Registrar Lillian Ladele, who said she was disciplined by London's Islington Council for refusing to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for homosexual couples, was "disappointed" by today's ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, according to The Christian Institute.
Her claim against her former employer was rejected as judges said Islington Council's action was "legitimate" given that it was obliged to consider the rights of same-sex couples. The Christian Institute, who supported her case said:
"Obviously, we are disappointed to have lost. But we are encouraged that two judges thought we should have won. What this case shows is that Christians with traditional beliefs about marriage are at risk of being left out in the cold."
"If the Government steamrollers ahead with its plans to redefine marriage, then hundreds of thousands of people could be thrown out of their jobs unless they agree to endorse gay marriage."
The European Court of Human Rights has upheld a claim against the UK Government for a failure to protect European Convention rights.
British Airways was not a party to this legal action. It was pursued against the UK government.
Our own uniform policy was changed in 2007 to allow Miss Eweida and others to wear symbols of faith and she and other employees have been working under these arrangements for the last six years.
Miss Eweida has worked continuously for British Airways for 13 years.
The court's recognition of Christian belief in everyday life is welcome, but in only finding in favour of Nadia Eweida, it has shown a hierarchy of rights now exists in UK law.
The failure of the court to protect the religious freedom of Lillian Ladele in living out her faith in a way consistent with historic Christian belief shows the limitations of this judgment.
Former Relate counsellor Gary McFarlane, who was sacked after refusing to give sex therapy to same-sex couples, said the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights against him was "regrettable".
Speaking in central London, he said he would appeal the decision while continuing to counsel same-sex couples in other aspects of their lives.
The ECHR's ruling found against Mr McFarlane on the grounds that he took on the role at Relate in the knowledge that clients could not be divided up in accordance with their sexual orientation.
It concluded the company's action was designed to enable it to provide a service without discrimination.
I was very selfish initially when I heard the verdict because I was jumping for joy and saying 'thank you Jesus'. It's a vindication that Christians have a right to express their faith on par with other colleagues at work visibly and not be ashamed of their faith.
I'm disappointed on behalf of the other three applicants but I fully support them in their asking for a referral for their cases to be heard in the Grand Chamber, and I wish them every success in the future to win.
Barrister Adam Wagner, who specialises in human rights, has confirmed the timeline for the three Christians who lost their cases at the European Court of Human Rights to appeal to the Strasbourg court's higher chamber.
The unsuccessful European Court of Human rights applicants have three months to mount an appeal to the court's Grand Chamber
Delighted that principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld – ppl shouldn't suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs
While cross-wearing BA employee Nadia Eweida enjoyed victory at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), three other Christians lost their cases, including hospital nurse Shirley Chaplin, who had been prevented from wearing a cross visibly around her neck.
They will be appealing today's judgment at the ECHR's Grand Chamber.
Speaking at a news conference in central London, Ms Chaplin said she was "very disappointed" by the judgment but heartened that other Christians can now wear a cross in the workplace.
She said she still feels that other religions are given more freedom in the workplace and called upon David Cameron to live up to a promise to change the law to protect cross-wearers.
The European Court of Human Rights has deemed a fair balance was not struck between British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida's desire to demonstrate her religious belief with a "discreet" cross and the airline's wish to "project a certain corporate image".
The judgment, published in Strasbourg, found the airline's aim was "undoubtedly legitimate" but said British courts had accorded it "too much weight" in previous rulings.
Today's judgment is an excellent result for equal treatment, religious freedom and common sense. Nadia Eweida wasn't hurting anyone and was perfectly capable of doing her job whilst wearing a small cross. She had just as much a right to express her faith as a Sikh man in a turban or a Muslim woman with a headscarf.
British courts lost their way in her case and Strasbourg has actually acted more in keeping with our traditions of tolerance. However the Court was also right to uphold judgments in other cases that employers can expect staff not to discriminate in the discharge of duties at work.