As a Justice of the Peace he should be making his decisions based on justice not his on personal prejudices. Its right and proper for him to resign, I hope he doesn’t win his appeal.

Susan, Barry, Wales

Whilst I strongly believe Andrew McClintock should certainly have resigned, he probably should never have become a judge, I can't help feeling that these very appropriate anti-prejudice laws, that exposed him, are only now being implemented to limit the equally destructive nature of other religions, one certainly leaps to mind.

Larry Graham, Southampton, Hampshire

"No, we're saying that religious beliefs necessarily have a private scope which may be inappropriate in the public sphere of work and state business. "

And I'm saying that religous beliefs can't be compartmentalised like that. The way forward is for religious people to recognise that the public sphere may still want to prodede beyond their beliefs and for the public sphere to recognise that ist still needs religious people involved witiin it. That's a perfectly acceptable compromise or accommodation between the two - in my opinion.

The alternative is the marginalisation of some very good people who have a lot to offer to civil society.

Andrew Holden, Oxford, UK

Spencer, London, UK : "...so a judge should be ruling on law not on their own personally held views"

It's not a view: it's a belief. What you are effectively recommending is that no one with views or beliefs should be working. Put it another way : only viewless/beliefless people should be employed. And don't be distracted by the 'professional' part of your argument: there are plenty of non-professional jobs similarly affected.

In any case the guy isn't asking to force his views on anyone: he is asking to opt out of particular cases: similar to a judge recusing himself but for reasons of conscience rather than conflict of interest.

The fact that freedom of conscience is no longer genuinely respected in this country is a HUGE turning point. It puts us equivalent to China and many other non-free countries.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

It is all very well to call for a "hermetic seal" between one's religious beliefs and one's public actions. But religious beliefs aren't simply a recreational activity or style choice. They become a matter of conscience. While believers in public service must avoid favoring their own particular faith over others, they can't just switch off their basic consciences. I do not see anything out of line with the magistrate's seeking an accomodation that would enable him to do his work without violating his conscience on one particular matter.

I suspect that some of his detractors would rather that religious believers of any sort were made unwelcome in public office.

D.L. Anderson, Crossett, AR/U.S.A.

We have to remember that most of ouir laws are not passes because they are morally justified, or even sensible, but simply to reflect the personal prejudices of members of the labour cabinet. Their private views - for which they have no mandate - are then forced on the people of the country.

Doug, Glasgow,

When consience is erased, society becomes a more dark and dangerous place.

Alan, luton,

"So those who insist on the privatisation of religion are, in effect, saying that religious people can't be judges, politicians, soldiers, teachers -- where on earth does this discrimination and marginalization of religious people end?"

No, we're saying that religious beliefs necessarily have a private scope which may be inappropriate in the public sphere of work and state business.

Religious people have the freedom to behave as they wish in private, subject to the law of the land, but none of us has the freedom to behave as we wish at work. We're required to adopt a role at work. In the JP's case, he's required to set aside his personal beliefs and prejudices and act on behalf of the state and its laws.

If religious people have a conscientious objection to what they do at work then the answer is simple: they find a job where they have no objections, or learn to segregate personal beliefs from public roles.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

So religion is a private affair? Presumably this is belived by those who don't have a religion. Anyone who does practice a religion, whether they are Christian, Muslim or whatever, knows that religion is a way of life which CANNOT be seperated from any part of the whole.

So those who insist on the privatisation of religion are, in effect, saying that religious people can't be judges, politicians, soldiers, teachers -- where on earth does this discrimination and marginalization of religious people end?

Personally I think that civil society has got recognise that people have deeply held religious views which they are entitled to hold and use as a basis for their actions so long as those actions are not intollerant in their own right. The Judge was not saying that gays can't adopt according to the law, any more than a catholic doctor won't send a patient wanting an abortion to a more accomodating colleague. Individuals work within the law and the law must accomodate their views.

Andrew Holden, Oxford, UK

It doesn't matter whether this man is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Scientologist. It's his duty to interpret and apply the law made by Parliament whatever his personal beliefs.

