A Belfast bakery did not discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation when it refused to ice a cake with the words ‘Support Gay Marriage’, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The unanimous decision by five Justices, in Lee v Ashers Baking Company [2018] UKSC 49, overturns earlier rulings by the Court of Appeal and Belfast county court.
The owners of the bakery, who are devout Christians, refused the order because they believe gay marriage is inconsistent with Biblical teaching.
Lady Hale, giving the lead judgment, said: ‘It does the project of equal treatment no favours to seek to extend it beyond its proper scope.’ She said Art 10 freedom of expression includes the right ‘not to express an opinion which one does not hold’.
Lady Hale added that the ‘bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed’.
Nicholas Le Riche, partner, Bircham Dyson Bell, said the court found the decision not to bake the cake was ‘not due to Mr Lee himself but because of the message’.
‘This decision underlines the importance of whether it is the particular service that is being refused or whether the service is being refused to a particular person.’
Beth Hale, technical director at CM Murray LLP, said: 'The case was not as simple as it may have been portrayed. Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriage would be plainly discriminatory. What was at issue here was whether refusing to produce a product bearing a slogan the supplier disagrees with is freedom of expression or discrimination. The Supreme Court has held that, where the refusal can be disconnected from a particular protected characteristic, it will fall on the right side of the line.
'Even some LGBT campaigners took the view that two issues had been muddled in this case—discrimination and freedom of speech. The court has sided with those arguing no-one should be forced to facilitate a political view that they oppose, holding that the freedom not to express an opinion is as important to protect as the freedom to express one. This decision will come as a relief to freedom of speech campaigners, but will also come as a surprise to many given the approach adopted by the lower courts. As a result of the decision, we may well see more reliance on the principle of freedom of speech by those defending discrimination claims.'
