Andrea Williams reports

Dr Sheila Matthews

At the Christian Legal Centre we are very disappointed to inform you that Dr Sheila Matthews' case for religious discrimination was rejected yesterday.

Employment Judge MacMillan held that there was no discrimination on the grounds of religion as Dr Matthews' belief in the dangers of placing vulnerable children with same sex couples was based on scientific evidence which happened to dovetail with her Christian beliefs. The Judge did not want to pursue an investigation into the merits of her belief 'washing his hands' of this vital issue. Judge MacMillan said Dr Matthews was not discriminated against because anyone who held the same views on homosexual parenting, of whatever religion or none, would have been treated in the same way. This is a disingenuous argument created in order to ensure that Dr Matthews' claim failed.

Furthermore, Judge MacMillan revealed in his Judgment that he had spoken with a muslim Judge who had informed him that muslims would have the same concerns about permitting same sex couples to adopt. As this concern applied equally to those of other faiths or no faiths, the 'disadvantage' was not 'particular' to Christians and so it followed that Dr Matthews was not a victim of discrimination because she was a Christian. This is an illogical argument because her exclusion at work resulted from her Christian views which were not accommodated.

The Judge took approximately 15 minutes to make his decision giving the appearance after a two day hearing that he had already written his judgment beforehand. This was exasperated by his repeated failure to get Dr Matthews name right by calling her Dr Marshall throughout. This was dishonouring to Dr Matthews who has lost so much as a result of her faith.

Judge MacMillan had the chance to be incredibly brave and put the real issue on the table. Even if he accepted that same-sex parenting was a fact of life in modern Britain he could have referred the case to the European Court of Justice asking it to consider how to balance religious rights with homosexual rights or simply have concluded that the treatment of Dr Matthews by the Council was wholly disproportionate and that reasonable steps could have been taken to accommodate her position.

Dr Sheila Matthews has expressed her "extreme disappointment" at the decision not to uphold her application for Religious Discrimination. The Christian community paediatrician was dismissed last year from her role on Northamptonshire county council's adoption panel over her belief that children should not routinely be placed with same sex couples.

She lost her position on the adoption panel when she asked to abstain from voting in such cases because of her religious beliefs. She believed that there was research evidence to suggest that children "do best" with heterosexual parents, and this backed up her deeply held religious convictions.

Commenting on the Leicester Employment Tribunal's decision, announced late Tuesday afternoon, Dr Matthews said: "I am saddened by the Tribunal's decision and I shall be taking further legal advice."

"I took this action of bringing the case to an employment tribunal to highlight what is becoming a very worrying and ultimately damaging trend. Christian professionals, who seek to express their professional judgement in the very best interests of children, are being silenced or discriminated against. There are a number of cases occurring throughout the country where sincere individuals are being accused of discrimination or promoting faith views unreasonably and it seems that the rights of other groups such as homosexual people trump that of Christian believers. I believe it should be possible in most cases to have a better balance of rights."

"I am concerned that what seems to me to be a reasonable view held by many Christians and people of other faiths and none, who are concerned for the best interests of already disadvantaged children, is being overridden by the rights of a small group of individuals."

"The prevalence of individuals in the population who describe themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual is 1.5% in the most recent ONS Labour Force Survey. Only one or two a year are approved as adopters in Northamptonshire, so the numbers are very small.

I sought to take a position which would continue to allow the council to fulfil its legal requirement to provide a service to this group but that did not compromise my beliefs.

I chose to do this in a discrete and low-key way without making my views public or raising issues in the context of individual applicants but even this was unacceptable to the county council."

"I maintain my belief that children deserve the best and the ideal is to be brought up by a heterosexual couple who are committed to each other in a long term relationship. This provides them with the distinct role models of a mother and father. The evidence for the impact of the absence of either a mother or father on a growing child is established. I accept that many single parents do a fantastic job but adoption is about finding the optimum setting when a decision is being made to place a child in a new home away from their birth parents."

"Such a view is not bigoted, nor is it anti-homosexual, it is basic common sense, backed up by international studies on childhood development, and I believe the vast majority of people living in Britain today agree. I think it is a sad state of affairs when I am castigated for respectfully expressing a religious and professional opinion. So many people have contacted me to express their concerns about this area so I know I am not alone in holding this opinion."

"What I am seeking is mutual respect and tolerance of different views but my experience is the opposite. Our society was built on sound Christian principles and standards and we should celebrate those rather than seek to erase them."

"I am immensely grateful to the very many people and churches that have been praying for me and supporting me. I want to thank them and my legal team at the Christian Legal Centre."