Is It Wrong For A Person To Be Sacked For Holding A Certain Personal Opinion?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3485915/Christian-magistrate-sacked-claiming-adopted-children-better-man-woman-parents-gay-couple.html

[anotheoldgit]

I've not yet read all the posts on this but as far as I can see both the Magistrate, divebuddy and of course myself have committed the cardinal sin of possessing a personal opinion that doesn't fit in with what we are told is the the correct opinion to hold.

No one yet has answered my question should heterosexual males be allowed to adopt? Or answered my views on Black and White adoptions.

And I will ask another would it be more beneficial to the child for two Lesbians to adopt a child rather than two male homosexuals?

But to get back to making a decision on gay adoptions even if a fair judgement is made and unfortunately the potential gay adopters were not successful in their quest, would we not get the usual "it's because we are gay"?

[Old_Geezer]

Sorry are you baring heterosexual males from adopting ? Is that single ones or married ones or ones in a relationship ?

No I do not think it good to inflict two fathers or two mothers on a child instead of one of each. I think most would have a hard job honestly denying they wouldn't rather have been brought up in a normal family unit of one of each gender parent. But when there are insufficient adoption requests, and some are rejected for daft reasons like too fat or wrong colour, it's a case of is an abnormal family better than an institution ?

But as for the OP question, if the personal opinion does not interfere with their job, then no, if it does then possibly yes.

[Islay]

No one yet has answered my question should heterosexual males be allowed to adopt? If a single hetrosexual male wishes to adopt a child he should be allowed, your question was about 2 males in a friendship living together but not in a relationship, so the chances are that months or years down the line they will marry and have their own children, then like divorce they would need to sort out custody. If they can prove to the adoption agencies that they are stable and secure why not?

Or answered my views on Black and White adoptions. One can't answer your views only questions!

And I will ask another would it be more beneficial to the child for two Lesbians to adopt a child rather than two male homosexuals? Makes no difference as long as both sets prove to have a stable background and are able to support the child.

[Islay]

Sorry my answer above are responses to anotheroldgits response at the top of the page - formatting hasn't worked this morning.

[anotheoldgit]

I have now read the rest of the posts and one will notice without my intervention, it has turned into a slanging match of insults and the usual name calling

/// I actually show complete understanding of what you have been saying - and you have been exposed, and your response is ignorant and offensive ///

/// If you are only able to answer a simple question with paranoia and abuse, ///

But to be fair they are not all from the one who sets himself up as the purveyor of decorum. politeness and fair play.

Here is another:

/// first answer - best answer - instead of the bullocks that AOG has chosen. ///

And of course we have had the usual insults banded about, Homophobic, Bigot, etc.

And even the usual criticism against me for daring to introduce certain topics for debate.

/// Usually, he wants to draw attention to the news item, ensuring maximum page views and (he probably hopes) maximum outrage. Getting a debate on the boil ensures visibility for hours at a stretch. ///

[agchristie]

I wish to raise a point arising from the link I attached concerning Judge Peter Bowers.

He was actually given an official reprimand and was not sacked for his comments regarding a burglary and he even stated in his summing up "I will probably get pilloried for this".

The Judge's comments provoked outrage and David Cameron spoke in the House about the comments and how it undermined confidence in the legal system.

So, in summary, an opinion was stated which he knew would be controversial but was not serious in itself to cause his removal from the circuit.

This surely demonstrates that personal opinions that are aired in this arena that receive more attention than the case AOG originally linked are not necessarily such to cause the dismissal of the speaker.

[New Judge]

It is considerably more difficult to remove a judge from office than it is to remove a magistrate. Judges are appointed “quamdiu se bene gesserint” (while they behave themselves). A Judge of the Supreme Court, High Court or the Court of Appeal) can be removed only for serious misconduct and/or by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. (No English judge has ever been removed by a resolution in Parliament). The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice can remove circuit judges and Recorders from office for incapacity or misbehaviour, failure to comply with training or sitting requirements, or sustained failure to observe the standards reasonably expected of a judge.

Magistrates enjoy no such protection and any demonstration of lack of impartiality, expression of prejudice or anything which may bring the magistracy into disrepute can see them suspended or removed.

Had Mr Page been a judge it is extremely unlikely that his comments would have seen his removal from office. Having said that it is equally unlikely that a serving judge would have been foolish enough to express such views on a national TV programme.

[agchristie]

NJ - thank you for explaining the difference in depth. I did suspect that magistrates were more vulnerable to dismissal compared to judges.

I know that many appeals have arisen from trial judges who are claimed to have mis-directed juries through citing an opinion(s) that could inappropriately influence the outcome. Sometimes appellate judges uphold these complaints of course.

As for judges who fall asleep, well let's not go there....

[New Judge]

zzzzzz......zzzzzz......zzzzzz......zzzzzzz :-)

[agchristie]

^ that's dozey! ;)

[sp1814]

AOG

Should heterosexual couples be allowed to adopt?

I think that no-one has answered that, because it's a question without value.

What the hell is 'a male heterosexual couple'?

Do they exist?

The question has as much value as, "Should Giraffes be banned from teaching algebra in state schools?"

Valueless.

[Peter Pedant]

The sacking of course leaves a question mark over whether any lawyer holding traditional Christian views,

No it doesnt

the mag has been busy screwing himself on the media

" I thought I woiuld do the best for the child in my opinion ... "

oops sorry the Children Act doesnt say that
it says the interests of the child are paramount

No wonder he went
the only wonder is .... he didnt go quicker

and sorry to the folks I said he wasnt sacked because that means Employment Tribunals because .....
he is going to an Empoyment Trib actually

I dont know wny AOG glorifies an official who decides which laws to enforce and which not - I dont
if you dont want to apply the law - dont do the job !

[sp1814]

I think the answer is this:

[i]My responsibility as a magistrate, as I saw it, was to do what I considered best for the child. In that capacity I would review the circumstances of all adoptive parents based on the facts before me.

Whilst my personal opinion as a Christian, is that children are best brought up in a male/female household, I recognise that I cannot allow personal beliefs to interfere with my job.[i]

You see - with that he expresses his personal opinion, and simultaneously carries on in his role as magistrate.

[Hypognosis]

@AOG

//
divebuddy and of course myself have committed the cardinal sin of possessing a personal opinion that doesn't fit in with what we are told is the the correct opinion to hold.
//

Hey! How's it feel to be your own oppressed minority?

Let us know when you start empathising with other minorities out there, man.