The firing of a British magistrate who declared that in adoption matters, children do better when placed with a mother and a father, has been affirmed by the U.K.’s Employment Appeal Tribunal.
However, lawyers for Richard Page, who was first punished in 2014, say their appeals will continue.
The British non-profit Christian Concern and its Christian Legal Centre have been representing Page since the dispute arose.
WND reported last year he was accused of being homophobic after volunteering for 15 years to handle magistrate court cases.
On Wednesday, Justice Choudhury of the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled against Page in his cases against the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, and the Kent and Medway NHS Trust, the Christian Legal Centre said.
Page initially was removed from his position as magistrate. Later, he also was removed as a non-executive director of the NHS Trust for further expressing his belief in media interviews.
“As a nation, we should all be very concerned that these rulings may mark another watershed moment in our nation’s history where holding sincere biblical views can amount to a bar to public office. As Christians, we should do everything in our power to make sure that this is not the case. Richard remains as faithful as ever to his beliefs and will bring his cases to the court of appeal,” the report said.
Beyond raising his own family, Page and his wife Jane “took in five hard-to-adopt adolescent foster children over the years. Richard also enjoyed a successful career in finance, the talent for which he brought to the NHS as a non-executive director. He also gave back to the community with more than 15 years of exemplary public service as a magistrate, never having been the subject of negative feedback or complaint prior to the circumstances leading to his removal from the bench. Richard, for all intent and purpose, has been a pillar of society.”
Page was criticized for expressing his beliefs but allegedly not for holding them.
But the Christian Legal Centre said that’s a distinction without a difference.
“It is also not supported by experience; whereby members of the judiciary much more senior than Richard (Lady Hale, the President of the Supreme Court, and Sir James Munby, recently retired President of the Family Division of the High Court of England and Wales, for example) have made similarly contentious statements in the media and received no sanction,” the report said.
“The only difference among them were their viewpoints. The latter were applauded for their ‘progressiveness’ whereas Richard was punished for daring to suggest that a child does best with a mother and a father.”
CLS said that for the NHS “to interfere with Richard’s freedom of religion and belief, it requires much more than merely suggesting that a legitimate aim exists to do so.”
“Proportionality and necessity are also required. There were much more tailored means that the trust could have utilised to both engage with the patients they say were particularly vulnerable and allow Richard to enjoy his fundamental freedoms of belief and expression,” the report said.
Page was “doing exactly what he should have been doing.”
“The law requires the family court, in an adoption matter, to serve the best interests of the child. Far from being just a Christian belief, Richard understood that the unique and complementary gifts brought to parenting by a mother and a father is also a fact supported by sociology, psychology and biology,” the report said.
“This belief had nothing to do with same-sex couples, and everything to do with what is best for a child. While Richard would never judge anyone for who they are or for their personal circumstances – single parent, same-sex parent, or otherwise – he would nevertheless always endeavour to fulfill his judicial oath by doing what he believed was in the best interests of the child being adopted.”
The report said, “There’s a reality that speaking out as a Christian, as Richard Page has done, means increasingly that we are being prohibited from the public space, prohibited from working and taking part in certain professions.
“And that’s exactly what has happened to Richard Page. He’s been pursuing justice in this matter now for five years – the wheels of justice turn very slowly at the moment and we are very keen to continue to pursue this.”
