Anti-discrimination laws exist to protect people from having their human rights contravened.  Human rights will, at times collide, and when they do choice has to be exercised, and the rights must be held in balance.  Todays news that Lord Carey has accused judges of downgrading the rights of the religious, highlights the need for clarity over how we qualify and implement different and at times conflicting rights.

I am glad we live in a society rich in services available, without discrimination, for everyone.  A society in which when we are unwell we can access health care, where when we require civic advice we can access it through Citizens Advice Bureau without discrimination, and where, when relationships meet tough terrain, there are organizations such as Relate to offer guidance and support.  Our need for such services are not determined by our gender, age, sexuality or any other characteristic, and therefore the access to provision should not be either.

The right to hold a religious belief, is of course important and to be protected, but as a person of Faith I would question Lord Careys conclusion that yesterdays ruling against the Christian who refused to counsel gay couples will adversely affect me and encroach on my expression of faith.  Christians can work in the world and with the world without losing their identity, we can be distinctively Christian without refusing to serve those whose worldview or ethics are different to ours, whose religion is different to ours, or whose sexual orientation is, by some Christians opposed .  We all have the right to hold views, and to express these views, but a refusal  to deliver services is a more complex issue.

Gary MacFarland worked for Relate.  An organization that accepts a responsibility to serve all and is eligible for money from the public purse as a result.   Mr Macfarland, as we all do, does of course have the right to choose not to deliver services to a gay couple , however he does not have this right at work  when his job requires a responsibility to serve all.  If Mr MacFarland wishes to exercise that right, it is his responsibility to find a job that will allow that.

I would however urge caution.  It is easy to get on the band wagon of protecting religious rights without thinking about whether it is the wisest thing to do, or indeed the best expression of our faith.  In seeking the freedom of religious speech, we are of course seeking this freedom for people of all faith, and as easily as discrimination can infringe on the wellbeing of people refused service or respect based on their sexuality, so too, discrimination and disrespect could land at our door, and we will have contributed to the legitimacy of this. I wonder too about the theological assumptions that are exercised in the endeavor to reserve the right to discriminate.  This is not the approach of Jesus of Nazareth who in his actions heralded the assertion that there is no division between Jew and Greek, Male and Female, Slave and Free.  The Christ who welcomed the economically unjust, the sexually illicit, people from across the border in Samaria, and treated women as fellow humans.  The Christ who would be found with the sections of society discriminated against and disrespected in 1st century Palestine.

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society is today accusing Christians of “seeking to create a hierarchy of rights that places Christian dogma over the rights of people to fair treatment” Surely treating people fairly, indeed sacrificing our own rights for others is at the very heart of Christian Dogma, protecting our rights never was.

Nancy Doyle is the Faithworks team leader