We provide Legal & HR advice to protect and support your business.

3 minutes reading time (567 words)

The ‘Gay Cake case’: A full overview

BLOG gay cake case

In a highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held that there was no direct discrimination by Ashers Bakery against Mr Lee for refusing to bake a cake with the text “Support Gay Marriage”.

The background

Mr Lee, a gay man, ordered a cake from Ashers Baking Company in 2014 with the text “Support Gay Marriage” for an event held by QueerSpace, an organisation supporting the LGBT community in Northern Ireland. The bakery refused to fulfil the order on the basis of their religious beliefs as Christians, believing that marriage should only be between a heterosexual couple.

Mr Lee brought proceedings before the Northern Ireland County Court, alleging direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and direct discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. The County Court held that refusing to complete Mr Lee’s order was direct discrimination on both grounds and ordered a sum of £500 be paid to Mr Lee. The bakery then appealed and raised seven questions to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal answered two of those question and held there was direct discrimination the grounds of sexual orientation, upholding the County Court’s decision. Following this, the Attorney General stepped in and made reference to the Supreme Court for the case to be considered further.

The decision

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and found in favour of Asher’s Bakery. The Court held unanimously that there was no direct discrimination on either ground.

The Court held that there was no direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and there was no associated or perceived discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is because Asher’s Bakery objected ‘to the message, not the messenger’ (Paragraph 22). It was held that support for same sex marriage was not indissociable from the sexual orientation of Mr. Lee. ‘Support for gay marriage is not a proxy for any particular sexual orientation’ (Paragraph 25) because people of all sexual orientations support gay marriage. Mr Lee’s sexual orientation had no impact in the decision to refuse to bake the cake because ‘anyone who wanted that message would have been treated in the same way (Paragraph 23)’.   

Additionally, the Court held that there was no direct discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. Again, the Court held anybody else would have been treated in the same way because the objection was to the message on the cake, not Mr Lee. However, it was arguable that the message on the cake was indissociable from Mr Lee’s political opinion. Therefore the Court considered the impact of the European Convention of Human Rights on the owners of the bakery. In particular the Court considered Article 9: Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and Article 10: Right to freedom of expression. These Convention rights include the freedom not to be obliged to hold or manifest benefits that you do not hold. The Court explained that ‘the bakery could not refuse to provide a cake… to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or because he supported marriage. But that important fact does not amount to a justification for something completely different – obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed’ (Paragraph 55).

Contact us

For expert legal advice on all areas of employment law then contact our specialist employment lawyers today.

New Proposals to Reduce the Gender Pay Gap
Tribunal Claims - Where we are now

Make an enquiry

Contact Kalra Legal Group

Please let us know your name.
Invalid Input
Please let us know your email address.
Please write a subject for your message.
Invalid Input
Please let us know your message.
CAPTCHA
CAPTCHA
Refresh Invalid Input

Call us 0808 1685860

 

What our clients say

“I am extremely grateful for the support I received from Anita during a very difficult time with a previous employer. It felt I was in a battle, but someone else was fighting that battle for me. Anita had my best interest at heart all the way, I really cannot praise her enough.”

R.B – Director at Software company

“I cannot thank you enough for all your efforts over the last 6 months working with our company to ensure we have taken all the necessary steps to protect our business and treat all our female staff equally.”

A.B - Managing Director of a Software Company

Contact us

KLG
Head Office
Suite 4, Ground Floor
Braywick House West, Windsor Road,
Maidenhead
Berkshire
SL6 1DN 

KLG
4th Floor
86-90 Paul Street
London
EC2A 4NE

Tel: 08081685860
Email: info@klglaw.co.uk

This website uses cookies to improve functionality and performance. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.