Can Britain tolerate Christians?

British courts rejected Ms. Eweida’s demand that BA repay her lost wages, and she is now arguing before the European court in Strasbourg that the U.K. government failed to protect her right, recognized both by Britain and the European Union, to religious nondiscrimination in the workplace. Here the government’s argument rests on its judgment of what Christianity does and does not demand of its adherents, and it concludes that wearing symbols such as crucifixes doesn’t constitute the “practice” of a religion, but merely “behavior or expression that is motivated or inspired by religion or belief,” which is not always protected.

Less tortured is the government’s secondary point, which is that BA is a private company and the government has “no positive obligations to ensure that a private employer permitted Ms. Eweida to wear a visible cross.” The government’s filing says that Ms. Eweida’s rights, under both British and European protections, were satisfied because she was “free to resign and seek employment elsewhere.”

But just as no one forces crucifix-wearing Christians to work for secular-sensitive airlines, nothing compels same-sex couples to seek accommodations at Christian-run properties. In the Bulls’ case, however, the government’s position comes down to the fact that no one forces Christians to open businesses.