Gay colors?
What issues do employees in Qantas face if they are gay? Are they disadvantaged in some way? Are they over looked for promotion? Do they not get a fair go?
There is nil organisational prejudice in the Qantas workforce. In pilot ranks we have gay Captains, F/Os and S/Os. We have gay pilots in Training roles. We've had gay pilots facilitating CRM. We have gay pilots in management and office roles. They are probably over represented in those roles given their numbers in the wider pilot community. Female pilots are probably over represented in management positions also given their ratio in the wider pilot community.
If you want to look at other roles within Qantas you could argue that females and gays are over represented as a ratio of the wider community as well- HR, F/As are two off the top of my head.
So what prejudice is there to overcome for Qantas?
There is nil organisational prejudice in the Qantas workforce. In pilot ranks we have gay Captains, F/Os and S/Os. We have gay pilots in Training roles. We've had gay pilots facilitating CRM. We have gay pilots in management and office roles. They are probably over represented in those roles given their numbers in the wider pilot community. Female pilots are probably over represented in management positions also given their ratio in the wider pilot community.
If you want to look at other roles within Qantas you could argue that females and gays are over represented as a ratio of the wider community as well- HR, F/As are two off the top of my head.
So what prejudice is there to overcome for Qantas?
So, while I respect your right to be able to express an opinion about these issues, I don't agree with many of the arguments presented about what Joyce should or should not be allowed to do.
Last edited by theheadmaster; 23rd Mar 2017 at 09:45.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What issues do employees in Qantas face if they are gay? Are they disadvantaged in some way? Are they over looked for promotion? Do they not get a fair go?
There is nil organisational prejudice in the Qantas workforce. In pilot ranks we have gay Captains, F/Os and S/Os. We have gay pilots in Training roles. We've had gay pilots facilitating CRM. We have gay pilots in management and office roles. They are probably over represented in those roles given their numbers in the wider pilot community. Female pilots are probably over represented in management positions also given their ratio in the wider pilot community.
If you want to look at other roles within Qantas you could argue that females and gays are over represented as a ratio of the wider community as well- HR, F/As are two off the top of my head.
So what prejudice is there to overcome for Qantas?
There is nil organisational prejudice in the Qantas workforce. In pilot ranks we have gay Captains, F/Os and S/Os. We have gay pilots in Training roles. We've had gay pilots facilitating CRM. We have gay pilots in management and office roles. They are probably over represented in those roles given their numbers in the wider pilot community. Female pilots are probably over represented in management positions also given their ratio in the wider pilot community.
If you want to look at other roles within Qantas you could argue that females and gays are over represented as a ratio of the wider community as well- HR, F/As are two off the top of my head.
So what prejudice is there to overcome for Qantas?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My response has been to challenge the assertions made by some posting here that this is not appropriate for the CEO of a company.
Every other assertion that you've made has already been covered and are mostly non sequitur.
Last edited by psycho joe; 23rd Mar 2017 at 10:16.
Australia has held two national plebiscites, in 1916 and 1917, regarding conscription. The Parliament has managed to develop policy and enact legislation for the intervening 100 years without reliance on a plebiscite. That is not to say that plebiscites are not a feature of democratic representative government, just that a plebiscite is not a requirement for a democratic outcome to the issue of same sex marriage, or any other issue for that matter. The Howard Government changed the Marriage Act without reference to a plebiscite, as it was entitled to under the powers of s51(xxii) of the Constitution. There is nothing 'undemocratic' about government making or changing laws through the normal parliamentary process of responsible government.
I do not agree that someone expressing a view that a plebiscite is not the most appropriate way of deciding the issue is 'undemocratic'. If you were to look at Joyce's argument, he believes that the public debate that will unfold will be harmful to those who are vulnerable. As I have stated previously, the Constitution gives people the right to express this view. This is not a 'non-sequitur' argument. CEOs have responsibilities under the Corporations Act. Joyce has not acted outside of these responsibilities. This is not a 'non-sequitur' argument. Just because your views do not align with established legal and political concepts does not make them 'non-sequitur'.
At least one of those Justices believed (he has since passed away) that the devil is a real being, that the world is only 4000 years old and that everyone has a right to carry a gun at all times and in addition has read the 2nd Amendment down to the commas to justify ordinary people having assault weapons which inevitably fall into the hands of nut cases who end up using them to kill innocent children en masse. You want to have an argument about the United States' Constitution and their system of government and checks and balances, roll the dice pal because I have been studying it for over 40 years and by your response you alone show you have no concept of what you're talking about.
Thank you for providing extracts from the judgments of three of the four dissenting justices.
Since 26th June 2015 the law in the United States is as summarised in my earlier post which is the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
For completeness, I have identified the justices of the Supreme Court who made the remarks Keg has quoted and have also included an extract from the fourth dissenting justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas.
