A long-running dispute between Christian Concern and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre has ended with victory for the Christian campaign group.

The centre was due to host a conference for Christian Concern in 2012 entitled "One Man, One Woman – Making the case for marriage for the good of society". However, it cancelled the booking the night before, citing concerns over compatibility with the Centre's diversity policy.

The conference had previously been due to take place at the Law Society, which had cancelled for the same reason. Following legal action the Law Society said that it recognised Christian Concern was "entitled to hold and express" its views and that the Society would organise a debate on the issue of same sex marriage in which a speaker from Christian Concern would take part.

Now the QEII Conference Centre has made a similar climb-down. The joint statement says: "The Centre regrets that its decision to cancel the contract caused Christian Concern, as well as its invited speakers and delegates, disappointment and inconvenience.

"The parties uphold the rights and freedoms of other members of society based on the principles of a democratic society.

"The Centre accepts that some people have deeply held views about the nature of marriage, and that every individual has the freedom to express these in accordance with the law. The Centre also respects Christian Concern's view that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that view is sincerely held."

It concludes: "The Centre confirms that there was no intention to discriminate against Christian Concern. Going forward, the Centre is happy to work closely with Christian Concern to stage a future event about marriage or other issue of interest."

The statement was issued in the name of Christian Concern, the QEII Conference Centre and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, whose department owns the centre but does not run it. Pickles has been outspoken in his support for Britain's Christian heritage and freedom of expression, intervening in the face of secularist challenges to make it possible for local councils to continue to hold prayers before their meetings. He is thought to have been unlikely to be sympathetic to the centre's position.