ECHR ruling reinforces point that religious rights don't automatically trump the rights of others
The European Court of Human Rights, often unfairly, gets a regular kicking in the British press. So it's good to see that the judges in Strasbourg have come up with a series of careful and nuanced rulings this morning on the issue of religious discrimination that are a cracking advertisement for exactly why we need such a court.
The judgements cover four cases that were brought by British Christians who claimed they were discriminated against by their employers because of their religious beliefs.
British Airways steward Nadia Eweida and NHS nurse Shirley Chaplin both lost employment tribunals because they refused to take off necklaces bearing a crucifix. Lilian Ladele, a marriage registrar from Islington, and relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane lost their jobs because their opposition to same sex relationships impinged on their ability to do their jobs without discriminating against others.
While accepting Eweida had been discriminated against, the ECHR threw out the other three cases for very good reasons. Ill go into why the judges found the way they did below.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-loss-for-the-christian-lobby-the-echr-ruling-reinforces-the-crucial-point-that-religious-rights-dont-automatically-trump-the-rights-of-others-8452458.html
"...reinforces the crucial point that religious rights don't automatically trump the rights of others."
I wish that we could get that point hammered home here in this country. Can we, here on DU, at least agree on that?