I'm glad she won her case...........

But jo7is it a right to wear a cross in an environment where jewellery is not generally permitted?

Meant to add to my previous random post that I know several acquaintances who wear a cross but who rarely, if ever, go to a church.

Of my friends I only know four couples who are regular church goers & pillars of their church communities and, of those, three couples are also gay. Only one of these eight Christian people wears a cross. I do not know if any have sought sex therapy but I guess if they have they would want someone they trusted and who wanted and knew how to help them.

I am not sure what point/s I am making really but just saying.....

Nothing wrong with round your neck as well Stansgran.

Surely one should wear one's cross in ones heart and ones daily life. I still smile about the assistant in the Jewellers who asked if the customer wanted the sort of cross with the little man on

Not a requirement but definitely a right.

And there are always individuals who will play the discrimination card when they are a bit fed up with their employers. Bit of a disciplinary issue and they start making all kinds of wild accusations.
I have seen it a couple of times - once with a member of staff who came up with a list of claims, and eventually withdrew them after lots and LOTS of time and money had been spent on part of employer on preparing for a tribunal. Employer awarded costs.
And another ex employee who resigned, then realised she would not get benefits if she had left voluntarily. Started accusing my DH of discrimination on religious grounds. Her friend who was still in the company was mortified as DH had made a number of concessions to them, the most significant of which was being allowed to leave very early every Friday.
I think the findings against the therapist and the registrar were spot on. No particular sympathy with crucifix woman as wearing a cross is not a requirement of christianity is it. As mentioned above.

We're still in a transitional state as far as implementing equal opportunities is concerned and sanctions have to be imposed to ensure individual's rights are respected. What we need is a proper public discussion about those areas where two sets of individual rights conflict. It's no use ignoring them and leaving it to the courts. I'm not sure about wearing a cross; it isn't a religious requirement but it isn't a requirement that women should cover their hair either. I am more sure about the requirements of conscience but unfortunately, this is an area not recognised by many people and apparently, not by the law either.

The more i think about it the more complex it seems.

I would not want to be counselled by someone who was anti-homosexual even though I am heterosexual myself (well more or less)

I would want my counsellor to be a broad-minded individual able to take all aspects of humanity in their stride.

I think petallus has it spot on. This case was about the therapist wanting to be allowed to be discriminatory against homosexuals. I'm pleased our equality laws were robust enough to withstand that.

I hadn't realised he was training as a sex therapist, and in that case I am surprised that the issue had not been raised earlier. But also, as Butty says, there is usually a way to refer on a case with which one can't deal.

Plenty of Christians are okay with homosexuality, or are homosexuals themselves.

Sounds as though he is anti-homosexual, whether based on so called Christian principles or not.

I suppose it comes down to how anti gay sex he is. Surely a Relate training session would have been able to talk him through it if he were merely uncomfortable or unsure? That's what training is for. It sounds as if he may be a bit too anti for the job.

Just looked at this thread for the first time.

I think a heterosexual counselor should be able to refer gay clients to a relevant expert, if asked advice of a sexual nature. It would be easy to just say he was out of his league, and his colleague would be a lot more help. But why on earth would a gay couple even bother asking such advice from a hetero? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I find it disturbing that Nadia Eweida won her case.

If the situation was that other employees were allowed to wear jewellery but Ms Eweida was forbidden to wear her cross, she would have a case for religious discrimination. But from what I've read, there was simply a "no jewellery" rule for everyone; so, far from being discriminated against, she was demanding special treatment!

In any case, since when has wearing a silver cross been a Christian duty? There's nothing about it in the Gospels - I've looked! But there is a commandment to love your neighbour and forgive your enemy.

People are talking about religious "rights", but Christianity isn't supposed to be about rights, but about how you treat other people. When will Christians start obeying Christ? He said it himself: "If you love me, keep my commandments!"

sounds like they are in the same muddle in Australia

Here is a full description of the cases and the judgements by the ECHR. It all looks reasonable to me.

JessM yes he could work in Christian counselling settings.

But what if the Christians were homosexuals?

When I worked as a therapist, if there was something or someone I felt completely unable to work with, then there was always a very good referral process. That option is necessary and important.

Quite right, Petallus.
Jingle, I found the very suggestion that homosexual relations might need 'normalising' to be surprising.

I think the hospital rule was no jewellery other than wedding ring, and the cross was seen as jewellery. It really is not a requirement for any Christian to wear a cross at all times, so I think she was just being perverse. She could have worn it under her clothes if it meant that much to her. I certainly would not want to be confronted by a crucifix, which was shown in one picture, if I were in hospital.

Well rather perverse of him to want to train as a sex therapist when he wasn't prepared to talk about homosexual relationships.

Probably plenty of opportunities for him in Christian counselling settings?

I thought the Relate chap was a sex counsellor so the sessions could well be of a 'technical' nature, therefore I think it's reasonable for him to be excused.

I trained with Relate and worked as a counsellor for quite a long time, and stopped about 10 years ago when work and commuting took over. But even then, we learned to look at our own prejudices and how we would deal with them in the consulting room. "Nonjudgemental" was always the key word, and, I assume, still is.

Phoenix has the general idea; counsellors would work with the relationship; if there were "technical" problems then a Relate sex therapist might be suggested. They are the experts, not the regular counsellor. Though, as always, one couldn't stop a discussion about sex abruptly!