The Equality and Human Rights Commission's choice is beyond belief

The EHRC's decision that religious rights take precedence over gay rights is dangerous and deluded

Compromise sounds fair and adult and rational, doesn't it? It is, after all, what staves off divorce, war and gridlock in our courts.

At a glance, then, the dramatic U-turn that the Equality and Human Rights Commission made on Monday, which hinges on this concept, appears sensible. But after even the most cursory of analyses the volte-face is demonstrably dangerous and deluded.

After supporting several gay equality cases, the EHRC now believes the rights of religious people are not being upheld. It stated: "Judges have interpreted the law too narrowly in religion or belief discrimination claims," leading to insufficient protection for freedom of religion or belief. It continued: "It is possible to accommodate expression of religion alongside the rights of people who are not religious and the needs of business."

To rectify this supposed shortfall in religious protection, the EHRC will now push for a new legal principle of "reasonable accommodations" so that believers can negotiate the boundaries of their contract with employers. For example, a Jewish person's work rota could be changed to allow for observance of a religious holiday.

When cited with this example it sounds laudable. I do not work on Christmas day – despite being an atheist – so I would hate to see Jews prevented from celebrating Hanukkah. But when one examines the breadth of cases about to reach the European Court of Human Rights that the EHRC will now support, the dystopian reality comes into focus.

There is the case of Lillian Ladele, the Christian registrar who refused to perform civil partnerships and so was disciplined. And that of Gary McFarlane, the Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked for refusing to counsel gay couples. The EHRC has decided to back these people in the name of "reasonable" compromise.

But what these cases illustrate is that in certain areas compromise is not possible because the rights of different minorities are mutually exclusive. When one group refuses to fulfil its job description because it disapproves of another group, there is no middle ground, no give and take. Those responsible for judging the behaviour have to back one or the other. This is the roulette of human rights. You can't put your chips on the black and the red.

The EHRC is not even trying to do so – it has switched colours, and what an extraordinary switch that is. To refuse to work with gay people is ipso facto discrimination, however you attempt to justify it. Yet now the commission will champion the discriminators. It will champion those who choose their minority status – people of faith – over those with no choice over theirs – gay people.

What this U-turn could mean is that today – and oh how tempting this is – I could invent a new religion that states that I should never work before midday. If my employers protested, I would be backed by the EHRC. Yet if a doctor refused to treat me on the grounds that his or her faith commands the killing of gay people rather than saving their lives, the quack could enjoy the full support of this quango.

It seems that as far as Trevor Phillips, the EHRC chairman, is concerned, gay people are suddenly secondary in their need for protection. He and his organisation have made their choice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/13/equality-human-rights-commission-religion-gay?INTCMP=SRCH