Stonewall 'deeply disturbed' by EHRC decision to back Christians

Gay rights group Stonewall has said it is 'deeply disturbed' by the Equality and Human Rights Commission's decision to intervene in four human rights cases on the side of Christians.

Two of the cases, those of Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane, involve Christians who argue that their religious belief prevents them from providing public services to gay people.

Gary McFarlane, a counsellor at Relate, refused to advise gay couples on sexual matters, in breach of the organisation's equal opportunities policy.

His claim of discrimination was rejected by the Court of Appeal last April (see solicitorsjournal.com, 29 April 2010). The same court rejected a discrimination claim brought by Lillian Ladele, a registrar at Islington Council, the previous year.

She said her religious beliefs prevented her from performing civil partnership ceremonies.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, said the commission should be 'crystal clear' that if it seeks to defend the right of any public servant to turn away any user of a public service it will face strong opposition.

'Gay taxpayers currently contribute £40bn a year to the cost of Britain's public services and no lesbian and gay person should ever be deprived of access to them,' Summerskill said.

He said the EHRC's announcement confused a settled legal situation that was currently clear.

'If employees are allowed to discriminate against gay people in the delivery of publicly funded services, using the cloak of religion as justification, then we risk seeing a situation where Muslims may start refusing to treat alcoholics in hospital or social workers might decline to assist single mothers.

'Recent research has demonstrated that the majority of religious people in Britain are proud of our progress toward gay equality. They understand that religious beliefs do not mean individuals have a right to treat lesbian, gay and bisexual people unfairly. We regret that the EHRC does not appear to support this sentiment.'

The commission has applied to the ECtHR to intervene in the cases of McFarlane and Ladele, and Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, who both encountered difficulties at work because of their desire to wear a small crucifix.

The commission said that UK judges had interpreted the law on discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief too narrowly, and set the bar too high for claimants.

Rulings by the courts in the UK and Europe had produced 'a body of confusing and contradictory case law', the EHRC argued, and there was a need for clearer legal principles.

John Wadham, group legal director at the EHRC, commented: 'Our intervention in these cases would encourage judges to interpret the law more broadly and more clearly to the benefit of people who are religious and those who are not.

'The idea of making reasonable adjustments to accommodate a person's needs has served disability discrimination law well for decades. It seems reasonable that a similar concept could be adopted to allow someone to manifest their religious beliefs.'