Sainsburys can made allowances for a person's views if they wish, silly though I think that is, but the fabric of our society is based on the rule of law and on principles of fairness as equality.

I think he's cheeky trying to make this a tribunal matter, the graceful thing is for him to resign quietly if he feels unable to do his duty. Perhaps he can go to work for Sainsburys and ask for dispensation against selling condoms or something if he wants to bring his beliefs into the public sphere.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I agree with Paul from Cambridge, it cannot be a 'fair trial' if the JP is using his personal religious views. A JP must leave his own personal beliefs behind him when he enters a courtroom; otherwise the accused is the subject of sociological scrutiny, not legal scrutiny.

Matthew, Rhondda Cynon Taff,

Unfortunately you toe the state line or resign these days. I hope this man continues to have the courage of his convictions, unlike an immoral, dictatorial, bullying state. They dearly would love the thought police wouldn't they?

Judy , Liverpool, england

There are moves to have doctors forced to declare their religious associations (in other words their religious beliefs) before becoming involved in any debates on ethics. Make no mistake about it - this will be used to "screen out" those who don't toe the line. After this, you can be quite sure judges will be next. Those with any faith principles will be barred from spoiling the party. And all this from the son of a Church of Scotland minister, and his predecessor who so avidly wants to become a Catholic? You couldn't make it up!!!!

Alastair, Aberdeen,

As a JP he should impartially enforce the law as passed by Parliament and established in the higher courts. If a justice does not feel able to do this, they should not be one at all, regardless of whether they feel this way on religious grounds or otherwise. This is essential for the preservation of the Rule of Law. Mr McClintock has clearly acted appropriately throughout but it must be right that if you accept the position of justice you must be willing to apply the law as is, not as you wish it was.

Paul, Cambridge,

It is legal in the UK to sell alcohol in licensed premises. Yet Moslem staff at supermarkets are being given the right to excuse themselves from selling alcohol to customers on religous grounds. It seems that being a Christian is not recognised anymore in this country.

Andy, Wrexham, Wales

Mr McClintock is to be commended for standing up for his moral convictions and not pandering to the fickle and transient views of the generation he finds himself in

rob, london,

So no matter what law is brought in by parliament, whether good or bad, it has to be enforced by the courts? No personal accountabailty to be displayed by the judge. Only serve the government. Mmmm. So if parliament passes a law to make it illegal to critisise the government, the courts have to uphold that? This government is going to have as its epithath "shoddy illconsidered legislation".

Al Muir , Glasgow, UK

No one should be asked to do anything against their conscience and beliefs. Mr. McClintock is just stating that this is a line he is not willing to cross.

Laureen, London, UK

Religious views (which these are) should be personally held and not enforced upon others.
Additionally everyone is the same in the eyes of the law, so a judge should be ruling on law not on their own personally held views. If unable to then should not be a judge.
Same for any other profession, if you are unable to carry out the duties of the profession because of your own personal views then you should be doing something else.

Spencer, London, UK

But it's Ok fot muslim doctors to refuse to treat sexual or alcoholic propblems and muslim chemists to refuse to sell the morning after pill.

Ifyou want an equal society, you can't have rules for one set of religious people and differnt rules for another set.

polly, newcastle,

No Farrukh, it is not unjust.
Magistrates are public servants paid to perform a specific task within the confines of the law, not pick and choose what they do or do not agree with.
If his personal beliefs affect his ability to do a job he should find something else to do.

Mo, London, England

Mr McClintock seems to be another example of someone in public life, like General Dannatt recently, who doesn't understand the basis of our secular democratic society. Religious beliefs should be respected and tolerated, but kept private. There must be a hermetic seal between private belief and government or public responsibilities.

William, London,

Does this contrasts with the case of the Sainsbury's check out cashierr who refused to handle alcohol products?

Carmel Camilleri, Victoria,

I'd be willing to bet that if he was a muslim wishing to be excused from a duty due to his beliefs, (like the muslim Sainsburys workers being excused scanning alcohol on their tills) there would be no problems with it. This is positive discrimination and a classic marker of how this country is letitng its own people down whilst at the same time pandering to others.

