Last Wednesday in McClintock v. Department of Constitutional Affairs, (EAT, Oct. 31, 2007), the British Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) upheld a decision rendered last March by Sheffield's Employment Tribunal rejecting a discrimination claim by Andrew McClintock, a Justice of the Peace. (See prior posting.) McClintock, who sat on the court's Family Panel, asked to be excused from hearing cases that might raise the issue of placing children for adoption with same-sex couples. When his request was refused, he argued this amounted to discrimination against him on the basis of his Christian religious beliefs, or on the basis of his philosophical beliefs, in violation of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
The Appellate Tribunal said that the denial of McClintock's request did not amount to direct discrimination because he did not make clear to the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) that he had any religious or philosophical objections to adoptions by same-sex couples, only that it was an unacceptable social experiment. That also led to the rejection of McClintock's indirect discrimination claim that others holding religious or philosophical objections to gay adoption would be disadvantaged by the DCA ruling. Finally the EAT concluded that magistrates must apply the law of the land as their oath requires, and cannot opt out of cases on moral grounds.
Inspire Magazine reports on the EAT's decision.
