ChatterBank1 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
divebuddy - //Andy. It's not my fault that you are unable to read properly. That your level of English comprehension is so low. If you are unable to grasp what somebody is saying you could at least desist from just insulting them.
If you show the slightest understanding of what I have been saying, I'll respond to you. Meanwhile you are talking to yourself. //
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much!
If you are only able to answer a simple question with paranoia and abuse, then I must draw my own conclusions about your attitude to homosexual couples in adoption situations.
If you show the slightest understanding of what I have been saying, I'll respond to you. Meanwhile you are talking to yourself. //
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much!
If you are only able to answer a simple question with paranoia and abuse, then I must draw my own conclusions about your attitude to homosexual couples in adoption situations.
divebuddy - //If you show the slightest understanding of what I have been saying, I'll respond to you.//
I actually show complete understanding of what you have been saying - and you have been exposed, and your response is ignorant and offensive - feel free not to respond further, I think we both know where you are coming from on this.
I actually show complete understanding of what you have been saying - and you have been exposed, and your response is ignorant and offensive - feel free not to respond further, I think we both know where you are coming from on this.
-- answer removed --
@divebuddy
okay, equally qualified (at parenting skills) gay/hetero couples. What if the joint income of the gay couple was £50k and the hetero couple was £40k?
Should it just come down to finances, all other things being equal?
Taking the other side, for a moment, why should the gay couple (even the one with more money) get first dibs on being "made whole" by being allowed to adopt.
Child is of paramount importance but it is about making childless couples happy, too. Is it not?
The land of equalities just means the land of no-one being allowed to have priority - even when psychologically distressed.
okay, equally qualified (at parenting skills) gay/hetero couples. What if the joint income of the gay couple was £50k and the hetero couple was £40k?
Should it just come down to finances, all other things being equal?
Taking the other side, for a moment, why should the gay couple (even the one with more money) get first dibs on being "made whole" by being allowed to adopt.
Child is of paramount importance but it is about making childless couples happy, too. Is it not?
The land of equalities just means the land of no-one being allowed to have priority - even when psychologically distressed.
-- answer removed --
// It is if that personal opinion inhibits their ability to do their job properly.
A magistrate is there to administer the law, not ignore it and adhere to their faith instead.// G
first answer - best answer - instead of the bullocks that AOG has chosen.
oh and it is not sacked and it is not a job and they dont get paid
( xc stipendiary magistrates who get er a stipend - Rumpole used to cross swords with the Uxbridge Stipendiary )
Oh and the training for a mag goes arn and arn
two of my frenz couldnt hack it and from day one it is that they must follow the rules and not their consciences
and for a christian - jesus even had a sound bite for that
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's .... so the fired guy really shouldnt have a problem
A magistrate is there to administer the law, not ignore it and adhere to their faith instead.// G
first answer - best answer - instead of the bullocks that AOG has chosen.
oh and it is not sacked and it is not a job and they dont get paid
( xc stipendiary magistrates who get er a stipend - Rumpole used to cross swords with the Uxbridge Stipendiary )
Oh and the training for a mag goes arn and arn
two of my frenz couldnt hack it and from day one it is that they must follow the rules and not their consciences
and for a christian - jesus even had a sound bite for that
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's .... so the fired guy really shouldnt have a problem
@AOG (Page 2; 11:35)
//No they are still opinions but on different issues, one could say that placing a child with a same sex couple could cause problems as regarding bullying from other children, and with the black child being placed with a white family or a white child being placed with a black family could also create many other type problems for the said child. //
Instead of bleating about problems for the child in these situation, why not educate bigots to stop putting these idead into their childrens' heads so that they don't go around teasing anyone who has the temerity to deviate from the 'norm'?
Or are you suggesting that children are *innately* homophobic, racist, bigots?
//No they are still opinions but on different issues, one could say that placing a child with a same sex couple could cause problems as regarding bullying from other children, and with the black child being placed with a white family or a white child being placed with a black family could also create many other type problems for the said child. //
Instead of bleating about problems for the child in these situation, why not educate bigots to stop putting these idead into their childrens' heads so that they don't go around teasing anyone who has the temerity to deviate from the 'norm'?
Or are you suggesting that children are *innately* homophobic, racist, bigots?
There seems to be some confusion and a lot of jumping to conclusions here about what was said and what was meant. Divebuddy said // 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)//
…. and I think he’s right. Given the choice of two couples, both equally physically and mentally capable, I would place a child with a mum and a dad rather than a mum and a mum or a dad and a dad. Some children have suffered situations that no child should ever experience and in my opinion the fewer problems they are presented with in the future the better. It really isn’t about people who are eager to adopt – it’s about what’s best for the child.