THOMAS, J. with whom SCALIA, J. joins, dissenting.
The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.
SCALIA, J., dissenting
A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy
ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
ALITO, J., dissenting
If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims. Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed.
There is a legal maxim “Fiat justitia ruat cælum” (“Let justice be done though the heavens fall”) signifying the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences.
The most difficult legal decisions always reach and are made by the U.S. Supreme Court.
What has really changed in the United States since 26th June 2015, the date the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)?
Even prior to this decision, thirty-six States, the District of Columbia, and Guam already issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court decision has not opened the floodgates. Same-sex marriages were already widespread throughout the USA.
Justice Windeyer’s comment in Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey [1970] HCA 60 that “law [marches] with [developments in] medicine but in the rear and limping a little” could be applied more generally to all legal decisions. The law is slow to adapt and change to changes in society.
The U.S. Supreme Court found that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person and that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
It is hardly a radical departure from what was already happening in the USA. The decision affirms that this process toward same-sex marriages, already well underway in the USA, is underpinned by a secure legal footing.
Since 26th June 2015 the law in the United States is as summarised in my earlier post which is the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
For completeness, I have identified the justices of the Supreme Court who made the remarks Keg has quoted and have also included an extract from the fourth dissenting justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas.
THOMAS, J. with whom SCALIA, J. joins, dissenting.
The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.
SCALIA, J., dissenting
A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy
ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
ALITO, J., dissenting
If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims. Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed.
There is a legal maxim “Fiat justitia ruat cælum” (“Let justice be done though the heavens fall”) signifying the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences.
The most difficult legal decisions always reach and are made by the U.S. Supreme Court.
What has really changed in the United States since 26th June 2015, the date the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)?
Even prior to this decision, thirty-six States, the District of Columbia, and Guam already issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court decision has not opened the floodgates. Same-sex marriages were already widespread throughout the USA.
Justice Windeyer’s comment in Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey [1970] HCA 60 that “law [marches] with [developments in] medicine but in the rear and limping a little” could be applied more generally to all legal decisions. The law is slow to adapt and change to changes in society.
The U.S. Supreme Court found that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person and that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
It is hardly a radical departure from what was already happening in the USA. The decision affirms that this process toward same-sex marriages, already well underway in the USA, is underpinned by a secure legal footing.
As for the comment about the Declaration of Independence... absolutely irrelevant as it is not a legal document in a Constitutional sense, it was simply a declaration of war.
Once again, at least one of the Justices that dissented believed that Jesus stood on the shoulders of the 'founding fathers' when they wrote the Constitution - in fact many, including those specifically involved in the Constitution were avowedly disgusted by Christianity and actually any religious belief as they felt it detracted from the liberty of the individual and the first President thought Christianity particularly was an evil that would render the world a better place if it were completely absent from it. Americans wave flags and talk about a 'Christian Nation' when in fact that was the exact opposite of the founding fathers almost to a man... and re-affirmed explicitly in the Treaty of Tripoli.
It is that is correct but about 80% of the Australian Constitution is based on the United States (line up the Articles and Chapters and you will see that they align in terms of what they cover and many words are similar, along with the separation of powers). As such, US Constitutional thought does have a bearing on the decisions of our High Court considering the similar origins of our entrenched Constitutions and much of the jurisprudence is similar so it is actually relevant and the U.S. Constitution has been cited a number of times in the High Court's opinions and judgements. This is no different to the way that older 'parent' documents such as Magna Carta have sometimes informed decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court because they represent an origin or influence just as the U.S. Constitution does in the Commonwealth of Australia.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 23rd Mar 2017 at 11:22. Reason: added words
Nunc est bibendum
It affects fsmilies. It affects society. That means it affects me. It's important to point out that there are many who are not 'religiously inclined' who agree with that principle.
People have disputed the principle I'm offering here but consider drug use in the privacy of someone's own home. Using the pro SSM line of argument that doesn't affect me so why shouldnt it be legal too? We have laws on drug use and other issues because we know that some things are important in society.
I keep hearing how 'the majority of Aussies are in favour of same sex marriage'. I'm not convinced. Yes Minister is the definitive meme when it comes to survey results and recent results such as Brexit and Trump's win shows that they're not real reliable I don't reckon the Aussie public has actually engaged fully with the issue or at least had both sides of the issue explained to them.
So a plebiscite is a good way forward I reckon. Funding for 'yes' and 'no' cases- and no doubt the 'yes' side will get considerable funding from other entities also including unions- and that way I can ensure it's not just politicians deciding this issue amongst themselves. Most Christians I know would accept the result of a plebiscite even if we disagreed with it. I'd at least be confident that we had the best chance of the nation engaging with the issue
I also suspect that the reason Labor put the kybosh on the plebiscite is that they have internal polling that suggested it was going to be a close run thing. Their proferred excuse of 'hate speech' against gays is a furphy and so far the threats and hate speech have been against Christians and/ or premises/ groups/ companies that were facilitating them meeting rather than the other way around.
