more religious discrimination

Dr Sheila Matthews, 50 sacked because she refused, or rather abstained from voting in same sex cases for adoption. Please note her qualification, Doctor, serving no doubt for decades, her estimation as a qualified professional,

"I did not believe it is in the interests of the child to be adopted by a same-sex couple."

She added: "I have professional concerns... of the influences on children growing up in homosexual households and I feel this is not the best possible option for a child.

"I do not consider myself to be homophobic, however I believe that children do best in families with a father and mother."

Another clear case of religious discrimination and a coercion to accept a morality different from ones own or religious convictions clouding professional judgement?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-11761089

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dr Sheila Matthews, 50 sacked because she refused, or rather abstained from voting in same sex cases for adoption. Please note her qualification, Doctor, serving no doubt for decades, her estimation as a qualified professional,

"I did not believe it is in the interests of the child to be adopted by a same-sex couple."

She added: "I have profes ...[text shortened]... professional judgement?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-11761089

Hardly a case of "religious discrimination". Did you bother to read the entire article?

Martin Pratt, the council's former head of services for children, said the authority wrote to Dr Matthews in April last year to terminate her position on the panel after she told him she was unable to set aside her beliefs on the issue of same-sex couples.

He told an employment tribunal sitting in Leicester: "I asked her whether she could consider applicants on their merits ... and she said she could not.

"She did not believe it was in the interests of the child to be adopted by a same-sex couple."

Mr Pratt, who now works for Luton Borough Council, added: "Primarily it was a religious matter, I think. Her inability to act fully in her capacity posed a serious problem."

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dr Sheila Matthews, 50 sacked because she refused, or rather abstained from voting in same sex cases for adoption. Please note her qualification, Doctor, serving no doubt for decades, her estimation as a qualified professional,

"I did not believe it is in the interests of the child to be adopted by a same-sex couple."

She added: "I have profes professional judgement?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-11761089

It is certainly true that the current UK laws pertaining to same-sex adoption discriminate against religious organisations. So broadly I agree with your point. The Catholic Church for example has withdrawn from adoption programs because the current legislation compromises its moral stance on family. I think that is a tragic outcome and totally avoidable.

In this case, however, there do seem to be legitimate grounds for her sacking. Her religious convictions obstruct her ability to fulfill the requirements of her job. As an employee of a local council, she needs to be able to implement the policies of that council. Her situation is not unique. Thousands of members of the civil service have to implement government policies which they may not agree with or have voted for. If they refuse to do this, however, they cannot claim religious grounds; they have to retire from the service. Religious scruples do not permit them to violate the political mandate of elected representatives.

However, I do seriously wonder now whether her religious commitments interfered with her job. It does not seem that her job specifically entailed reviewing candidates for adoption. This was something she was asked to do, as it seems, in addition to her existing responsibilities. In that case, it does seem insensitive to add additional requirements to her work, which clearly were not checked with her at the time of her recruitment.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Hardly a case of "religious discrimination". Did you bother to read the entire article?

[quote]Martin Pratt, the council's former head of services for children, said the authority wrote to Dr Matthews in April last year to terminate her position on the panel after she told him she was unable to set aside her beliefs on the issue of same-sex couples. k. Her inability to act fully in her capacity posed a serious problem]

did you bother to read my post, no you did not!, for if you notice I left it as an open ended question! i now have the pleasure of telling you, if conversing with you could possibly be described as a pleasure, go back and read it again!

indeed what the humorously named Mr Pratt thinks is neither here nor there, for she was speaking no doubt on a professional basis, whether it was religiously motivated is yet to be determined.

Originally posted by Conrau K
It is certainly true that the current UK laws pertaining to same-sex adoption discriminate against religious organisations. So broadly I agree with your point. The Catholic Church for example has withdrawn from adoption programs because the current legislation compromises its moral stance on family. I think that is a tragic outcome and totally avoidable.
...[text shortened]... to do this, however, they cannot claim religious grounds; they have to retire from the service.

It is certainly true that the current UK laws pertaining to same-sex adoption discriminate against religious organisations. So broadly I agree with your point.

A law that protects homosexuals from discrimination is viewed by you as "[discriminating] against religious organizations." Is there something more to the legislation than what was represented in the article?

Originally posted by Conrau K
It is certainly true that the current UK laws pertaining to same-sex adoption discriminate against religious organisations. So broadly I agree with your point. The Catholic Church for example has withdrawn from adoption programs because the current legislation compromises its moral stance on family. I think that is a tragic outcome and totally avoidable.
...[text shortened]... equirements to her work, which clearly were not checked with her at the time of her recruitment.

one would think that given her qualifications and experience she was not only adequately qualified, but as a professional genuinely thought that it was in the best interests of the child to be part of a heterosexual family unit. I wonder what has driven her to this conclusion? professional experience? her religious convictions? indeed i wonder what has driven others to adopt the view that same sex couples are equally suitable for the role of adoptive parents. I mean there must be some criteria?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
did you bother to read my post, no you did not!, for if you notice I left it as an open ended question! i now have the pleasure of telling you, if conversing with you could possibly be described as a pleasure, go back and read it again!

You edit your post to remove your commentary about calling it "dithspicable[sic]", weakly rephrase it as a question and then try to pretend that it was always an "open ended question". To top it off you make a false accusation.

