I would like to return to the language of Laws' decision, and that of Leveller's opening post. If the passages cited by Leveller and reported in several articles I've read on this case accurately reflect Laws' decision, then this was not so much a decision involving discrimination but rather a decision on the place of religious beliefs in law. Laws ruled that religious beliefs have no standing in law because religious beliefs are subjective. While neither Leveller nor I can know how this precedent will applied in future cases, Leveller clearly believes that it will be applied because he wrote in his opening post, "this is an excellent judgment, as to permit any antisocial actions, be they homophobic, racist, anti-feminist or whatever, on the grounds of religious belief would be the thin end of the wedge that would allow any bigot to defend the most loathsome of opinions by claiming that they were his/her religious views." I have tried to point out that Laws' decision, if it does apply to future cases, will not only apply to cases of the types listed by Leveller, but potentially to any case involving religious beliefs and, by extension, matters of conscience.

Leveller's argument is under-girded by an apparent belief that religion is by nature destructive and regressive. This is certainly true in many cases, and in other cases the exact opposite prevails. Agents of his own government murdered Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador as he celebrated mass because he spoke out against the oppression of the poor in his country by the government. Leveller reminded us in his opening post that "the bastion of South African apartheid for many years was the Dutch Reformed Church," but failed to recall that Bishop Desmond Tutu led the opposition to apartheid in South Africa.