Ms Ladele has requested permission to argue her case before the Court of Appeal and is waiting to hear the outcome of her request.

In common with many Christians, Ms Ladele believes marriage is a union of one man and one woman for life, and the legal recognition of civil partnerships allows the marriage of same sex couples. The EAT noted that Ms Ladele considers such unions to be contrary to God's law and a sin.

The EAT overturned the tribunal's decision that Ms Ladele had been the victim of indirect discrimination and harassment on the grounds of religion or belief. The EAT held that Islington Council's treatment of Ms Ladele was caused by her refusal to conduct same sex partnerships, which involved sexual orientation discrimination, not the religious beliefs behind her refusal.

The EAT stated, "The council were entitled to take the view that they were not willing to connive in that practice by relieving Ms Ladele of these duties, notwithstanding that her refusal was the result of her strong and genuinely held Christian beliefs. The council were entitled to take the view that this would be inconsistent with their strong commitment to the principles of non-discrimination and would send the wrong message to staff and service users". In short, requiring all registrars to carry out a full range of services was justified in light of the council's legitimate aim of providing its services in a non-discriminatory way, and it was on this basis that the EAT found that Ms Ladele had not been indirectly discriminated against or harassed.

The EAT also found that Ms Ladele had not been the victim of direct discrimination as the rule requiring registrars to carry out a full range of services had been equally applied to all. Ms Ladele had not been singled out for less favourable treatment.

Gay rights campaigners and Christian interest groups await the outcome of Ms Ladele's request to appeal against the EAT ruling with equal interest. Ms. Ladele's case was financed by The Christian Institute. Colin Hart, its Director, said: "Gay rights are not the only rights. If this decision is allowed to stand it will help squeeze out Christians from the public sphere because of their religious beliefs on ethical issues". Gay rights campaigners who have described the institute as fundamentalist have applauded the EAT ruling as a victory against sexual orientation bigotry and discrimination.

The case highlights the inevitable difficulties in achieving equal treatment when dealing with competing rights and individuals and groups who have fundamentally contradictory beliefs. The EAT judgment sends out a strong message that tolerance is the way forward stating while "Christian managers may be wholly unsympathetic to the atheist views of their staff, and vice versa. That does not involve a breach of these regulations. Provided they do not discriminate against them because of those beliefs, that is enough. They must tolerate the beliefs and not subject the staff to any disadvantage because of them; but they do not have to agree with them, or even consider them to have any merit".

See Religion or belief discrimination and Sexual orientation discrimination (subscription required) from the XpertHR employment law reference manual for guidance on the law in these areas.