marrriage has a detriment to society? Do you think legalising these relationships will affect society positively? Do you think legalising these relationships as marriage will not have an impact on your 'marriage' and how it's perceived in wider society? I guess you'll only be affected if you choose to be psychologically affected. (I'm not trying to sound prissy or rude here, just trying to be blunt).

Originally Posted by Derfred

---

I was born and raised in a red-neck, rural, and actually quite "churchy" society where it was OK to call a gay person a "Poofter" and attempt to beat some sense into him with a lead pipe.

The same word was also acceptable to use when denigrating a heterosexual man who was perceived as a weakling, or a musician, or a dancer, or who didn't like footy, or was offending any other of the many manly societal stereotypes. In fact, a man's greatest goal in the community was to never, ever, at all costs, earn the name "Poofter". It was the biggest conceivable insult available.

You could cheat on your wife, and still drink at the bar. You could even rip off old Tony and still drink at the bar after a bloody nose. But there was a golden rule: "No Poofters". Such was the hate.

Sounds like a sad state of affairs. I've seen certain aspects of it- certainly the name calling of 'poofter'- but nothing approaching the level of violence you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Derfred

I don't know if this hate originated from the Bible you so dearly defend, but all I remember is that the local church certainly made no effort to reduce the hate. The local Pastor's interpretation of tolerance was limited to attempting to avoid using the word "Poofter" in his weekly sermon.

The church hasn't been perfect in the past in defending people who needed defending. I think the church has grown considerably in speaking out firmly against violence and hate whilst still proclaiming its stance on marriage and so on. That's why the hate speech these days is far more likely to come from the SSM lobby than the church- unless of course you're one of the narrow minded lot who view any stance against SSM as 'hate speech'. (The royal 'you', not you specifically Derfred).

Originally Posted by Derfred

So if holding on to traditional so-called "societal" ideals and values is by definition a "good thing", it certainly hasn't been my experience in life.

I think I get it now. I say I'm concerned for society and want to uphold 'traditional marriage'. The picture you see in your head when you hear or see the words 'traditional marriage' is husbands boozing on with their mates at the pubs, cheating on their wives, giving a backhander to their wives and kids if they talk back, and raising kids to call gay people 'poofters'.

Let me be very blunt and clear. That is NOT 'traditional marriage'. That is NOT biblical marriage. Biblical marriage does NOT view wives and children as possessions and nor does the Bibke suggest that our role in life is to treat others poorly. The picture you have articulated of marriage and society is NOT the type of society I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Derfred

But Keg I note you get your moral code from the Bible. You probably think that is a good thing because, in part, it provides a robust moral code rather than the one I grew up with and had to evolve in time. I also note you are interested in debating the relative merits with intelligent conversation.

The moral code I was taught by my parents (not my community), which has served me well, could almost be regarded as an excerpt from the Bible: Love thy neighbour, and treat others as you would have them treat you. Be humble and learn.

Lol. 'Almost' be regarded as an excerpt from the bible? They're basically words direct from Jesus mouth.

Matthew 22:37

Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ [/I]40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Luke 6:31

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Matthew 23:12

For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

It's actually worth reading all of Matthew 22 and 23 to get the correct context to those statements too.

Originally Posted by Derfred

And pretty much ignore the rest of it as it is a bunch of controlling bull**** introduced by the Church in the middle ages by the same muppets that kept insisting the sun revolved around the earth.

I've just given you the quotes from the bible which dates back to the first century AD. Sure, over time some people have valued 'tradition' over God's word in the bible and distorted that for their own purposes. The Bibke though has been pretty fixed since the various books were written and then those books collated at the Councio of Nicaea.

Remember too that Jesus was a bloke who sat down and engaged with the lowest of society. The poor, the young (who were not held anywhere nearly as highly in the first century as they are today), the crooked (tax collectors), the outcast (prostitutes and sick). Note though he did NOT say to them. It's ok, you can keep living that way. No, he called them to change the way they lived and follow Him. He didn't say to the prostitute that she was ok to choose her path. He told her to follow Him. Loving your neighbour doesn't mean saying 'OK' to the way they live their life, it means lovingly telling them of a better way.

Originally Posted by Derfred

So, let me ask as another analogy: when the debate was going on (not that long ago) about giving women the vote, would it have been inappropriate then for an airline to paint a women's vote theme on an aircraft? Or would that have been too political?

