When I reported this elsewhere last month, an apparently well-informed reader referred me to reports that Meinl had subsequently been sued by the property fund's Israeli owners. Was I claiming that Jews, too, were motivated by anti-Semitism? Logically, of course, it is possible for the Austrians to be influenced by anti-Semitism and the Israelis to be driven purely by commercial considerations. The opposite seems less likely. All one can say for sure is that three-and-a-half years ought to be enough time for any prosecutor to decide whether to bring charges.

Although Meinl has complained about all this to the European Court of Human Rights, he is not accusing the Austrians of religious discrimination. But that was the basis of four claims against the British government that the court heard in early September.

Two of the applicants complained that they had not been allowed to wear crucifixes with their work uniforms. The two other Christians, who sought compensation for the loss of their jobs, included Lilian Ladele, a former registrar of births, deaths and marriages whose employer had subsequently required her to register civil partnerships. Dinah Rose QC argued that Ladele had suffered unjustified indirect discrimination by being treated in the same way as colleagues with no conscientious objections to granting same-sex unions formal legal recognition.

But James Eadie QC, for the UK government, reminded the court that article 9 of the Human Rights Convention does not create an absolute right to manifest one's religion. Case law had established that employers could not be forced to change the employment terms of staff who were unwilling, on religious grounds, to provide services to a section of the public. 

"If an employer requires or prohibits conduct while at work that individual employees consider inconsistent with their religious beliefs, there is no interference with article 9 [in circumstances] where they can obtain alternative employment in which they can practise their religion as they wish," Eadie said. So long as people were not excluded from work or denied public services because of their religious practices, there was no interference with article 9. And if there was no breach of article 9, he added, there was no breach of article 14 — which requires rights under the convention to be secured without discrimination. None of the applicants was able to refute that assessment of the law. So I would be surprised if the court finds, probably next year, in favour of any of them. Nor do I think it should.

After arguing in the Law Society Gazette that we should respect the rights of those with religious convictions so long as those beliefs do not conflict with the rights of others, I was accused by readers of favouring bigotry, prejudice and even racism.

I do not. I support coexistence and compromise. Staff rightly cannot insist on time off for religious observances. But employers will be all the poorer if they refuse to employ people of faith.