Scudding about somewhere in my old jewellery box is the little gold crucifix my parents gave me after my confirmation nearly 50 years ago.

It shares accommodation with an ornate and handsome Lalibela cross, apparently made from an old melted-down silver coin and purchased during a trip to Ethiopia. My cross-wearing, like my church-going, is somewhat spasmodic these days but, like 54% of UK population in a survey organised by celebrated atheist Richard Dawkins (that's about 33 million people), I still regard myself as a Christian.

Even if I didn't, I'd like to think I'd be outraged by the news that the UK Government has dispatched its lawyers to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg this week to argue that a worker victimised at work for wearing a cross should resign and look for another job. James Eadie QC asserted that: "The person who asserts religious rights may on occasion have to take account of their position."

This is the case of Shirley Chaplin, the Exeter nurse moved to clerical work for refusing to remove her crucifix, and Nadia Eweida, the BA worker sent home for refusing to hide her cross from view. So Muslims can wear headscarves and Sikhs are allowed their turbans, but Christians are denied the right to exhibit a tiny piece of metal.

The argument seems to be that cross-wearing is not "required by scripture" but it isn't that black and white, is it? Many Muslims women don't feel compelled to don headscarves and, as evidenced by this case, some Christians don't view their crosses as some optional extra. Though BA backed down after its ban provoked widespread condemnation, a subsequent Appeal Court ruling went against Ms Eweida on the grounds that she "did not suffer disadvantage". What planet were they on? This woman was suspended without pay because she chose her faith over her job. Of course, she suffered disadvantage.

In what appears to be a bit of political cross-dressing, the two women are defended by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, normally linked to the secular left, against a Tory-led government, generally associated with religious traditionalism. To confuse matters further, earlier this year David Cameron made great play of supporting the wearing of crosses, in clear contradiction of his own government's latest stand.

It's difficult to escape the sense that Christians are being singled out here. Perhaps there's an assumption that, as the default faith in the UK, somehow it can take care of itself. After all, daily business in the Commons still starts with prayers, court witnesses are offered the Bible to swear upon and at her coronation, Queen Elizabeth swore to uphold the faith of the Anglican Church alone.

Personally, I'd be happy for her son to be simply the "defender of faith" in general, when the time comes because the state should protect the practice of all faiths, including Christianity. And that protection cannot stop at someone's front door or place of worship. Everyone should have the right to express their faith without interference from the state or their boss.

We need to find ways of accommodating those with sincerely-held beliefs, as we used to. Both the Abortion Act and the Sunday trading laws contained exemptions to respect strongly-held religious convictions. Yet today Christians find themselves marginalised and their faith "airbrushed out of public life", as Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury puts it. So, while supporting the bill itself, I welcome the SNP's pledge to allow its MSPs a free vote in the forthcoming Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. I'm not offended by someone wearing a niqab or turban or skull cap, any more than by someone wearing a nose-ring or gruesome tattoos all over their body. Does wearing a cross offend people who have other faiths or no faith at all? I think not.

So here's my prayer: Oh Lord, may there be an outbreak of common sense on this issue and free us from this new tyranny.