I've got problems with companies championing what they do in the workplace. If a horse and cart company back then wanted to champion the awesome benefit they get from their female employees then they can do that. I don't think it's the companies responsibility to then take it further and say 'you're an tell other people what they should think regarding a socio political issue though isn't

Originally Posted by Derfred

Did the Bible ever indicate that women should have a vote? Did that offend the people in your sphere at the time? Did people in your position offer verses from the Bible that referenced "men" at the exclusion of "women" in evidence against the proposal? As a Christian family traditionalist, do you regret society giving women the vote?

It's interesting that you bring this up. Until Christendom, virtually every culture in the world viewed women as possessions. In Roman times adultery was asssumed by men and punishable by death for women. They had no possessions, no worth. Christianity was hugely and massively counter cultural at the time regarding its treatment of women. Jesus first appeared at his resurrection to women (and if you were going to make up a story about a risen deity, at the time you would not have the deity appearing first to women.... way to make the story less than palatable given their testimony was worthless). Despite the (non biblical) teaching of some Christian scholars through the ages, the teaching of the bible has been unchanged. Wives are equal partners in the 'body of Christ' (ie the church) and equal partners in marriage given that relatjiosho is supposed to mirror the relationship between Jesus and the church. (There are some nuances that I'll leave aside here but happy to comment on if asked).

So that women are viewed 'equally' at all is a Christian notion. Even when you look around the world now, in most non western cultures women are not regarded as equal of men. Western culture has been heavily influenced by Christianity and thus we have the equality of today because of Christianity and despite some non biblical mis steps along the way.

As an example, this is Paul's letter to the church in Galatia. Paul was executed about AD62.

"In Christ's family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female. Among us you are all equal. That is, we are all in common relationship with Jesus Christ"

So how do you interpret that as to what the bible teaches about women?

I think the important notion to understand when discussing the churches past failures is that biblical teaching on humanity is that we are flawed. We have a perfect example in Jesus and we have a book that gives us all the guidance we need to work through every issue we face but I'm still a rebellious sinful person and I still rebel against God and what I know is good for me. I can only keep going back to His teaching on the issues. His teaching on women is that they are 'partners in the body of christ'.

Originally Posted by Derfred

In general, do biblical interpretations change in time with "progressing" societal values? If SSM goes ahead, will people in your sphere in 50 or 100 years' time regret the SSM progression, or will future interpretations of the Bible acknowledge and accept it?

No. I don't reckon they do. What tends to happen is that leaders (sometimes church leaders, sometimes rulers of kingdoms) drifts away from Scripture as their source of wisdom and put a personal slant on it. The KKK is a great example of people putting using a passage out of context, a passage poorly from Aramaic or Greek to their native tongue to justify their political aims. to en slant on it. I hope that in all of this discussion thanpeope see I've been pointing back to not my personal slant but what the bible teaches.

Originally Posted by Derfred

If one of your kids turns out to be gay and wants to get married to a loving partner, will you change your opinion? Will you proudly declare that you flew that A330 that helped progress societal values? Or will you disown them because it challenges your ideal of Mum, Dad, 2.4 kids and dog?

Or when you and your wife are having one last cuddle in your twilight years, will you look back and think how much better your marriage and your family would have been if only those gay pricks didn't go and get married?

For somone who said they didn't get intend to get personal these two paras are actually pretty nasty and insulting. The options you've put forward are not the only options available. Nor is it helpful to characterise my feelings towards a gay friend who married his partner, and another gay friend who only recently came around to supporting SSM as 'gay pricks'. That's just not the way I roll- and nor is it the way every other Christian I know characterises the issue.

My kids know the Christian teaching on not just marriage but life, death and Jesus. If they choose to walk away from that, that's their choice. Having walked that path from my late teenage years to late 20s I understand only too well how that looks and how to love my children and support them through that journey. Recall my earlier comments about Jesus and prostitutes. Lov Ng them didn't mean endorsing what they did. It meant walking with them as they faced up to their choices in life.

I will not tell my children of proudly of flying the rainbow roo. They'd know it was a lie.

Maybe in my latter years I will lament those lost in their own desires. For me I will simply continue to persevere to serve God. Everything else is chasing after the wind.

I know it's been a long read but for those that have persevered I thank you for your time. It's taken me a good couple of hours to put this together. I appreciate the opportunity to put forward what I pray is a biblical and faithful account of the Christian position. I did so not because I want to thump everyone over the head and certainly not because I'm trying to push for everyone to bend to my beliefs- I'd hope you'd do that through your own reflection and search for Truth. I did all thismsimply because Derfred asked for m thoughts on the matter and asked about biblical principles.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend everybody.