Sarah, Oxford, UK

to put your own religious beliefs before your duty to your employer and the people of britain is unaccpetable. he should have been fired. Religion and fair government are not compatible.

phil, london, uk

There is no reason so suspect that placing a child in the care of a homosexual couple would be in any way detrimental to the child; provided they are able to provide that child with a safe and loving environment, such couples should not be discriminated against, especially as they are offering to care for a child whose welfare could otherwise be at risk should they remain with their families.

Lucy, Sussex,

I don't believe there was any appetite amongst the public for this forcing by minority pressure groups of laws onto the Statute Book that promote homosexuality and discriminate against those of opposing views.
We now see the result where people of conscience are forced to make decisions which are contrary to strongly held views.

A sledgehammer to crack a nut, whilst really important issues go unaddressed.

Patrick, Newcastle,

to FARRUKH of woking - Mr. McClintock was never forced to go against his personal and religious points of view. he ALWAYS had the choice to resign from a job that he cannot do.
his job involves working with the entire general public. if he cannot do this, he must resign. it is that simple.

seb harte, LA, usa

It is the duty of a magistrate to uphold the law. If his beliefs religious or otherwise prevent him from doing so then it is only right and proper that he resign or be removed from his duties.

Mike P, Nottingham, UK

Surely though the letter of the law is the issue here, not ones personal beliefs. To take it to an extreme, what if someones personal religious belief is that murder is acceptable (see sharia law, so called Honour killings)? Does that view take precedence over the letter of the law? It seems that Mr. McClintock is grandstanding on a personal issue, rather than performing his professional obligations

Bernard , Chelmsford, UK

I'm not against same sex couples, but never in a million years can same sex couples concieve a baby together. It's the typical me me me society, just because you want one, doesn't mean you should have one. A baby is not an entitlment, to conceive a baby a mother and a father is needed. So 'gays ' stop being greedy and selfish. A child should be brought up in a traditional family with a mother and a father, who love and respect eatch other.

P Blyth, Dundee, Scotland

The function of an officer of the Court is to apply the LAW to individual cases not his personal opinion. The Law require equality of treatment. If the magistrate cannot apply this law then he should resign.
In the same way, if a magistrate is racist and cannot be trusted apply the law of equality then he should resign or be dismissed.
The greatest danger to children comes from heterosexual men living with a woman whose children are not his. The religious bias against homosexual couples is dogma not based upon evidence (as in normal with the opinions of the religious). If the Magistate has REAL reasons for doubting the receiving couple he should make them known.
Just to allow you to evaluate my opinion, I am a heterosexual male.

seculardemocrat, Ceredigion, UK

We could have all seen this coming! Society is very quick to declare that everybody has equal rights, whether based on race, religion, or gender, but has failed to recognise that one persons beliefs may be in direct oposition to someone elses. It therefore seems that some have more rights than others. Homosexuals have rights based on their beliefs, but it would seem that Christians do not have rights based on their beliefs. Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others!

Gary, Oxford, United Kingdom

Speaks volumes about the "tolerance" (sic) of the gay lobby

Alastair , Aberdeen,

To force someone to go against ones personal and religious points of view on an issue of such importance homosexuality, is unjust.

Farrukh, Woking, UK

Thankfully magistrates have to follow British Law, not God's Law. British Law is far from perfect, but at least it aims to minimise prejudice, rather than actively encourage it.

If people choose to follow a religious law (which is absolutely their choice, and fair enough), then they shouldn't go into a job that requires them to follow an alternate law. Surely this is obvious?

Simon Jones, Norwich,

he should never have been put in the position of having to resign

jeffrey william harvey, bristol,

Good for the tribunal. How dare this man expect to keep his position if he wants to pick and choose what laws he administrates.

mym, London,

How refreshing that somebody actually resigns on a point of principle! And how sad that he now seeks to be able to enforce his superstitiously based bigotry on others. He held a Public Office and there is no place for religious beliefs/delusions to influence how that office is discharged. Where would it all end?

Mike Killen, Durham, UK