Christians should 'leave their beliefs at home or get another job'

Landmark cases, brought by four British Christians, including two workers forced out of their jobs after visibly wearing crosses, were heard on Tuesday at the European Court of Human Rights, a judgement will follow at a later.

Despite previous pledges by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, that he would change the law to protect religious expression at work, government lawyers insisted that there was a “difference between the professional and private sphere”.

James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law.

He argued that a Christian facing problems at work with religious expression needed to consider their position and that they were not discriminated against if they still have the choice of leaving their job and finding new employment.

“There are two aspects to this part of the argument. Firstly resigning and moving to another job and secondly there is clear and consistent jurisprudence that the person who asserts religious rights may on occasion have to take account of their position,” he said.

“There is a difference between the professional sphere where your religious freedoms necessarily abut onto and confront other interests and the private sphere. The employees concerned could indeed pursue all the generally recognised manifestations of their religion outside the work sphere.”

The QC also told the court that, unlike the Muslim headscarf for women, wearing a cross is not a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship and is not required by scripture. “A great many Christians do not insist on wearing crosses at all, still less visibly,” he said.

Nadia Eweida, a BA worker, from Twickenham, south-west London, made the headlines when she was sent home in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross or hide it from view.

An employment tribunal ruled Ms Eweida, a Coptic Christian originally from Egypt, had not suffered religious discrimination, but the airline later changed its uniform policy after the case to allow all religious symbols, including crosses.

Shirley Chaplin, from Exeter, was moved away from nursing to a clerical role by the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust in Devon after refusing to remove a necklace bearing a crucifix. She has since lost her job after 30 years of nursing.

Mrs Chaplin told The Daily Telegraph that she felt “insulted” by the argument that Christians who are told by their employer that they cannot wear a cross at work can always find another job.

“It is insulting, humiliating and degrading.My Christian faith isn’t something that you put on and then take off to go to work,” she said.

“We are treated differently. Britain is a very tolerant country but we seem to be more tolerant to some groups than others and at the moment we’re not at all tolerant to Christians. You can have faith but not demonstrate it.”

James Dingemans QC, acting for Mrs Eweida, questioned the value of having a right to religious belief if it could not be applied at work, where people spend 80 per cent of their adult lives.

“What value is a right that stops when cross the threshold of work,” he said.

David Davis, Conservative MP or Haltemprice and Howden, said he expected Mr Cameron to stick to his recent promises to protect religious rights.

“The idea that British citizens are not free to express their faith in the workplace is an extraordinary and oppressive interpretation of the law," he said.

" The Prime Minister made it plain in the House of Commons that the Government believes the wearing of religious symbols in the workplace is a vital freedom. One therefore has to ask why the Government’s lawyers are the last to know.”

The human rights challenge also includes the cases of a Relate therapist sacked for saying he might not be comfortable giving sex counselling to homosexual couples and a Christian registrar who wishes not to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.

Lillian Ladele, a registrar in Islington, was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies on religious grounds.

Dinah Rose QC, acting for Miss Ladele, attacked the government’s argument as “startling” because it appeared to suggest that an employer could discriminate against someone because of their religious opinions as long as the employee was able to leave their job and find another one elsewhere.

“An employer could have a policy of refusing to employ Jews because other employers will employ them,” she said.

In a similar case, Gary McFarlane, a Bristol marriage counsellor, was sacked because his employer, who was suspicious because of his open Christianity, learned that he had privately expressed his reluctance to give “sex therapy” to homosexual couples.

“I am flabbergasted by the idea that my Christian faith should somehow match up with employment practices otherwise I need to resign and find alternative employment. That can’t be right,” he said.

“I don’t want to champion my rights above anyone else’s. I just want a level playing field.”

The four British Christians argue that the actions of their employers contravened articles nine and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibit religious discrimination and allow “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

Paul Diamond, a lawyer for Mrs Chaplin and Mr McFarlane, accused the British courts of creating “insurmountable hurdles” for Christians to express personal belief and faith.

“In the United Kingdom, religious people who have followed their convictions in the workplace in the face of overly vague discrimination laws have been sacked, demoted or disciplined. Among them have been doctors, magistrates, teachers, foster parents, therapists and many others,” he said.

“The situation for religious liberty in Britain is now critical.”