Go the Bloods!

[Keg]

Beer baron. I actually commented on the recognise campaign very early on in this discussion and my reservations about it.

There is no way the recognise campaign and the tiny symbol on 31 aeroplanes goes even close to approaching what the company has done with SSM and the Mardi Gras.

[Keg]

Originally Posted by kaz3g

With such strongly held principles, you and those others who are so deeply offended will undoubtedly immediately resign your positions and leave this enclave of activists so you are no longer tainted by their proclivities.

Kaz.

Oh puh-lease. The default response of the closet totalitarian.

I've resigned previously from an organisation that was heading in a direction i thought was dangerous and that I could no longer support. That was about safety and care of minors. The royal commission showed me how correct I was on that isssue.

Beyond that I'm mystified why the actions of my leadership that I disagree with on a social political issue warrant me resigning? Maybe when someone starts telling me to make a PA in support of the cause it'll come to that but until that time it's my workplace too and I've very right to be there.

[Lookleft]

Once again BB your examples don't show the same level of commitment to the issue that SSM does for the QF executive.

In addition, from 2009, Qantas will have Qantas Cabin Crew make an Acknowledgement of Country announcement on all international flights landing in Australia on Sorry Day in February, during Reconciliation Week in May and during NAIDOC Week in July.

Why not domestic as well? It would be more relevant. SBS make acknowledgements to country every day,why not include it on the safety video.

Indigenous paint schemes go back to the nineties. I don't think it was primarily for the awareness of Indigenous issues but more about the promotion of Qantas and Australia. Not that dissimilar to the Retro Roo schemes. Not criticizing it, but pointing out it wasn't the result of any firmly held views of the executive of Indigenous rights.

The referendum was never held to change the Constitution. I don't see AJ continuing to push the issue for a referendum. Once again there is not the same level of commitment as the SSM issue. I don't see posters advocating for the inclusion of Indigenous rights at the terminals like I see with the SSM issue.

[Beer Baron]

Tiny symbol

Hardly tiny, no smaller than a rainbow Qantas logo of this topics origin. http://https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantaslink-unveils-new-recognise-aircraft-livery

The referendum was never held to change the Constitution. I don't see AJ continuing to push the issue for a referendum. Once again there is not the same level of commitment as the SSM issue. I don't see posters advocating for the inclusion of Indigenous rights at the terminals like I see with the SSM issue.

The plebiscite has also not been held. The referendum is still government and opposition policy and is working it's way to a final proposal. It is still Qantas's policy to support it as detailed in their Reconciliation Action Plan 2015-18.

I haven't seen posters in terminals supporting SSM and I certainly haven't seen a 38 page document detailing Qantas's continued support for it.

I'd say they appear far more committed to reconciliation than SSM. But no complaints from anyone there. Odd.

[Pinky the pilot]

Keg; Your post #388 described my opinion on the subject far better than I could have put it myself.

For this, I thank you. There was only one thing upon which I would take issue with;

Go the Bloods!

[FYSTI]

There is a more concerning aspect the debate, the censorship and suppression of opinion. I fear a western version of the Cultural revolution 2.0, version 1 occurring in China in the mid 1960's, with an estimated death toll of between 30 million & 45 million people perishing on the alter of ideology. This time, the deaths will be metaphorical, we have moved beyond such brutal methods of indoctrination and thought control. We now have a much more humane system where peoples lives, families & careers will be destroyed instead.

If you have anything other than the approved though, you will pay a very heavy price. There appears to be no place for any other than the approved belief system. I think George Orwell wrote a once again popular book about it.

It is no longer acceptable to just keep your opinions to yourself. You must remove yourself from any organisation that holds ANY unacceptable belief system or be purged from the system. There appears to be a far larger agenda at work... One wonder if LQBTI is just the leading edge of this revolution.

I say this as a devoted atheist who doesn't give a damn who sleeps with whom, as long as it is consensual, legal & non-compulsory, but I am very concerned where this will end. To be clear, I have a problem with the methods employed by the cultural warriors, not what happens between the sheets. Where will it end? Perhaps Orwell provided a guide?

Discriminating in order to solve discrimination - this suggests another agenda.

From this weeks Australian: Christians under attack: gay rights activists target IBM executive

Activists have criticised the IT giant and Sydney-based managing partner Mark Allaby, suggesting that his role on the board of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, an internship program for young Christians, is incompatible with IBM’s public support on the issue.

