T W A U ... The Chase....today's...
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Is It Wrong For A Person To Be Sacked For Holding A Certain Personal Opinion?
134 Answers
Answers
The sacking of course leaves a question mark over whether any lawyer holding traditional Christian views, could now serve in conscience as a judge or magistrate. It also beggars the question as to whether the same applies to Sikh, Buddhist, Jewish or Muslim JPs. Of course a further question is, does anyone of any faith want to be 'judged' by an Atheist?
11:19 Fri 11th Mar 2016
/// If he were to place a child with a heterosexual couple as opposed to a homosexual couple who are more suitable (and yes they do exist in spite of the judge's narrow mind!) because of his own personal views on the issues of homosexuality, that would be against his remit. ///
Perhaps it is your own narrow mind that fails to admit there may also be times where a child would be more better placed with a heterosexual couple who are more suitable (yes they do exist you know, in spite of some narrow minds) as opposed to a homosexual couple.
/// In order to avoid him having the chance to impinge his personal views on innocent people, the judge has been removed from his duties. ///
Oh not because he has done so, but because he might, there's fascism for you.
Perhaps it is your own narrow mind that fails to admit there may also be times where a child would be more better placed with a heterosexual couple who are more suitable (yes they do exist you know, in spite of some narrow minds) as opposed to a homosexual couple.
/// In order to avoid him having the chance to impinge his personal views on innocent people, the judge has been removed from his duties. ///
Oh not because he has done so, but because he might, there's fascism for you.
-- answer removed --
It's not like going to market, AOG.
There will be a couple present in the court, applying to be custodians of a particular child; there isn't a random selection of children or applicants to be matched up with each other on the day.
If the magistrate decides that the couple before him cannot adopt/foster the child (who will not be unknown to them, and will already be loved by them) purely because they are a gay couple.......he is not performing his duties correctly.
There will be a couple present in the court, applying to be custodians of a particular child; there isn't a random selection of children or applicants to be matched up with each other on the day.
If the magistrate decides that the couple before him cannot adopt/foster the child (who will not be unknown to them, and will already be loved by them) purely because they are a gay couple.......he is not performing his duties correctly.
PiedPiper15
/// I suspect there are many who believe that a childs development is best served by the different influences of a male and female parent. ///
Well for the past thousands of years it has worked out perfectly well for the human race, so we must have got something right, surely there must have been homosexuals even back then?
I wonder what came along to alter all this?
/// I suspect there are many who believe that a childs development is best served by the different influences of a male and female parent. ///
Well for the past thousands of years it has worked out perfectly well for the human race, so we must have got something right, surely there must have been homosexuals even back then?
I wonder what came along to alter all this?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
"Even for the likes of you", huh? I'll leave jth to answer that one if she likes, but still... wow.
The basic point is simply that if a gay couple wants to adopt a child then their sexuality is not, or should not be, held as sufficient reason to stop the adoption from taking place. Heterosexual parents may, as a rule, be better or provide a more stable environment, but even if so that is partly because society is used to them rather than for any apparent intrinsic reasons I can think of. Given that adoption is a difficult enough process as it is, it seems reasonable that any people going through with it are probably suitable by their very decision to plough through all of the long process anyway.
Anyway, history doesn't show that heterosexual couples work "perfectly well" in all cases -- in many completely the opposite, although that's nothing to do with their sexuality of course, just that they weren't very good people to be parents. In which case, why does it suddenly matter for two men, or two women?
The basic point is simply that if a gay couple wants to adopt a child then their sexuality is not, or should not be, held as sufficient reason to stop the adoption from taking place. Heterosexual parents may, as a rule, be better or provide a more stable environment, but even if so that is partly because society is used to them rather than for any apparent intrinsic reasons I can think of. Given that adoption is a difficult enough process as it is, it seems reasonable that any people going through with it are probably suitable by their very decision to plough through all of the long process anyway.
Anyway, history doesn't show that heterosexual couples work "perfectly well" in all cases -- in many completely the opposite, although that's nothing to do with their sexuality of course, just that they weren't very good people to be parents. In which case, why does it suddenly matter for two men, or two women?
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.