Christian beliefs should be 'accommodated' under law – top judge

Christians with traditional beliefs about issues such as homosexuality should be given “reasonable accommodation” in law, Britain’s most senior woman judge has said.

Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said the UK is “less respectful” towards people with religious views than other countries, despite its long Christian traditions.

She questioned whether the current “hard line” approach to discrimination claims, based on EU law, could be sustained in the long term.

Her comments, in a lecture at Yale law School in the US, follow a series of cases in which British Christians claimed to be suffering religious discrimination but lost their cases.

They include Shirley Chaplin, a nurse from Exeter, who was banned from wearing a cross at work as well as Gary McFarlane, a former Relate counsellor, and Lillian Ladele, a marriage registrar, who both lost their jobs after resisted performing tasks they said went against their religious beliefs.

Mr FcFarlane, who declined to give sex therapy sessions to gay couples, and Ms Ladele, who asked not to have perform civil partnerships, argued that they conscientious objectors.

The three took their cases to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

alongside Nadia Eweida, a British Airways check-in clerk who was told the small cross she wore breached the airline’s then uniform policy.

Miss Eweida won her case, establishing the right to wear a cross in principle, but Mrs Chaplin lost after the court ruled that the right to express religious belief could be trumped by “health and safety” considerations.

It led to claims that Christians were being treated as second class citizens and denied the right to exercise conscience.

Lady Hale also cited the case of two Christian couples who were sued under for refusing to let double rooms to gay couples in their B&Bs.

She said that it was right that the couples had been compensated because Christians should not be able to “pick and choose” which laws to obey.

She also rejected arguments from figures such as Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who intervened in Mr McFarlane’s case, because she said Christianity should not have “special protection” under the law.

But she went on to call for a re-examination of the approach to religion in the law.

”It is not difficult to see why the Christians feel that their religious beliefs are not being sufficiently respected,” she said.

“Other religions with stricter dress codes or dietary laws are demanding concessions which Christians feel that it is harder to claim because they cannot point to equivalent religious requirements.

“Eweida is something of a breakthrough here.

“But instead of all the technicalities which EU law has produced, would it not be a great deal simpler if we required the providers of employment, goods and services to make reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs of others?”

She added: “Then employers might have to make reasonable accommodation for the right of their employees to manifest their religious beliefs and suppliers of services might have to make reasonable accommodation for the right of their would-be customers to use them.”

She cited the example of Canada where those who refuse to provide a service, such as hiring a room for a same-sex wedding must take reasonable steps to provide an alternative.

“I find it hard to believe that the hard line EU law approach to direct discrimination can be sustainable in the long run,” she said.

She added: “It is fascinating that a country with an established church can be less respectful of religious feelings than one without.”

Lord Carey said: "I welcome Lady Hale's recognition that there is a considerable problem for the courts in adjudicating around a series of competing rights.

“Her suggestion of a test of ‘reasonable accommodation’ recognises that the law and the courts have failed to balance competing rights properly.

“It remains my view that a panel of lawyers with expertise and a knowledge of religious faith is badly needed.”