…. and I think he’s right. Given the choice of two couples, both equally physically and mentally capable, I would place a child with a mum and a dad rather than a mum and a mum or a dad and a dad. Some children have suffered situations that no child should ever experience and in my opinion the fewer problems they are presented with in the future the better. It really isn’t about people who are eager to adopt – it’s about what’s best for the child.
-- answer removed --
“oh and it is not sacked…”
It is by any other name, Peter. Mr Page has been removed from the Bench.
“xc stipendiary magistrates who get er a stipend…”
Thre are no Stipendiary Magistrates any more Peter. They are now called District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts) and their “stipend” is slightly in excess of £100k p.a.
And I’ve given up trying to get everyone to concentrate on AOG’s question instead of trying to solve the intractable problem of whether gay adoption is better than/worse than/equal to straight adoption! :-)
It is by any other name, Peter. Mr Page has been removed from the Bench.
“xc stipendiary magistrates who get er a stipend…”
Thre are no Stipendiary Magistrates any more Peter. They are now called District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts) and their “stipend” is slightly in excess of £100k p.a.
And I’ve given up trying to get everyone to concentrate on AOG’s question instead of trying to solve the intractable problem of whether gay adoption is better than/worse than/equal to straight adoption! :-)
Don't despair NJ, I will try. This made national headlines a few years ago. Was it wrong of the judge to say what he did? Of course it was and he was punished....
http://
http://
a veritable solomon !
that would be you NJ
I had wondered what had happened to the stipendiaries and I thought it was quiet b/c they were behaving themselves ....
My cousin's in law was the uxbridge and the old boy seemed well quite sane
but who can tell what will happen when you give a man power ? ( Antigone )
and sacked mean employment tribunals so I don't think this one under discussion was sacked - disappointed perhaps ?
can we perhaps cut across this Gordian Knot that the Greeks and Romans are fighting over ? ( Lizzie Eustace in the Eustace Diamonds, Trollope )
and point out that if a muslim judge were faced to adjudicate on bigamy no one would say 'o yeah right on' if he dismissed the case saying in his religion having two wives was positively parsimonious !
that would be you NJ
I had wondered what had happened to the stipendiaries and I thought it was quiet b/c they were behaving themselves ....
My cousin's in law was the uxbridge and the old boy seemed well quite sane
but who can tell what will happen when you give a man power ? ( Antigone )
and sacked mean employment tribunals so I don't think this one under discussion was sacked - disappointed perhaps ?
can we perhaps cut across this Gordian Knot that the Greeks and Romans are fighting over ? ( Lizzie Eustace in the Eustace Diamonds, Trollope )
and point out that if a muslim judge were faced to adjudicate on bigamy no one would say 'o yeah right on' if he dismissed the case saying in his religion having two wives was positively parsimonious !
@New Judge
//I’ve given up trying to get everyone to concentrate on AOG’s question//
Not your job, NJ. AOG could have posed the question generically, with no news story attached.
He chose that specific story.
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.
Trouble is, a generic version would be a very short thread.
"Is it wrong to sack someone for certain opinions?"
"Yes".
I suppose there is room for the alternative answer "it depends what views" but he has circumvented that by citing that news story for us to focus on.
It's hard to argue "yes, he deserved it" without delving into the details and stating what we think is reasonable or unreasonable. It is not off-topic, it is central to the aspect of the job description requiring impartiality.
//I’ve given up trying to get everyone to concentrate on AOG’s question//
Not your job, NJ. AOG could have posed the question generically, with no news story attached.
He chose that specific story.
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.
Trouble is, a generic version would be a very short thread.
"Is it wrong to sack someone for certain opinions?"
"Yes".
I suppose there is room for the alternative answer "it depends what views" but he has circumvented that by citing that news story for us to focus on.
It's hard to argue "yes, he deserved it" without delving into the details and stating what we think is reasonable or unreasonable. It is not off-topic, it is central to the aspect of the job description requiring impartiality.
Have to disagree, hypo, but it still makes for lively debate.
By your argument if we decide that Mr Page’s opinion was justified it would be perfectly acceptable for him to consider it when deciding on a matter when acting in the Family Court. If we decide his opinion was not justified it would not be acceptable.
Of course the justification of his opinion or belief is not the issue. The issue is whether he is entitled to use it as a consideration. But as I said, I've given up trying even though it is "not my job". :-)
By your argument if we decide that Mr Page’s opinion was justified it would be perfectly acceptable for him to consider it when deciding on a matter when acting in the Family Court. If we decide his opinion was not justified it would not be acceptable.
Of course the justification of his opinion or belief is not the issue. The issue is whether he is entitled to use it as a consideration. But as I said, I've given up trying even though it is "not my job". :-)
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Crosswords20 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
ChatterBank28 mins ago
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.