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

[jackthehat]

It's in the child's best interests to be out of the 'care system'.
Children can be cruel.....about almost anything. Having 2 mummies/daddies would just be something else for the other children to pick on.

Oh and I wonder from where these 'bigoted' children are learning their intolerance?

[Mamyalynne]

I may be wrong here but aren't we talking about the final decision in the adoption process , when a couple have been checked and vetted and met the child, formed a bond etc - it isn't a parade of suitable couples to choose from.

Or have I completely misunderstood the process?

[mccfluff]

I would simply put - like a child to be placed with a parent or parents who are happy to love and care for them

what if you are a gay child with heterosexual parent or parents, do you not run the risk of anti gay bigots then?

you can't not place kids with a family on basis of "what if there are racists or bigots about" that's absurd.

[jim360]

Yes, certainly the child's best interests have to be held paramount. I'm not sure they are so seriously threatened as you appear to suggest by placing the child with a gay couple. If, for example, the fear is of bullying due to bigots, this doesn't say anything good about society. Better to change it, and in the long run the only way to do that is to provide examples of successful gay couples, which are, so far as I'm aware, as proportionately common as successful heterosexual couples, if not more so (because of the adoptive v. possibly accidental nature of parenthood).

Moreover, it's been my experience that bigots and bullies will find an excuse to be nasty anyway, whether or not you give them one. Why not just pick on the fact that the child is adopted full stop, regardless of the sexuality of their adoptive parents? If the child is raised by a single parent, no doubt some would pick up on that too. Should we then take the child away from their only parent to protect them from this potential abuse?

Society is anyway changing faster than you give it credit for. There are certainly enough nasty people around who would care about this sort of thing, and pass that hatred onto their children who in turn become bullies. But it's less common, and just as many children wouldn't care one way or another because their parents don't either.

I think your preference against gay couples, anyway, is based on a problem that while it certainly exists isn't large enough to provide a convincing reason to prefer heterosexual to gay couples as adoptive parents. More to the point, even if the problem were large enough, we don't leave in a world where we can make that choice. There are already too many children in care, and not enough adoptive parents, to justify caring so much about whether or not the adoptive parents are of opposite gender.

[New Judge]

The last half dozen answers miss the point of AOG’s question.

The rights and wrongs of the “gay vs straight” argument are not the issue. Parliament has decreed that gay couples can adopt and foster. This is without qualification. It is not qualified by “only if the Magistrates hearing the case in the family court do not hold any personal convictions against it”.

Imagine this: a gay couple see Mr Page on the telly voicing his beliefs. The next day they are in the family court where custody of a child must be ruled upon. In the running for custody are the gay couple and a straight couple. Mr Page is Chairman of the panel of three magistrates and the gay couple recognise him from the TV. Do you think that they will believe the judgement made by Mr Page and his colleagues will not be unduly influenced by Mr Page’s beliefs?

To understand it a little better imagine it reversed. Mr Page favours gay adoption/fostering over straight. He’s said so on the TV. A straight couple appear in court in the same circumstances, arguing for custody of a child with a gay couple. Do you think they believe they will get a fair hearing?

It’s not about the issue itself; it’s about the judiciary being seen to be impartial. Mr Page’s beliefs are his own affair and they should have remained that way. Each case of adoption or fostering must turn on its merits and Parliament has decreed that those merits must not, per se, include the sexuality of the couples involved. Mr Page publicly demonstrated that he may not be able to make such unbiased judgements and that brought the impartiality of the magistracy into question.

[Islay]

So take this scenario - 2 couples 1 traditional and 1 gay

Traditional couple both work full time and want to adopt

Gay couple only 1 works full time but has the same income as traditional couple and also wants to adopt.

Who would you place the child with?

[mccfluff]

its only abnormal to you, because you think that there is only one acceptable family model.

abnormal to me - is for kids to be in care when there are people out there who would love to become parent/s

[jim360]

I wasn't sure it was missing the point so much as answering a different question, which was divebuddy's. In terms of AOG's question I think you've about covered it, NJ.

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //I'm not saying gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. I am saying that if there is a suitable traditional couple, they should get first option (so to speak). //

How about putting the suitability ahead of the sexuality - do you have a problem with doing it that way round?

[Mamyalynne]

NJ, you do right to bring us (well me at least ) back on track - absolutely he should have kept his opinions to himself.

[Islay]

Rubbish divebuddy, there is no reason what so ever that a gay couple would not make equal and in some cases better parents than your traditional couple!

[jackthehat]

'Potential' problems exist all over the place.

[sp1814]

divebuddy

Are you saying that gay couples who have gone through the process to become adoptive parents should accept that adoption agencies have to exhaust the search for straight couples before they are considered?

It seems to be your thinking.

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //JTH. Indeed they do. Like I said, why add to them (unless you have to). //

I fail to see why encouraging as many suitable families (and that remains the crux of the issue - suitability not sexuality) to be involved in adoption, and thus increasing the chances of children being placed in loving homes - can be seen as a 'potential problem'.

The only problem I can see is your unwillingness to accept that gay families can be as suitable, if not more suitable than straight families, in terms of adoption.

I know that's your view - you have hammered it home ad nauseum - maybe you'd like to come right out and admit that you have a prejudice there against homosexuals.

I for one could respect you for your honesty.