Interesting to read through the posts here. Some very good arguments for and against the stance of the ex employee and the implications of the judgement.

I do feel though that such dilemmas will not go away whilst;

1. You can have the view that he may well have been good at his job in other respects. Sorry, but to use his own moral stance as prejudice when helping couples breaks the first golden rule of his job, you must never compare their situation with your own ideal standard. Never judge. Clearly this idiot was not capable of seeing beyond his superstition, and that made him patently unsuitable to his work.

2. I always appreciate the input in these debates of Joe Offer, as although we wouldn't exaclty agree on much if we ever met, I do like how he explains where he is coming from and never lets preconceptions cloud his view. But Joe! What do you mean by " I'm not sure how comfortable I would be, counseling homosexual or bisexual relationships. I do my best to be tolerant, but I'm not sure I want to hear all the details..."????

Nobody asks you to be tolerant. Nobody has the right to be tolerant of other's lifestyles, or indeed intolerant. You can like, agree, not like or disagree, but to say you tolerate something stinks of saying they can only carry on whilst it pleases me to let them get away with it. Sorry, but there is a huge difference between tolerating and accepting how the world spins. You are quick to point out you cannot make a judgement as a moderator on this website, so why make them as a human?

In the UK, we do have a state religion as a tradition, and sadly, allow it's leaders to have a voice in our upper house, the House of Lords. However, they are there because it pleases the politicians to allow it, to keep their followers quiet, same as restricting my ability to buy a tap washer on a Sunday. We are a secular society and politicians know that any attempt to enforce religion will be met by ridicule ignoring it by the vast majority of the population. Nobody wants to enforce anarchy.