Christian-inspired non-governmental pro-life organisations often express their faith and their convictions by protesting in front of abortion clinics, or by simply standing in front of clinics or counselling centres in order to offer conversation and alternatives. In the German cities Freiburg and Munich, this activity has been severely limited. Local courts have given in to the pressure by the targeted locations, which could have been mainly financial ones. Courts have restricted the form of manifestation as well as established a geographical ban. Appeals are on-going.
Anti-religion groups have created a climate hostile to frank discourse. Besides defamation campaigns and negative stereotyping, hate incidents have come to the Observatory’s notice. Activists physically prevented a professor to enter an auditorium to voice deviating views. Anti-religion slogans and images are often used in hurtful manners, such as the public destruction of crosses, the image of Jesus as a crucified pig, or slogans such as “We are here to hurt your feelings” or “If Mary had had an abortion, we would have been spared people like you”.
Law 93-121 of January, 27th, 1993, so- called “loi Neiertz” made it a specific offense to obstruct abortions. Therefore manifestations in front of hospitals are frequently not permitted. A well-known doctor and embryologist, Xavier Dor, was condemned and sentenced to prison several times because he prayed together with a few others in front of a hospital and obstructed legal abortions. At 83, his latest trial is on-going.
Organisations may base their work on whatever beliefs or convictions - but to receive public funding, they must not object to current legislation. This creates a problem for Christian organisations especially with regard to objecting to medical procedures.
The law states that “the public authorities shall not provide any assistance to associations in the case where the admission process or its operations discriminate on grounds of birth, race, sex, religion, opinion or any other condition or personal or social circumstance.”
In transposition of EU – law, Austria has adopted strict non-discrimination legislation in the employment sector. When a Christian religious official was looking for a secretary, his legal advisor asked the equal treatment commission before publishing a job advertisement: would it be permissible to reject a headscarf-wearing Muslim woman? The answer was no.
The parliament of Denmark voted to force the established Evangelical Lutheran Church to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies inside their sanctuaries, although one-third of all the denomination’s priests say they will not participate in such rituals. The Danish parliament voted by an overwhelming 85-24 margin to compel churches to carry out unions for same-sex couples that are identical to heterosexual marriage celebrations.
Without exception, businesses are required under the Equal Status Act to offer goods and services to anyone who asks for them and the business cannot ‘discriminate’ on the basis of sexual orientation, marital status, etc. While churches are not forced to perform same-sex ceremonies, they might face fines if they do not rent out halls for receptions following a civil partnership ceremony.
Public bodies have to break up contracts if a violation of the principle of non-discrimination is established on the basis of the personal convictions of a private partner. A communal administration will therefore not be allowed to maintain a rental contract with a private house, used for civil marriages, if the owner of the house is found to object to an actual request for a same-sex marriage.
The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination on several grounds, including sexual orientation, in the area of the provision of goods and services. While there is a vital exemption to the general prohibition against discrimination for religious organisations when providing goods or services, this can only be relied upon in limited circumstances and is not wide enough to cover many situations.