A report by a parliamentary group warns there is a lack of religious literacy among judges and politicians.

And it says the rights of homosexuals have taken precedence over those of Christians.

The study, by the Christians in Parliament group, follows a series of rulings by judges against Christians who said following their faith brought them into conflict with the law or employer.

It analysed 24 instances over 6 months, including a relate counsellor sacked for refusing to offer sex therapy to gay couples, a clerk sent home by British Airways for wearing a cross, guesthouse owners who refused to allow a gay couple to stay in a double room and most recently a woman who says she was forced from her job because she refused to work Sundays.

Equality is a difficult subject, but could it really be that the rights of homosexuals are put before those of Christians?

Rev Dwayne Morgan at Bournemouth’s Metropolitan Community Church which has an outreach to the gay and lesbian community said: “The right to wear jewellery of choice is quite different to denying someone the right to a room, or the right to have your relationship legally recognised, or seek counselling.

“If the followers of Jesus would just get on with the work that Jesus taught us to do – delivering good news to the poor, bringing liberty to those whose lives are bound by the entrapments of life and freeing those that are oppressed – we wouldn’t have to worry so much about what society thinks about us or does to us.”

David Warden, Chair of Dorset Humanists and in a civil partnership himself, also argued that each case should be looked at separately.

Speaking personally, he felt that some opt-outs on the grounds of conscience are necessary in a tolerant society.

“This includes doctors not being compelled to perform abortions and marriage guidance counsellors not being compelled to give sex therapy to gay couples if they have a sincere moral difficulty with homosexuality,” David said. “As long as the service as a whole can offer services to gay people, then flexible working arrangements should be considered sympathetically. But in other cases the line must be drawn more firmly.”

At Bournemouth’s Islamic Centre and Central Mosque, Tariq Palmer felt it was ‘rich’ for MP’s to raise the subject.

“Those same people have enacted legislation in this country which effectively demeans and demoralises many people who endeavour to follow their faith on a daily basis,” he said.

“They have bowed to a ‘minority’ – particularly where homosexuals are concerned. Few people are homophobic – but the law has gone too far.”

“The wearing of a cross, the prayer of a nurse at the bedside, the refusal of a counsellor to offer sex therapy to homosexuals, or a person whose religious values prevent them from working on the Sabbath are basic human rights,” Tariq added.

Cllr Judes Butt said: “I feel strongly that the judiciary should consider the harm occasioned to any other person or group by an individual expressing passively their particular faith or belief and not penalise them merely because they hold a faith or belief that the judiciary feel could afford offence to the public.

“With respect, perhaps the judiciary should try a bit of old fashioned consultation and actually speak to the public, seek their views, understand their fears and prejudices first hand and then make their decisions which is sensible and worthy of 21st century law.”