The Government was defeated in it's recent 'religious hatred' bill by one vote (interestingly, Blair did not show up for the second vote). The bill will become law in a more muted form, as I understand it one must intend offence using threatening words, this is much better. The original was intolerable, as it allowed for 'recklessness' as an offence using 'abusive' words. Thereby criticising or poking fun at a religious practice could have been covered by the bill, thus religious groups could have used the bill to browbeat opponents.
There would have been no similar protection for people holding points of view based upon direct evidence (saying 'it's in the bible', or similar, is not direct evidence of the truth of a statement).
So, unless I've missed something, threatening the person - illegal. Attacking the idea - legal, offending the person holding the idea - legal. As the law was originally proposed, it was so broad that it was dangerous. Even if it was not envisaged that it would be used in certain cases. To my mind a law not intending to be used in certain cases should not have been drafted so that the possibility remained open.
Admittedly, I am now rather at a loss to understand in what circumstances the bill will affect the way people conduct their affairs which were not covered by existing legislation - for that reason I remain concerned that the bill is redundant. Redundant law is bad law, as a general principle, as conflicts can be set up.