The stupid thing was that had they agreed to the plebiscite, by now the result would have been known and the issue decided. Perhaps gay people would be getting married very soon. Perhaps the true will of the nation would be known.
.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why is this discussion still going after 16 pages?
I would hope, that if and when SSM is enacted, that if the discussion came up again on this forum say 10 or 20 year's later, that the only response would be the sound of crickets chirping.
That would be the response that I would expect today, for example, if someone displayed indigation that Qantas had employed a female pilot.
If PPRuNe had existed back when Qantas employed it's first female pilot, I'm sure we would have had at least 16 pages on the subject.
Society does evolve, but sometimes it takes more than 16 pages to make it happen.
It also takes a lot of community awareness and discussion. Alan Joyce is not trying to undermine democracy by painting a rainbow logo on a jet, he is simply contributing to community awareness and demonstrating that his Company supports the issue (which would most certainly have been approved by the Board and therefore shareholders).
I will say this though, the tone of the last 8 pages is a damned sight better than the first 8 pages, so I'm glad this thread is being allowed to run it's course.
But it has no direct impact on you Keg. Indirect yes, direct no. The only people it directly affects are those wishing to avail themselves of a same-sex marriage.
The plebiscite would have been very ugly - you only have to read some of the more extreme comments here to realise that. The worst opponents would have been attacking homosexuality, not just the subject of SSM.
The plebiscite would have been very ugly - you only have to read some of the more extreme comments here to realise that. The worst opponents would have been attacking homosexuality, not just the subject of SSM.
marriage equality.
Think about it.
The only people it directly affects are those wishing to avail themselves of a same-sex marriage.
It debases the institution of marriage that we have entered into and believe in.
Call it whatever else you wish, but don't call it "marriage"
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Their proferred excuse of 'hate speech' against gays is a furphy and so far the threats and hate speech have been against Christians and/ or premises/ groups/ companies that were facilitating them meeting rather than the other way round.
Imagine if we had a plebiscite about Muslim immigration. Could you perceive any "hate speech" evolving out of that? Do you think that would be good for our society? Do you really think an SSM plebiscite would be any different? If a so-called Professional Pilot's forum has difficulty keeping out the hate, can you imagine what would happen if it was unleashed amongst the masses?
Or, if in fact you are correct that it would unleash more hate against Christians, then perhaps you need to be more careful about what you wish for!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What issues do employees in Qantas face if they are gay? Are they disadvantaged in some way? Are they over looked for promotion? Do they not get a fair go?
There is nil organisational prejudice in the Qantas workforce. [snip... for brevity]
So what prejudice is there to overcome for Qantas?
There is nil organisational prejudice in the Qantas workforce. [snip... for brevity]
So what prejudice is there to overcome for Qantas?
I've been in Qantas long enough to know that hasn't always been the case. I've known S/O's never to make F/O on account of the fact that they were "foolish" enough to come out in public as gay. Also, F/O's never to make Captain for the same reason.
Times have changed. Why? Because people like Alan Joyce have made it known that it won't be tolerated.
It didn't change overnight with a memo from the boss.
It took decades of cultural change, lead by the leaders of Companies, not politicians.
That is no different from what is happening today.
Keg,
You can't really be equating rhe effect SSM has on society, with drug use can you? Your arguments must be getting thin...
It would be good if those people who 'just don't like SSM' could simply say 'I oppose it because I don't like it' instead of trying create fallacious arguments against it.
SSM will and has be shown, to have none of the detrimental effects on society that it's opponents claim it has.
You can't really be equating rhe effect SSM has on society, with drug use can you? Your arguments must be getting thin...
It would be good if those people who 'just don't like SSM' could simply say 'I oppose it because I don't like it' instead of trying create fallacious arguments against it.
SSM will and has be shown, to have none of the detrimental effects on society that it's opponents claim it has.
(Not trying to provoke, trying to understand where you are coming from).
I have several good friends who are gay and have been in long term, monogamous same sex relationships (one couple have been together longer than my own marriage).
These couples have had (and continue to have) a positive and supporting role for me personally, for my other friends, for my own marriage and in the lives of my children and as far as I can see for society in general where they are hardworking, caring, generous and compassionate members of society. They are role models for my kids the same as close heterosexual couple friends.
Certainly only positives for me and my family (in my experience). No different from friends who are "officially married" couples.
Where do you see their relationships as being negative for me, my family and society?
If you think it debases marriage then you must have a very low opinion of the strength of said "institution".
As I said, I have no problem with the SS getting all the legal benefits of marriage, but don't call the union a marriage because it never will be a marriage.
