header-logo header-logo

The gay wedding cake saga

06 December 2018 / Dr Michael Arnheim
Issue: 7820 / Categories: Features , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Michael Arnheim looks at false analogies & illogicalities in the ‘gay wedding cake’ decisions

  • Reviews the high-profile ‘gay marriage cake’ case.
  • Highlights false analogies and illogicality in the chain of decisions.
  • Concludes the Supreme Court made the right decision.

Are bakers legally obliged to make a cake bearing a slogan to which they have a fundamental religious objection? Whatever the bakers’ religion may be, it surely cannot be right to force them to promote a belief with which they fundamentally disagree. Nor should it matter what the objectionable slogan is. Otherwise the right to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) have no meaning. Yet, this is precisely the situation in which a Christian couple who owned a bakery in Belfast found themselves—until the matter came before the UK Supreme Court (UKSC).

Material facts

Colin and Karen McArthur (pictured), the proprietors of Ashers Baking Company in Belfast, were approached by Gareth Lee, a gay man, and asked

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll