> You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly.

> He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom.

Knowing that what you say may be offensive is not the same as arguing for the disrespect of someone. The judgement also does not contain the word disrepect and it is not part of his defence that it is his intention to disrespect anyone. Much as I disagree with why he's doing it, he is being compelled. Again, to compel has a well worn definition, if you will be fired unless you do certain things you are being compelled, so I disagree with your description.

I have nothing further to add.