No won, with 913 votes to 241, and the floor’s highest-rated argument was bluntly secular: “The sooner we become a truly secular democracy, the better.” The striking feature was not just the scale of the defeat, but how firmly the chamber treated equal law as the baseline.
The winning side’s case was that belief deserves protection, but not a legal shield against other people’s rights. Its next strongest voice said exemptions could “actively undermine the Equality Act”, while another drew the boundary plainly: “people should not be allowed to use their religious liberty to infringe on the rights of others.”
The Yes case was narrower and more constitutional than the result might suggest. The floor’s most-respected Yes argument said the Equality Act was “based on the religious beliefs of secular humanism”, while another conceded the need for exceptions, but only where “very limited”. Much of the disagreement turned on whether existing protections were safeguards for religion or privileges that placed it above the law.
That dispute sits inside the wider argument over how the Equality Act balances freedom of belief, equality and public safety. Even among No voters there was a practical qualification: “an exception in law for carrying a tiny ceremonial knife” might be acceptable where no one is harmed, while Yes voters pointed to the kirpan and a priest’s occupational requirements as cases for tailored treatment.
In this debate, religious freedom survived as a right to believe, but not as a general licence to make different law.
45 Opinions
Absolutely not. The sooner we become a truly secular democracy, the better. Let the flat earthers and sky fairy believers do their own thing, in their own time.
Maybe you haven’t noticed, but exemptions already exist, these are not legal exemptions but illegal exemptions, exemptions that go against the grain of British laws, regulations and legislation. The two-tier British Government and the authorities they control to uphold the rule of law without fear or favour, is blatantly undermining our lawful structural integrity of our nation for the sake of race and diversity, hence, the two-tier justice phenomenon we se today.
I don’t agree with the equalities act - but if we have to suffer - then superstitious people should groan under it too. Seikhs should not carry knives or get exempted from crash helmet laws. Muslims must accept women as equals. Fit in or ship out. Ban religious slaughter too.
I don’t believe Sky Fairies should give their adherents a legal right to break or be exempted from UK laws. No exceptions as we all should be equal under the law
It starts with private exemptions. It ends up with someone being offended if someone else is eating lunch during Ramadan. Or drinking beer. Or walking a dog. Then it is just easier if we all eat halal. And all women cover their hair. And on. And on.
Religions are ideas. They should be allowed to hold those ideas but legal exemptions are not justified.
The "No" case assumes that the EA is neutral document. It is not - it is based on the religious beliefs of secular humanism. To remove the religious exemptions would be the end of religious freedom - forcing us all to be secular humanists.
No, the law should be secular. Creating legal loopholes for religious doctrine creates an unfair two tier system that actively undermines the Equality Act. Freedom of belief is an absolute private right, but it cannot be used as a legal shield to discriminate against LGBTQ+, restrict equality, or bypass public safety.
None of us need pretend friends or their pretend books to order our lives. No exemptions for religion in any facet of the governance of the UK.
Unhappy with the question which needs to be more specific. Yes there should be limited religious exemptions, but very limited.