By Richard Allen Greene, CNN
London (CNN) – Christian activists in Britain are furious at the arguments their government will use against them when Europe's highest court considers whether employees have the right to wear crosses that show over their uniforms.
Britain will argue that the two Christian women at the center of the case had the option of quitting their jobs and working elsewhere, so they are not covered by European human rights law, according to legal papers obtained by CNN.
"Employees who face work requirements incompatible with their faith, and have the option of resigning and seeking alternative employment, cannot claim for a breach of Article 9" of the European Convention on Human Rights, Britain will argue.
The government will also say that wearing a cross is not a requirement of Christianity, so wearing one in public is not protected by the law.
The European Court of Human Rights has agreed to hear the case of the two British women, who say their employers discriminated against them by refusing them allow them to display their crosses, calling them violations of their policy on uniforms.
The British government is the defendant in the case, and is being taken to court by British Airways worker Nadia Eweida and nurse Shirley Chaplin.
The British Home Office told CNN Monday that the United Kingdom is not in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
But Andrea Minichiello Williams, head of the group Christian Concern, said the government's line of argument is "extraordinary."
And she said Christians are increasingly being marginalized in Britain.
"Christians are losing their jobs. They are being forced from the public square," she said, declaring that the government's argument that Christians could quit and work somewhere else "smacks of the beginnings of totalitarianism."
A source familiar with the intricacies of the case called the British government position "incredibly crude and stupid."
[.....]
A top thinker on the role of religion in society, on the other hand, argued that the case should never have ended up in court in the first place.
"In these cases, it would be wise for all parties to take a breath, back off from the courts and go back to the negotiating table," said Elizabeth Hunter, director of the British think tank Theos.
"We need to learn to deal with our differences like grown-ups," she said. "Not by restricting the rights of people of faith to what the state says is a requirement, nor by privileging them at the expense of others, but by listening and doing the difficult, necessary, case-by-case compromising."
Richard Allen Greene - Newsdesk editor, The CNN Wire
You can read the whole article at the CNN belief blog.
