YES, the football league. (and should the AFL comment on social issues)

[yoodooright]

So Gil ran an anonymous poll of his staff before phoning the press, right?

A capitalistic organisation is not beholden to the views of its employees.

 

[JeffDunne]

Who does the AFL represent, club supporters or their employees?

The AFL has plenty of gay employees including now openly gay players.

I reckon they have more of an obligation to those employees than they do football supporters.

 

[Altum Volantes]

That's your organisation. Maybe its values are poorly defined.

No they quite clearly defined....loosely enforced....guidelines.

Like a hell of a lot of companies, they roll with the punches and do what they need to do to stay in the game.

 

[Percel]

Given the long list of hoax hate attacks reported by the sjw set in recent years I'd happily lay a pineapple in the bet that the person who phoned in the bomb threat to gil was a shirtlifter in a vote yes tshirt looking for sympathy and publicity.

What's a shirtlifter?

 

[RupieDupie]

It takes a Giant Person with a Giant Heart to stand up and be leaders of the community.

#IhearttheGiants
#IhearttheAFL

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No they quite clearly defined....loosely enforced....guidelines.

Like a hell of a lot of companies, they roll with the punches and do what they need to do to stay in the game.

OK. What does this have to do with the AFL?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Given the long list of hoax hate attacks reported by the sjw set in recent years I'd happily lay a pineapple in the bet that the person who phoned in the bomb threat to gil was a shirtlifter in a vote yes tshirt looking for sympathy and publicity.

Right here, right now, even as I type this, the NO campaign is succeeding in its original premise - to white-ant the entirety of the Religious Conservative movement. Check out Corey Bernardi - he knew full well that his negative comments about schoolboys in dresses would only lead to more success for that particular charity. He DESIGNED it that way, much as the NO leadership hope to make us all point and laugh at the supposed 'ineptitude' of the Religious Right.

You know it's all been planned, Sir. After all, you were the one telling me to expose you right here, right now. The RR is a laughing stock and the world is moving on.

It's been an honour, Sir.

 

[Pessimistic]

Mn

Well considering the Act was enacted in 1961, with no definition of marriage until 2004 when the Howard government plonked the above definition in via amendment - yes.

Another 2 attacks reported from the yes campaign, Tony Abbott and also a Geelong church. They are really doing their cause no good.

Abbott? That never happened

 

[ClokesShankedIt]

Right here, right now, even as I type this, the NO campaign is succeeding in its original premise - to white-ant the entirety of the Religious Conservative movement. Check out Corey Bernardi - he knew full well that his negative comments about schoolboys in dresses would only lead to more success for that particular charity. He DESIGNED it that way, much as the NO leadership hope to make us all point and laugh at the supposed 'ineptitude' of the Religious Right.

You know it's all been planned, Sir. After all, you were the one telling me to expose you right here, right now. The RR is a laughing stock and the world is moving on.

It's been an honour, Sir.

Is there anyone out there that is prepared to take a shot at translating this drivel into a coherent statement?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Is there anyone out there that is prepared to take a shot at translating this drivel into a coherent statement?

You told me to ignore that too, Sir.

 

[yoodooright]

Mn




Abbott? That never happened

did you mean to quote me Pessimistic ?

 

[Requiem]

Personally couldn't care less about someone's sexual choice of adult partner.

I want the 'Yes' vote to go trough, purely so we can focus on more important issues facing this nation.

 

[JackFlash]

Another mistake by Gil, stay out of this stuff and just run the competition. It's a plebiscite, people have every right to vote according to their own conscious and beliefs without fear of being shamed and ostracized if they vote No. I voted YES because i believe in free will, i believe if two people are in love no matter what sex and wish to be married i have no problem with it. Just stop and take a second and look at the question that has to be answered and think to yourself "Does this affect me in any way "?
In my case no it doesn't, so i ticked the YES column. Not everyone thinks that way, i had my usual dinner tonight with mates and one of them voted NO because he was anxious about it and felt uncomfortable, i might add he is religious where as i am a heathen. I wasn't going to argue with him or kick him out of my life, we proceeded to talk about sport and music as always...The AFL have approximately 9million supporters of their football clubs in Australia, they all have differing opinions on the subject. They don't have a right to influence any plebiscite. Get on with running the game Gil, or should we toss a coin on Gay marriage too?

 

[Pessimistic]

did you mean to quote me Pessimistic ?

Referring to abbotts responses whenever anyone described him as violent (in uni)

 

[Garry Barry]

This vote is the wrong way to go about it. Any vote is a popularity contest, and it's an issue that only effects directly less 10% of the population, and an often marginalised one at that.
Pollies should just do what's right and fair.

Anyone voting no should ask themselves how they would feel if there was a vote to make all marriage illegal and only gay people were allowed to vote. Stupid right?

 

[ep2018]

Bomb threats, AFL sign defaced and now reports Abbott was assaulted on the street, what a shit storm this whole thing has been.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Another mistake by Gil, stay out of this stuff and just run the competition. It's a plebiscite, people have every right to vote according to their own conscious and beliefs without fear of being shamed and ostracized if they vote No.

Did the AFL suggest people don't have the right to vote however they choose? Did they shame anyone or ostracise anyone?

The AFL have approximately 9million supporters of their football clubs in Australia, they all have differing opinions on the subject.

That's fine.

They don't have a right to influence any plebiscite.

The AFL has a right to express its view as an organisation.

