Hmmm – I suggest she prays for foregiveness for giving Jesus and Christianity a bad name. I am fed up being tarred with the same brush as folk like this who seek to justify their hateful rubbish with misinformed claims of defending religious belief.
Call it like it is and be honest.
It isn’t about defending religious or Christian belief any more than Racism or Heterosexism were. Its bigotry and its hatred – that’s all.
Slap it up the old c***!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Go and cry to baby Jesus you bigot old b*tch.
“Dr Matthews said she was considering what action to take next.”
Move to Uganda.
I doubt if she’ll take further action when she finds out just how costly it will be. The problem with all of these religious cults is that they think their beliefs must trump and override civil laws and adoption is clearly one such law. These bigots have no place in politics and should not be above the law. I suggest we diminish their power by starting with the disestablishment of the state cult, cut off all funding for their schools and institutions and let them pay up. This will send a clear message that their interference in the civil laws of the land will no longer be tolerated. I also recommend banishing religious clerics from the House of Lords, another antiquated institution that has no place in modern 21st century Britain. Its an unelected body of people who should not have any power in passing laws and is contrary to the concept of what democracy really is. They do not represent us and therefore the house should be abolished.
wicked old witch doctor!
Robert, do not forget, laws were built on relgious views. Religion is here to stay whether we like it or not, unfortunately. I share your opinion though.
I understand that the issue of religion was irrelevant in this case.
Dr Matthews said that she took her stance because of the medical evidence. If the medical evidence had stated that children with same-sex parents were subject to no detriment then she would not have taken the stance that gay couples should not adopt.
Notwithstanding that it was her religious stance that led to Dr Matthews’ investigation into the medical evidence, the reason for Dr Matthews’ stance was not the religion but the medical evidence,
Therefore, insofar as she was being rejected on the basis of her decision and her decision was based upon the medical evidence, her rejection was based on reasons other than her religion.
In any event, there would have been no direct discrimination against Dr Matthews even if her views were based upon her religion. The authority would have removed any person from their adoption list who refused to comply with the policy on homosexuality regardless of the reason. Insofar as the authority would have treated an atheist holding the same views on homosexuality in the same way, there was no discrimination on the grounds of religious belief.
This is excellent news. I’m happy to see the courts recognising that ones religious intolerances don’t trump the requirement to do ones job properly. The British legal system has done a good job today!
she should never have been in the job in the first place…she should pay back her wages stolen from the tax payer.
So – supernatural belief is not a defence against a charge of failing to uphold the law or work to contract, or the object of discrimination if you are required to comply with those obligations.
Can all you God-botherers out there now get that clear?
@Emily and Riondo. This case was not based upon religion or supernatural belief.
This is excellent news. You can’t be found a victim of discrimination for wanting to impose religion-based discrimination on others. If she’s so sure “homosexual practice is not how God wants us to live”, then why wasn’t she able to produce god as a material witness in her defence? She must feel very let down by god…..
Villiers is right, this judgement is not dependant on religious views, it fell because the “medical evidence” she was using for her decision had no basis in reality. In other words she attempted to use medical reasons (which support her religious bigotry) and these were found to be misconceived. By misconceived I read made up by people who are religious bigots to tarnish LGBT people.
She actually cannot claim religious discrimination as she herself purposefully kept her religion out of her decision. The judgement basically labelled her appeal as ill advised and a waste of time, it is difficult to see how she can reappeal on the same basis.
But she’s quoted as saying to the tribunal; “homosexual practice is not how God wants us to live”. Sounds like her relgious beliefs were presented.
Her beliefs definitely contributed to her decision to not do her job properly. Moreover I’d imagine that any ‘medical evidence’ she cites would have some sort of religious stamp of approval on it (such as having been conducted by NARTH), since studies have in fact shown that lesbians make excellent mothers.
“There is simply no factual basis for the claims.”
The General Medical Council should now move to strike this appalling doctor from the register – she is clearly of unsound mind and grossly unfit to treat patients or indeed be let anywhere near children in case her odious twisted views corrupt them.
What an evil bigoted and nasty woman. She ought to be struck off the medical register.
She told the hearing that she had seen research which claimed that lesbian couples may bring up children with an “anti-male bias” and that children brought up by gay couples are “more likely to consider or be involved in homosexual relationships themselves”.
Even if these claims were true, I find it utterly appalling that a doctor would think there’s anything wrong at all with the latter happening.
She should count herself lucky for getting off with merely losing that post. Lying or making misleading claims about research is pretty serious business for a medical professional.
