I don't know enough about this, but from what you write I would be sympathetic with her too. Did she intentionally help to out him, or was it a mistake. If it's a mistake, and if we believe that gay is no big deal, and if no on in Oz cared, then why is sacking her okay? What are we saying about this information? That being gay is so sacrosanct that even if one inadvertantly mentions it, then that's grounds to be sacked? To me, at least in substance, I don't see the difference between this as what celebs who are accused (and I choose that word because that's what this seem like) of being gay. There first line of defense (a la Tom Cruise) is to threaten to sue someone into oblivion. My problem with the whole approach including firing someone for inadvertantly saying someone is gay is that it presumes gay=bad. I don't see how it's possible to get around that when it comes to this lady being fired. It would be the equivalent of saying Bobby is dating Debbie, and no one knew that Bobby was dating Debbie. Or it should be. Unless she signed something saying she wouldn't blurt out a random fact like this, then why the differing standards?

It's interesting too how, as gay relationships gain standing like here in Canada where gays can legally marry, the issue of disclosure becomes complicated. I mean, say the singer was married to another guy, but did not advertize this to his fans, would it be fairer game to disclose it? I'd think that if he were married (or socially registered or whatever the word may be in different jurisdictions, then that is a public position, and thus disclosable without violating privacy provisions. (As well, I think you can't have it both way marrying publicly with family and friends and then threaten to sue that you were slandered over being gay).

Hey Pippin...feel like taking those words back now? The man has confirmed his sexuality,in the press and with a beautiful message to his fans...and those young girls you said were there merely because they could fantasise about him were amazingly supportive of him and continue with their loyalty. Justice Kirby, Australia's Openly Gay High Judge said of Callea..and I quote "he has done a bold and correct thing, He is an admirable Australian" And far from cheesey, his music and his voice has impressed the likes of Luciano Pavarotti, not a bad effort that ;)

I believe she intentionally leaked information that the station had deemed it didn't want public (but I could be wrong). I wouldn't care if it was about his being gay, going to a fat farm, or having an affair. Leaking info is grounds for getting sacked. She isn't the one who inadvertently outed him. That person hasn't been fired and nor do I think he should be. He thought it was common knowledge and simply made a mistake. No one should be fired for that. She apparently leaked it after that. If it was inadvertent then no sacking. If she did it on purpose (and I gather she did) then sack her.

I suppose if you treat all leaked information as a ground for sacking then it's cool. I just find that a lot of people treat the whole gay information as sacrosanct in the press. They can report about (and pardon my vulgarness) Britney Spears, or whoever it was, showing her vagina in public, but mention a celeb is gay and everyone goes hush, hush, oh, no, that's entirely inappropriate. My question which is mostly rhectorical, but not completely, is why? If we can talk about Britney's why not this kid? But, if your standard is that as an employee she was told not to do this, and she then did it anyway, and it's not about the information she devulged, then I agree. But, I have to wonder- would they have sacked her if she had let be admitted that he was dating some supermodel? would he have cared? Your reasons are the information has been devulged that should not have been. But is that their reasoning (those who fired her) the same as yours? I know we can't answer that, but I suspect it's not.

She was very selfish. It is not her decision or anyone else's except Anthony's. He makes the decision. It's his life.

What's even more interesting is that some of the press sympathetic to the girl is actually queer media (http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/509/Callea_Outing_Pushes_Girl_From_The_Edge) and suggests that the traffic reporter is the one that should have been sacked.

Now, while I thought sacking the girl was probably overkill (though punishment was certainly merited), I actually admired the traffic reporter for treating Callea's sexuality as a total non-issue.

The argument is that Callea's key audience is young females and by spreading the audio to one of the nation's biggest newspapers she was (probably unwittingly) causing a considerably higher amount of damage to his career.

But if opinion polls are saying no one cares, why are we so cagey about it?

It's that perennial perception that being gay hurts your career but, without anyone at the top of their game actually coming, how do we know that's actually true?

I find it very sad, if unsurprising, that Callea has stayed quiet. This was his best chance to come out and garner public sympathy. Now he will stay silent and self-hating and later when he comes out, will likely engender a great deal of hostility or cynical reactions.

uhm- no its not "his life" he's a celeb. that means he games by using public perception. he can't then claim that he is protected against public perception. my standard is pretty simple: I don't treat information about someone being gay differently than I treat other information. It's not special information. No more than Britney being rehab is.

absolutely, craig. i'm from Australia, and callea uses his image
to make money (by the way, he is cheese central and his 'music'
stinks to high heaven.) He personally is not ashamed of being
gay in his private life, he has had boyfriends that have been
rumoured in the Aussie press. The only reason he stays in the
closet is to make more money off girls because of the perception
correct or incorrect that pimply girls buy music for the sole
reason that it is made by someone that they can fantasise about
(and of course they have so little imagination that if they
found out he was gay then they could no longer fantasise about
him and therefore would no longer buy his crappy music). I dont
feel any loyalty to respect such actions and condemn those that
leak the perfectly truthly and underwhelming information
that Anthony Callea is gay to a public who already knew this.
It's just giving that little midgit a kick in the pants to do
something for a whole community (the gay one) rather than just
himself and his own career for once.

scuse the spelling mistakes and terrible sentence structure of the above post!
and if what i was saying wasn't clear: i don't feel the need to protect the career of a closeted gay man like Anthony Callea (or any other high profile short men, Tom cough cough Cruise) who is only going to lose a little pride and maybe a few less millions from the public revelation that they're gay. I don't condone malicious outing but I do't feel sorry for these guys. They could do something good for society but they'd rather fill their coffers from making questionable art which only contributes to their own obscene wealth and questionable lifestyles (can anybody say sham marriages?). pippin

and another thing! if they do what they do for true love of the craft they wouldn't mind going back to singing in the shower or acting in local theatre if a homophobic public disowns them. Better to live in truth any day. It's not ethical in the current climate to be extremely high profile and closeted. It sends the wrong messag. These guys aren't in physical danger. They have bodyguards and secret hideaway homes on tropical islands made off the lustful teenage girls who shell out for their pap.