The social media campaign comes after the same activists shamed Adelaide brewer Coopers into pledging allegiance to Australian Marriage Equality after its ties with the Bible Society were *exposed.

Michael Barnett, convener of Jewish LGBTI support group Aleph Melbourne, and Rod Swift, a Greens candidate in the 2014 state election, have targeted IBM with a barrage of messages via Twitter in recent days, accusing the company of hypocrisy for *allowing an employee to be *involved with “an anti-LGBTI *organisation”.

“A bad look … that IBM managing partner Mark Allaby sits on the anti-LGBT Lachlan Macquarie Institute board,” Mr Barnett *posted on Thursday.

The next day he followed with: “As an LGBT champion @IBM*Australia, why did you employ a board member of a high-profile anti-LGBT organisation.”




“If you are having a bet each way @IBMDiversityANZ then you must justify to your staff and customers why your guy is on their board,” he wrote.

It is not the first time Mr Allaby, a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors who handles IBM’s financial services *clients across Australia and New Zealand, has been targeted for his association with a religious organisation.

Last year, when employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers, he was pressured into standing down from the board of the Australian Christian Lobby, which opposes changes to marriage law.

Both PwC and IBM are active supporters of Australian Marriage Equality, and their chief executives were among 20 corporate leaders to sign an unprecedented letter lobbying Malcolm Turnbull to legalise same-sex marriage, revealed in The Australian last week.

The letter has sparked heated debate about the role of business in lobbying on social issues, with conservative frontbencher Peter Dutton telling business leaders to “stick to their knitting”.

However, the increasingly *aggressive tactics being employed by some marriage equality activists has highlighted the risks for corporations — and their employees — in taking a position on *divisive political causes.

Leading anti-discrimination lawyer Mark Fowler said employees with religious beliefs in conflict with their employers’ stand on marriage equality were particularly exposed. “In NSW and SA there are currently no laws protecting individuals from expressing their religious beliefs,” Mr Fowler said. “Nor are there religious protections for *individuals under commonwealth laws.”

Australian Christian Lobby managing director Lyle Shelton said the ACL, which helped set up the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, denied that the organisation was “anti-LGBTI”.

“Quite frankly we are tired of this slur being used to intimidate people because of their beliefs,” Mr Shelton said. “Corporate Australia is obviously free to have and express views on political matters.

“Sadly, same-sex marriage activists are intolerant of different views and have co-opted some in the corporate sector to assist them in enforcing this to the point where people fear for their jobs.

“All Australians, including corporate Australia, should openly and forcefully condemn every instance of bullying and intimidation.”

Mr Barnett defended his role yesterday, arguing that when an organisation such as IBM employed an individual in a high-profile leadership role who did not espouse company values, a disparity emerged.

“I have no desire to see IBM sack Mark Allaby. I want the conflict to go away,” Mr Barnett told The Australian.

“Mark Allaby can make whatever decisions he needs to resolve this conflict, and if IBM needs to assist with that process then they can do that.
“My goal is to see IBM, and any other pro-LGBTIQ organisation, remain strong to their stated values.”

Mr Barnett said he had nothing against Mr Allaby personally but his links with the Australian Christian Lobby meant he was a “target for equality campaigners like me”.

IBM did not respond to questions about whether staff were free to engage with external organisations, including religious groups, outside of their employment with the company. “We will not be responding on this,” an IBM spokeswoman said.

Mr Allaby, who lives in Sydney, did not return calls.

[601]

The social media campaign comes after the same activists shamed Adelaide brewer Coopers into pledging allegiance to Australian Marriage Equality after its ties with the Bible Society were *exposed.

This gents, is getting beyond the pale.

If now appears that if one holds a view contrary to your view, one can resort to blackmail?

[ruprecht]

Originally Posted by 601

This gents, is getting beyond the pale.

...or beyond the Pale Ale...

Coopers is a business and can sponsor whatever it likes. Customers are also free to choose to buy or not buy their beer. I doubt many are swayed by social media activism.

That video, however, was cringeworthy... there should be a blanket ban on anyone involved with it!

[le Pingouin]

601, beliefs have consequences when they have impact on other people. No-one is saying you can't believe what you wish, but as soon as you express those beliefs & use them to deny something to others don't expect it to be without consequence.

[psycho joe]

No-one is saying you can't believe what you wish, but as soon as you express those beliefs & use them to deny something to others don't expect it to be without consequence.

Just like Allan Joyce attempting to deny people the vote.