Dr Sheila Matthews said: “”she had seen research which claimed that lesbian couples may bring up children with an “anti-male bias” and that children brought up by gay couples are “more likely to consider or be involved in homosexual relationships themselves”.”"
Bet that was not peer reviewed scientific research that requires evidence. Instead it was Christian science that only requires a bible and some lies.
A doctor should have the logic and powers of reasoning of a scientist, not the delusions and fantasy of a fiction writer.
Helen . . . very well put, eloquent and to the point
Sadly some Fundamentalist evangelical christians seem to miss the point of their brain completly
Disturbing I agree when the person in question is a medical doctor.
Here beliefs as a Doctor – was her mentor in Medical college named Dr. Mengele?
Amazing how churches continue to clone the worst of human history and call it love.
As I tell peopke on some blogs – gay sex is for recreation, str8 sex is only for procreation.
And what do you call someone too interested in whom you bed with?
Ans L word begins with P, endswith t and has a V in the middle.
The fact she can’t see the irony in saying that lesbian couples would bring up children with “anti-male bias” and that children brought up by gay couples are “more likely to consider or be involved in homosexual relationships”. Then claim she is the one being discriminated against.
She clearly has no understanding of the LGBT community and has no wish to know. Here own judgement blinds her from the real facts. So if she doesn’t know, how can she make up such rubbish as an argument and in a court of law?
As we knew they are anything but facts. Therefore she should automatically loose her right to be a part of any childs future.
I can’t believe these people can’t see how damaging they are themselves, particularly in a childs interests, that they have to spout on others with their very nasty vile actions to somehow release themselves of such acts. A kind of ‘blame everybody else for my actions’ syndrome act, a Typical religion ploy.
Society is finally waking up and seeing the damage religion does. It’s going to be a slow and I bet painful (esp to us) experience but I look forward to it and moving on.
de Villiers – evidence after she’d made her mind up due to religion, she made a homophobic conclusion and then looked at the evidence
I’m glad she’s lost
Laws may have been based on religion in the old days but that doesn’t mean they are or should be now and laws should be fair
Martin Pratt, the council’s former head of services for children, young people and families, 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. She felt that she could not vote or participate in the panel.”
Mr Pratt, who now works for Luton Borough Council, added: “She said she had a religious objection and made reference to there being some research. Both of these were part of Dr Matthews’ reasoning for her decision. Primarily it was a religious matter, I think. Her inability to act fully in her capacity posed a serious problem. The claimant’s position was in the direct contradiction to the respondent’s policies.
so why am I gay being brought up in a VERY heterosexual family unit? What a stupid person she is – thank god she is not making decision about the future of of children in care any more.
Do take it further and waste more money love
Actually a Very valid point. I was brought up in an extremely hetero religious family unit. I can even remember my father saying all gays should be lined up and shot. Luckily those days are in the past and my parents are fully supportive of me. But with that kind of background it shows Dr Shelia Matthews does nothing regarding research plus I have not doubt us being brought up in a Very herterosexual family unit is probably somehow different in some twisted way.
It proves she knows nothing about facts and that she just keeps on intending to spew venimous discrimination from her somewhat saggy religious anus. (Wow, I’m feeling polite today!)
By resisting our bigotry, gays are persecuting us say Christians.
gav & Jock
it could be that a lgbt child in a lgbt household has positive role models and is thus more likely to identify freely, while in certain heterosexual h/h they would hide it and conform. (There is an arguement that children from lgbt h/hs may perversely hide their sexuality to avoid the “corrupted” label.
@ Mihangel ap Yrs
Yes but you miss the point. It is well know that children brought up by gay couples are more likely to be open minded but that doesn’t mean they’ll be gay themselves. That is the point this vile doctor is trying to make.
Hide it or not, children who are gay will be gay no matter what family they come from. Just as much as straight children will be.
We can do without the stereotyping of hypothetical might bes, esp when this doctor is using that as fact to prove her own discrimination.
No one can prove how “God wants” us to practice our sex lives.
What can be proved is that certain people living in certain times found it to be cultically inappropriate.
Anything other than that is hubris bordering on blasphemy.
It does of course beg the question, how did the vile old bigot get where she got in the first place.
what I wanted to say was that children with gay parents would declare their sexuality more readily, and therefore may appear to be more prevalent. Children in homophobic families are more likely to try and pass, and maybe adopt the straight life as camouflage, thus reducing THAT overall statistic.
As we know, all recent studies say it makes no difference to real outcomes, and that the children are as well cared for as others. The only issue is homophobic bullying at school
In passing I can’t help wondering why a person who is so certain she knows how God wants us to live is a doctor in the first place. (Sickness presumably being God’s work, by healing the sick is she not going against God’s will?)