When accepting the status quo can cost you your job

Just as same-sex marriage advocates were trying to convince us this reform would not limit religious freedom or see overbearing political correctness crush freedom of expression, up popped Capital Kids Parties. A small company sufficiently pluralistic to profit from children’s characters as diverse as Wonder Woman, Batman, Prince Charming and Snow White apparently was not able to accommodate the views of a worker supporting the status quo in marriage law. When the owner, Madlin Sims, saw a Facebook post proclaiming “It’s OK to vote NO” made by 18-year-old Christian contractor Madeline, she axed her. “Today I fired a staff member who made it public knowledge that they feel ‘it’s okay to vote no’,” Ms Sims posted on her own Facebook page. “Advertising your desire to vote no for SSM is, in my eyes, hate speech … voting no is homophobic.” Madeline, who prefers not to use her surname, rejects claims of homophobia and says she was just standing up for her beliefs.

This episode is an almost perfect test case for the bizarre tensions and legal uncertainties playing out in this debate. It is not a clash between contemporary tolerance and ancient bigotry; this is two young women with different points of view on gay marriage. The one who lost her job for respectfully presenting her view is reflecting existing law and the view officially endorsed by both major parties and most politicians until at least 2012. If such widespread and traditional views can cost you your job, what else do we need to fear?

The Australian has argued that the government — indeed the parliament — should have provided detailed draft legislation so the public knew what protections for religious freedom would be provided if gay marriage went ahead. Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten have dismissed these calls and asked to be taken on trust. Yet even before the reform has occurred, Madeline finds that opposition to gay marriage can have devastating consequences. Like something from one of Capital Kids Parties’ other characters, the Mad Hatter, this situation seems too absurd to be true; it is a topsy-turvy world when supporting the status quo sees you suffer discrimination at the hands of those espousing tolerance.

Investigators are looking at the case for possible breaches of the Fair Work Act but, given it involves a contractor rather than an employee, little may happen. While legal remedies are examined, the question now is how much worse this situation may be after the legalisation of same-sex marriage: would those opposed to gay marriage be even more vulnerable to sanction by their employer, other individuals or even state-sanctioned bodies such as human rights bodies? The level of uncertainty about these legal positions is worrying. With many people yet to receive their forms, let alone return them, the controversy may sway more votes as a reaction to the bullying and intolerance of gay marriage advocates and because of doubts about legal protections.

Such is the acrimony, Capital Kids Parties is receiving threats. It is a timely reminder that tolerance ought to extend to other people’s points of view.