The original article behind Das Monde's link provides some interesting talking points. It bemoans a perceived loss of religious privilege :

The new intolerance: will we regret pushing Christians out of public life?

I believe that religious liberty is mean­ingless if religious subcultures do not have the right to practise and preach according to their beliefs. These views - for example, on abortion, adoption, divorce, marriage, promiscuity and euthanasia - may be unfashionable. They certainly will strike many liberal-minded outsiders as harsh, impractical, outmoded, and irrelevant.

But that is not the point. Adherents of these beliefs should not face life-ruining disadvantages. They should not have to close their businesses, as happened to the Christian couple who said only married heterosexual couples could stay at their bed and breakfast. They should not lose their jobs, which was the case of the registrar who refused to marry gays.

I find these two examples clearcut : no, people should not be allowed exceptions to anti-discrimination laws based on their religious beliefs. Neither in business (I once turned down a job staffing a London bed-and-breakfast place because the owner wanted someone who would turn away English, Irish and Arab clients), nor in civil service.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}