A children’s entertainment company that allegedly sacked a contractor after she expressed opposition to same-sex marriage on social media may have breached discrimination law, experts have warned.

Experts including Sydney University associate professor Belinda Smith and Per Capita research fellow Tim Lyons note the law protects the political and religious views of employees and contractors, regardless of whether they support or oppose marriage equality.

According to reports Capital Kids Parties in Canberra stopped employing an 18-year-old contractor, identified so far only as Madeline, after she had worked just two shifts.

Madlin Sims, the company’s owner, posted on social media that she had “fired a staff member who made it public knowledge that they feel ‘it’s okay to vote no’”.

“Advertising your desire to vote no for [same-sex marriage] is, in my eyes, hate speech,” she said.

Sims said it wasn’t a case of “you’re voting no, you’re fired” because “there were prior conversations had”.

“As a business that works with children of all kinds, we have a responsibility to working with vulnerable people and having someone who is out [and] proud about their beliefs (of which are statistically proven to have horrible effects on young members of the gay community) is a risk for the wellbeing of the children we work with.”

In interviews with Sky News and Triple J, Madeline said she had been sacked because her Christian belief did not permit her to vote yes.

Under the ACT Discrimination Act, both religious and political convictions are protected attributes. Employees and contractors cannot be discriminated against on those bases. Religious organisations have an exemption allowing them to discriminate.

The ACT discrimination commissioner, Karen Toohey, confirmed it may be unlawful to sack an employee or contractor for religious and political views, sex, gender identity or sexuality.

“You can bring a complaint on that basis, it’s a decision for the ACT civil and administrative tribunal [to determine],” she said.

Smith said that “if religious convictions are a protected attribute – as they are in [the] ACT – then generally it is not permissible to fire someone for those convictions – this could constitute direct discrimination”.

However, employers “can generally prescribe what workers can and can’t say and do on the job to clients”, she said.

Lyons, a workplace law expert from his time as the Australian Council of Trade Unions assistant secretary, said it was “important to note that discrimination law works both ways”.

Both supporters of the yes and no cases were protected by laws that make it unlawful to discriminate based on a person’s religious or political conviction, he said.

“As long as the expression of your views isn’t threatening people in the workplace ... and is not hate speech, then clearly you’ve got a right to your views.”

“The irony is that people on the right loudly protesting the so-called politically-correct thought police will have their rights protected by those laws as well.”

A University of Queensland free speech expert, Prof Katharine Gelber, said in her view saying “it’s OK to vote no” was “a pretty gentle way of stating a view” which would not amount to hate speech or vilification.

Gelber said that any alleged breach of employer policy would depend on whether an employee or contractor was identifiable as such on their social media account.

“It’s not unusual for employers, particularly in the public service, to have strict guidelines about political issues.

“Employers are increasingly controlling the views of their workers on social media, which could be seen as an overreach.”

Gelber said discrimination law contained “longstanding exemptions for religious organisations”, allowing them to discriminate on sexuality and gender.

“Nobody is suggesting that exemption be removed – it is misleading to suggest that same-sex marriage will lead to churches being put in position where their teachings or employment practices will be illegal ... They will still be free to discriminate in hiring.”

A spokeswoman for the Coalition for Marriage, on behalf of Madeline, said that Sims’s brother had asked her to take down the “it’s OK to say no” message from Facebook, but she received no communication from Capital Kids Parties until she was sacked.

On Wednesday, Bill Shorten said he would not comment on the individual case but “people should not be dismissed from their employment for having different views about marriage equality”.

“Peoples’ job security shouldn’t be threatened by that ... No-one should risk losing their job because they are either voting yes or no.”



On Wednesday, YouGov released results of a poll that showed that 59% of respondents would change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry, compared with 33% who would not and 9% who did not know.

The poll found only a majority of over 55s would vote no (46% to 44%), while those between 18 and 24 overwhelmingly supported marriage equality (with 82% in favour).

On Tuesday, the Guardian Essential poll found support for marriage equality sat at 55% (down 4% in a fortnight), while 34% of those opposed (up 3%), although yes voters were still more likely to vote.