Ominous judicial reasoning in the U.K.

Conscience battles show no signs of diminishing, particularly in the U.K.  From today's London Times:

Christianity deserves no protection in law above other faiths and to do so would be “irrational” , “divisive, capricious and arbitrary”, a senior judge said today, as he rejected a marriage guidance counsellor’s attempt to challenge his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples.

The father of two, who had worked for the national counselling service since 2003, had alleged unfair dismissal on the grounds of religious discrimination.  But rejecting Mr McFarlane’s application to appeal, Lord Justice Laws said that legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious grounds could not be justified.

I cannot tell from the article why, if the worker's liberty of conscience were to be protected, it would amount to favoring Christianity above other faiths.  Suffice to say that the judge is not a fan of conscience rights.   Linking the worker's claim to theocracy, the judge explained: “The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments.  The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.”