 

[whysoyou2601]

Poiltics and sport should be seperate

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I don't see how believing that a certain group of people should have the same marriage rights as everyone else, is political.

 

[Pessimistic]

Did the AFL suggest people don't have the right to vote however they choose? Did they shame anyone or ostracise anyone?

That's fine.

The AFL has a right to express its view as an organisation.

Gil emphasised that people have that right

 

[yoodooright]

Referring to abbotts responses whenever anyone described him as violent (in uni)

My quote was about the Howard government in '04 - nothing to do with Abbott

 

[Antares]

Right here, right now, even as I type this, the NO campaign is succeeding in its original premise - to white-ant the entirety of the Religious Conservative movement. Check out Corey Bernardi - he knew full well that his negative comments about schoolboys in dresses would only lead to more success for that particular charity. He DESIGNED it that way, much as the NO leadership hope to make us all point and laugh at the supposed 'ineptitude' of the Religious Right.

You know it's all been planned, Sir. After all, you were the one telling me to expose you right here, right now. The RR is a laughing stock and the world is moving on.

It's been an honour, Sir.

 

[JackFlash]

Did the AFL suggest people don't have the right to vote however they choose? Did they shame anyone or ostracise anyone?b

That's fine.

The AFL has a right to express its view as an organisation.

Who gave them that right? Will the AFL be active political campaigners in future, will Gil run for PM?
No, i don't agree with changing logos and i believe they were going to paint YES on the grounds this weekend. Luckily that idea got shot down. With 9 million football fans in Australia, the AFL is one of the most influential organisations in Australia, they went too far! We should be able to vote according to the dictates of our own conscious without fear of retribution by others. The more "no" voters are attacked and vilified, the more they get to misrepresent the SSM issue

The AFL should not become like a lot of corporate organisations, who want to run other people's lives in pursuit of their vision of the perfect world.
The vote is a simple Yes or No.. I voted yes, it was my call, it's my business, but i am not going to lecture anybody who votes NO. Many people have been shamed and ostracized, some lost their jobs! Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to all of us, many counties throughout the world do not have these rights. We're lucky we can have this vote at all, maybe if our pollies had any balls and voted for this in parliament hings might be a little less clouded. The AFL is one of the most influential organisations in Australia. A simple statement of support would've been enough. "This decision does not affect you in any way." Vote with your conscious. If you really think hard about the question the majority will end up voting YES anyway.

"Never borrow from a family member or discuss religion with strangers. And whatever you do, don't mix politics and sport"....

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Who gave them that right?

Who gave the AFL the right to express their view?

Everyone has the right to express a view. Do you disagree?

With 9 million football fans in Australia, the AFL is one of the most influential organisations in Australia, they went too far!

By expressing the organisation's view while emphasising "people should get out and vote and have their view"?

“I think it’s incumbent upon us to have a view and I also think it’s incumbent upon us not to lecture people, to not force it down their throat but say this is who we are as a brand ... but go out and vote and have your own view.”

How is that "going too far"?

We should be able to vote according to the dictates of our own conscious without fear of retribution by others. The more "no" voters are attacked and vilified, the more they get to misrepresent the SSM issue

The AFL hasn't attacked or vilified anyone.

The AFL should not become like a lot of corporate organisations, who want to run other people's lives in pursuit of their vision of the perfect world.

The AFL has made no attempt to run people's lives.

The vote is a simple Yes or No.. I voted yes, it was my call, it's my business, but i am not going to lecture anybody who votes NO. Many people have been shamed and ostracized, some lost their jobs!

None of this applies to the AFL.

They haven't lectured anyone. They haven't shamed anyone. They haven't ostracised anyone. What are you talking about?

The AFL is one of the most influential organisations in Australia. A simple statement of support would've been enough. "This decision does not affect you in any way." Vote with your conscious. If you really think hard about the question the majority will end up voting YES anyway.

A simple statement of support?

I think that's basically what they offered, isn't it?

 

[MightyTiger]

Gotta love how SSM is the hottest topic going around at the moment, yet millions of young kids, families and innocent people are dying around the world due to poverty, war and other silly political bullshit we have. Where was this outrage when America invaded the Middle East with Australia right behind there tails and played a hand in the killing of millions of innocent people, but yes, same sex marriage is the most important thing we need to worry about at the moment and the biggest civil Injustice since the last biggest Injustice. Give me a spell, shove your SSM and worry about what's actually going on around the world.

Sent from my HTC 2PS6200 using Tapatalk

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Gotta love how SSM is the hottest topic going around at the moment, yet millions of young kids, families and innocent people are dying around the world due to poverty, war and other silly political bullshit we have.

Would not talking about SSM alleviate those other problems? Is it one or the other?

In Australia, the debate about SSM is immediate and change is achievable.

It makes no point to pivot away from that and say: "Well, what about South Sudan?"

Where was this outrage when America invaded the Middle East with Australia right behind there tails and played a hand in the killing of millions of innocent people, but yes, same sex marriage is the most important thing we need to worry about at the moment and the biggest civil Injustice since the last biggest Injustice.

No one is saying that.

But there is now a choice for people to make. And that choice can be a catalyst for change.

Give me a spell, shove your SSM and worry about what's actually going on around the world.

We can walk and chew gum.

However, I put it to you that people who are directly affected would say being denied the right to get married falls into the category of "what's actually going on". It may be some abstract consideration for you but that's not the case for everyone.