The British government will be forced to say whether it supports the rights of Christians to wear the cross and opt out of diversity legislation as part of a landmark legal case.Judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg have ordered ministers to make a formal statement on whether they believe Christians' rights have been infringed in British courts that have repeatedly dismissed their entitlement to dress and act according to their beliefs.
The court has selected the cases of four applicants it considers to be of such legal significance they should be examined further. Once ministers have responded the court will decide whether to have full hearings.
The cases could lead to a final legal answer on how religious beliefs must be balanced against equality laws designed to prohibit discrimination against minority religions and other groups such as homosexuals.
The applicants are: Nadia Eweida, a British Airways worker who was barred from wearing a cross; Lillian Ladele, a former registrar who objected to conducting homosexual civil partnership ceremonies because of her faith. This led to disciplinary action by the local council where she had worked for 17 years; Gary McFarlane, a Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked by Relate, a counselling service, for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples; Shirley Chaplin, a former nurse who was barred from her job for wearing a cross.
The founder and director of the Christian Legal Centre, Andrea Minichiello Williams, which is supporting two of the applicants, said: ''These cases are massively significant on every front. There seems to be a disproportionate animosity towards the Christian faith and the workings of the courts in the UK has led to deep injustice.
''If we are successful in Strasbourg I hope the Equalities Act and other diversity legislation will be overhauled so that Christians are free to work and act in accordance with their conscience. David Cameron [the Prime Minister] now needs to put his money where his mouth is.''
Of Mrs Eweida and Mrs Chaplin, the European Court asked the British government: ''In each case, did the restriction on visibly wearing a cross or crucifix at work amount to an interference with the applicant's right to manifest her religion or belief, as protected by article 9 [the right to freedom of religion] of the [European] Convention [of Human Rights]?''
Earlier this year the court ruled that schools have a right to display a crucifix in classrooms, after an application brought by Catholics in Italy. The decision appeared to set European human rights law at odds with British courts, where all four applicants in the new round of cases have lost on appeal.