The formula for justifying dismissal and discipline for diversity-critical speech

Problems arise where an employee’s religious or philosophical views conflict with a public or contractual duty to uphold equality or diversity, also identifying various personal and philosophical views. This conflict can never justify discrimination by that individual, and in McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs, it was established that an employer was fully justified in insisting that all magistrates apply the law of the land, without exception based on moral or principled objection. Thus, in that case it was held that a Christian magistrate who had objected to carrying out his duty to place children with same-sex couples had not been discriminated against on the basis of his philosophical views. Similar principles apply where the individual’s views (speech) on equality and diversity are regarded as inconsistent with the holding of that position, as illustrated in Page v Lord Chancellor, and Page v National Health Service, concerning an individual’s views on homosexuality and their consistency with his posts of, respectively, lay magistrate and non-executive director of the NHS.