""The couple in question had no right to counseling from McFarlane over any other (more qualified) counselor,""

While this would be true, had the couple insisted on being counselled by this particular man, as I understand it, such was not the case.

Apparently their sexual orientation became clear during counselling, after which McFarlane refused to continue.

That is prima facie discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

Secondly, the decision of the judge was based on the fact that he tried to offer his religious beliefs as a defence.

This is highly unlikely to make any serious change in future decisions, being a single decision in a particular set of circumstances, rather than a general legal precedent.

To me the whole damn thing is a storm in a teacup, which will be forgotten in the real world long before folks on here will stop arguing about it.

Don T.