So the voice of reason prevails, sort of

The BBC reports under the headline 'Chastity ring' girl loses case that Lydia Playfoot was not discriminated against when her school told her that her "chastity ring" fell within the purview of its ban on jewellery.

And quite right too. She was trying to make this into some major issue of religious freedom. While I fully understand, appreciate and support the aim of encouraging teenagers in a commitment to save sex for marriage, I can't for the life of me see why this case ever needed to be brought; she was clearly in the wrong. The ring is not a religious requirement, and yet she was comparing it with the hijab, Sikh bangles and the like. By contrast, the judge said that "The claimant (Miss Playfoot) was under no obligation, by reason of her belief, to wear the ring, nor does she suggest that she was so obliged."

Of course, the National Secular Society think that this was "a manipulative attempt to impose a particular religious viewpoint on a school", which is just typical secularist nonsense. The only voices of reason seems to have come from the school and the Bench.

As a side-note, the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship was supporting her through this. The LCF is a great organisation for Christians in the legal profession to meet together and support each other in what must, at times, be very dispiriting and difficult situations. But when it comes to their legal work, I'm getting somewhat concerned at the "culture war" approach of the LCF. I'm particularly concerned because the LCF has, very rightly, been backing CUs suffering assault in universities (which really is an issue about freedoms of religion, association and speech) and this kind of clearly spurious case won't have any positive impact on the very difficult situations that some people and CUs find themselves in.