Seems on par with your usual level of integrity.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You edit your post to remove your commentary about calling it "dithspicable[sic]", weakly rephrase it as a question and then try to pretend that it was always an "open ended question". To top it off you make a false accusation.

Seems on par with your usual level of integrity.

am i not free to edit my text upon reflection? in its present form is it not an open ended question? well then, either post something with relevance or shut up, i have no time for your petty grievances! you were warned also on a previous occasion by moderation on defamation of character, need i remind you of it again? so either post something with relevance or troll another post.

Well, to me, this is pretty clear cut. Contrary to her claim, she certainly is homophobic and the council were right in sacking her.

Rather than evaluate if a homosexual couple can bring up a child that will blend in and be successful in society, she decided that because they were homosexual, they weren't capable of doing so.

Her attitudes are an impediment to her carrying out her job correctly.

I would be interested to hear what makes her feel that children "did best" with heterosexual couples.

Originally posted by lausey
Well, to me, this is pretty clear cut. Contrary to her claim, she certainly is homophobic and the council were right in sacking her.

Rather than evaluate if a homosexual couple can bring up a child that will blend in and be successful in society, she decided that because they were homosexual, they weren't capable of doing so.

Her attitudes are an impedi ...[text shortened]... be interested to hear what makes her feel that children "did best" with heterosexual couples.

how do you know, the article does not state whether she rejected a homosexual couple on the basis of her professional experience, or of her religious convictions, it simply states she would not consider them. Indeed I would also like to know why a heterosexual couple are to be preferred, although i have to admit that it seems self evident to me that a man and a women are more of a compliment than two persons of the same sex, each having innate differences that when pulled form a more 'natural', whole, although i do concede that this is a generalisation and that variations have yet to be worked out. If this is not the case, then we are forced to conclude that men and women are essentially the same, and i for one, do not believe that for a moment, for each have different general characteristics.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dr Sheila Matthews, 50 sacked because she refused, or rather abstained from voting in same sex cases for adoption. Please note her qualification, Doctor, serving no doubt for decades, her estimation as a qualified professional,

"I did not believe it is in the interests of the child to be adopted by a same-sex couple."

She added: "I have profes ...[text shortened]... professional judgement?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-11761089

Barking up this tree again are we...
Ok, lets go!
1. I am not homosexual or particulary homo-friendly
2. I believe that a good mother is often the best thing for a young child.

Having stated that, let me use my own situation as an illustration for my point.
I am a single dad with a 5yr old. If I had another worthy male living with us and helping with the parenting it would only BE A GOOD THING. It would only be better for my childs experience.
Of course he would need female influence, but he could get that fro aunties or nannies, etc.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
am i not free to edit my text upon reflection? in its present form is it not an open ended question? well then, either post something with relevance or shut up, i have no time for your petty grievances! you were warned also on a previous occasion by moderation on defamation of character, need i remind you of it again? so either post something with relevance or troll another post.

My original post was relevant. You're the one who chose to respond to it with a personal attack. My second post was a defense against your personal attack.

Even this latest post by you is just another personal attack. Another personal attack that twists the facts. When I was warned by "moderation on defamation of character", the mod was non-plussed when I pointed out the fact that my post was in response to yet another personal attack by you that twisted the facts. Evidently you haven't learned your lesson.

Sure you are free to edit your text. However if another poster responds to the pre-edited version, it's really dishonest to try to portay them as having not having addressed your now edited post properly.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
My original post was relevant. You're the one who chose to respond to it with a personal attack. My second post was a defense against your personal attack.

Even this latest post by you is just another personal attack. Another personal attack that twists the facts. When I was warned by "moderation on defamation of character", the mod was non-plussed wh ...[text shortened]... shonest to try to portay them as having not having addressed your now edited post properly.

ok, ok, you have a point, you were responding to the pre edited text, i understand, now lets move on please, for the sake of discussion. 🙂

The issue is humanist more so than religious. The argument that she feels hetero couples provide a better possible environment than homosexual is a joke. I don't think it needs to be said that there are homosexual couples that will outshine a mom and dad in plenty of examples (and, of course, the reverse as well). But you're not always going to get an available, stable mother and father pair looking to adopt. Whatever your stance on personal relationships, parents providing is better than no parents, and I think it's rather disgusting if someone in public service is going to restrict the well being of a child simply on partial convictions.

Edit: There is something to be said for both a male and female influence in one's growing life, but shouldn't it take a village?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]It is certainly true that the current UK laws pertaining to same-sex adoption discriminate against religious organisations. So broadly I agree with your point.

A law that protects homosexuals from discrimination is viewed by you as "[discriminating] against religious organizations." Is there something more to the legislation than what was represented in the article?[/b]

A law that protects homosexuals from discrimination is viewed by you as "[discriminating] against religious organizations." Is there something more to the legislation than what was represented in the article?

I don't see how this law specifically 'protects' homosexuals; it simply enables them to adopt. Putting aside the issue of whether same-sex adoption has merit or should be permitted, I think that there is a danger in compelling religious charities to offer same-sex adoption when it violates their religious conscience. The legislation allowed same-sex couples to seek adoption through other agencies so it seems nothing more than ideological thuggery to compel religious organisation to follow suit. This legislation does discriminate against religious organisation because in many cases it specifically requires them to violate their religious commitments.