A case of discrimination brought by two British women who were not allowed to wear their Christian crosses at work, is due to be argued in the European Court of Human Rights. The British government will defend its position upholding the right of employers to enforce a ban by arguing that as "it is not a 'requirement' of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so." (Telegraph
As Richard Dawkins net
points out the government case is that the Christian religion does not require its followers to wear a cross, and only symbols that are a requirement of a religion should be allowable, as in the case of the ruling that permits Sikh men to wear a turban. Their religious requirement to wear a turban outranks British law that states motorcyclists must wear a crash helmet.
However, the government's position on the issue of wearing religious accouterments does favor customs from imported religions. As Telegraph
commentator Davie John points out "The Burka is not a requirement of the Muslim faith but they are allowed to wear it openly in our society to a point where suspected Terrorists are able to go through immigration unchecked."
reported an all party parliamentary group "Christians in Parliament" has been investigating to determine if Christians are being marginalized under U.K. law. Whilst the press carries many claims that militant atheists are determined to sideline Christianity in Britain in favor of a secular society, goverment policy gives many rights of freedom of religion to many varied religious groups.
It could be argued that if the government upholds a religious right for one group it should either uphold all rights or move to implement bans across the board as France is increasingly doing in a bid to demonstrate that French society is secular at heart.