Belly, the logic behind the government's decision not to intervene in the dispute between the lady and her employer is based on this determination, from the article you linked us to:

"The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a 'requirement of the faith' and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9"

It suggests that if the display of a cross were a strict condition - a requirement, as they put it - of being a Christian, then they may well have reached a different decision.

Here is Article 9, to help us along.

"Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Does this help understand the position they were in? As I mentioned earlier, they have effectively hand-balled the question of whether a crucifix is a requirement, or an option.

In other words, whether a Christian can only "manifest" his religion through the display a crucifix, or whether is it simply a matter of personal choice that he displays one.

Dear Belly,

"A persons personal belief, showing them in a not offensive way, should be protected."

Absolutely so, but it IS protected. The employee did not have to sign a contract that goes against their religion, where it is written "no crosses may be worn at work". If she freely chose to sign something stupid as that, then she only has herself to blame. If she is represented by a union, then it should have been the union's duty to refuse such a terrible clause in the employment-contract.

"I still and forever ask why, why is the Cross unwelcome?"

In most places the cross IS welcome. It is only unwelcome by a small minority of employers, whom I deem to be stupid.

Dear Pericles,

"The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a 'requirement of the faith' and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9"

That's exactly the dangerous slippery-slope that I mentioned above: allowing a secular government of the humanistic persuasion to determine what's religious and what isn't, is exactly like allowing the cat to guard the cream. Why should we trust the government in matters of the spirit where it is utterly ignorant and unqualified?

The only way to protect religious freedom is to protect ALL FREEDOMS, otherwise the government can excuse itself by saying "oh, but your actions are not religious", or else it can collude with just a few major churches (as it did in the middle-ages and still does in many Muslim countries today), recognizing only their practices as religious and denying freedom of religion from others that are not in its clique of favourites.

To be "granted" religious freedom, one should not have to name an established religious-order to which they supposedly belong. One should not have to claim "I am Christian" for example. Regardless of what the bishops say, if one's personal religion, or religious variation, includes wearing a cross, then they should have the right to wear it.

(of course, if they signed a contract to the contrary, then they have created a problem for themselves)

Yuyutsu, you said,

But the state should not force relationships between people:
It should not force you to marry someone you don't want,
it should not force you to be friends with someone you don't want,
it should not force you to trade with someone you don't want,
it should not force you to work for someone you don't want,

*and it should not force you to employ someone you don't want.

The last one would allow political, racial and religious blacklisting - bit dodgy there. Not that I'm in favour of state interference per se, I'd rather the unions stood up against this sort of thing.

Delia Smith, the television chef and practising Roman Catholic, who will issue a Lent appeal on behalf the Church’s charity, Cafod, accusing “militant neo-atheists and devout secularists” of “busting a gut to drive us off the radar and try to convince us that we hardly exist”.
You got it Delia, the faster all religion gets driven of the radar and goes extinct the better society will be.

Dear Farfromtheland,

"The last one would allow political, racial and religious blacklisting - bit dodgy there. Not that I'm in favour of state interference per se, I'd rather the unions stood up against this sort of thing."

Good idea - the unions can blacklist the blacklisters.

It is never right to force people to employ someone they don't want, whatever their reason: assuming that their business is totally private, it's their own property and their own money, which they can do what they like with. However, if an employer discriminates immorally then there is nothing wrong with naming-and-shaming them.

----

Dear Paul,

"You got it Delia,"

So by your own admission you acknowledge the violence of militant neo-atheists and devout secularists.

"the faster all religion gets driven of the radar and goes extinct the better society will be"

While I do not agree, for the sake of balance I hope you remember to include in your statement the most harmful of all, the pseudo-religion of humanism.

Paul you gain nothing for that post.
I believe in no God.
I think we may well unite faster without belief.
And Pericles yes thank you, I understand.
Haveing said all the above, a time existed that Christianity gave us a more civilized world.
Rules to live by.
I have no doubt all, or very many, faiths did the same.
I could launch, without effort or pain, in the negative about religions.
But come with me here, a basic truth, Christianity is marked in every Church.
By the cross Christ died on.
Surely if not demanded, wearing it is a right.
Why did employers say no?
Why did courts and governments seem to agree?
Paul, some who I forever miss and value, dislike my views, but in selling a product, as you try, raving and ranting will not do it.
Every issue, like it or not has both positive and negative.
We must understand them both or forever please only a few.