Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others

Last updated

Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case name Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others
Decided2018
Neutral citation[2018] UKSC 49
Holding
People cannot be forced to promote a belief they profoundly disagree with
Case opinions
Majority Lord Mance (Lady Hale of Richmond, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Hodge and Lady Black of Derwent concurred)
Area of law
discrimination, compelled speech

Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others [2018] UKSC 49 was a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom discrimination case between Gareth Lee and Ashers Baking Company, owned by Daniel and Amy McArthur of Northern Ireland. Lee brought the case after Ashers refused to make a cake with a message promoting same-sex marriage, citing their religious beliefs. [1] Following appeals, the Supreme Court overturned previous rulings in favour of Lee and made a judgement in favour of Ashers. The court said there was no discrimination against Lee and that Ashers' objections were with the message they were being asked to promote. [2] The court held that people in the United Kingdom could not legally be forced to promote a message they fundamentally disagreed with. [3] The case became known in the British and Irish media as the "gay cake" case. [1] [4]

Contents

Background

In 2014 Gareth Lee, a gay rights activist, placed an order with Ashers Baking Company, a Belfast bakery, [5] for a cake decorated with the slogan "support gay marriage" as same-sex marriage was illegal in Northern Ireland at the time. [6] [7] The McArthurs, who are Christians, declined the order and refunded Lee's money, saying they could not make a cake that supported something they found offensive to their religious beliefs. Lee complained to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland that he had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of his sexual orientation, and the Equality Commission supported him in filing a discrimination lawsuit against Ashers and the McArthurs. The county court found in Lee's favour and fined Ashers £500 in damages.

The case received considerable media attention. The human rights activist Peter Tatchell initially supported the county court decision, but later changed his mind, stating that he supported the McArthurs' right not to be forced to promote a message they disagree with. [5] The actor Patrick Stewart supported Ashers, telling the BBC: "It was not because this was a gay couple that they objected ...It was the actual words on the cake that they objected to, because they found them offensive. And I would support their right to say ‘no this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I will not do it’." [8]

Ashers appealed to the Court of Appeal. The hearing was suspended temporarily when the Attorney General for Northern Ireland requested the case be referred to the Supreme Court due to a conflict between European human rights law and Northern Irish equality law. [9] The Court of Appeal denied the request. [2] The Court upheld the original verdict on the grounds of direct discrimination. [2] Ashers then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, supported by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland. [10] [11] The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on the grounds of forced or compelled speech, sitting to hear a case in Belfast for the first time since the court was established to replace the House of Lords in 2009. [12]

Case

The Supreme Court considered first whether the McArthurs had discriminated against Lee on the basis of his sexual orientation. The court found that the McArthurs did not refuse to make the cake on the grounds of Lee's personal sexual orientation but on the grounds that they disagreed with the message they were being asked to put on it. [2] They ruled there was no direct discrimination. [2] The court also considered associative discrimination, but again ruled that there was no discrimination on the basis of Lee's sexual orientation, as the McArthurs did not refuse service on those personal grounds. They ruled that the McArthurs would have refused to make the cake carrying the message for any customer regardless of the customer's sexual orientation. [2]

The court then considered whether it was political discrimination under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. They found that it was the message that was being discriminated against, not the person wishing to disseminate it. They also considered Ashers' rights under the Fair Employment and Treatment Order (FETO) and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which had previously been considered by the European Court of Human Rights in Buscarini v San Marino (1999) 30 EHRR 208, and which said that obliging someone to promote a belief they do not support was a violation of their human rights. [2] The court also considered obiter dicta the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States which had similar characteristics, while the judgment was being prepared. They noted the distinction made between someone refusing to make a cake because of a message they were being asked to put on the cake and refusing to make a cake because the person requesting it had a protected characteristic. [2]

Judgment

Lord Mance delivered the unanimous judgment with respect to the jurisdiction issues, with which Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge and Lady Black agreed. Lady Hale delivered the unanimous judgment with respect to the discrimination issues. The Commission argued FETO had priority while Ashers argued that the Northern Ireland Act had. The court ruled that as the Northern Ireland Act was statute law, that would take priority. They also noted that the Attorney General for Northern Ireland's request to refer the case to the Supreme Court when the Court of Appeal denied it was legally valid, and that the Court of Appeal had made an error. It was held that based on the errors of the Court of Appeal and the judgments of the Supreme Court judges, the appeal was allowed and judgment was made in favour of Ashers. [2] They held that no-one could be forced to promote a belief or opinion they did not believe in or profoundly disagreed with. [3]

Reaction

Ashers said the judgment was a victory for freedom of speech and religious expression. The Attorney-General of Northern Ireland supported the decision. [1] Gareth Lee said "I’m very confused about what this actually means. We need certainty when you go to a business. I'm concerned that this has implications for myself and for every single person." [13] Lee stated he felt like a "second class citizen" as a result. [14]

The Coalition for Marriage [15] and the Christian Institute, which covered Ashers' legal fees, supported the judgment. [16] Ian Paisley, a Democratic Unionist Party MP, said he had written to the Northern Ireland Secretary calling for a review of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland's funding, because of its support for this case. [3] The Equality Commission responded to criticism for spending £250,000 of taxpayers' money on the case, saying that the spending took place over a period of four-and-a-half years and it was less than 20% of its budget. [3]

Michael Wardlow, the head of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland said, "...This judgment leaves a lack of clarity in equality law. Our understanding of certainty of the law has been overturned. The supreme court seems to see this as something that should be done on a case-by-case basis." [13] John O'Doherty, the director of Northern Ireland's largest support organisation for LGBT people, the Rainbow Project, said "We believe this is direct discrimination for which there can be no justification. We will, however, take time to study this judgment by the supreme court to understand fully its implications for the rights of LGBT people to access goods, facilities and services without discrimination." [13]

European Court of Human Rights challenge

In August 2019, Lee instructed his lawyers to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). [17] In March 2020, the European Court communicated the case with the British government, [18] On 6 January 2022, the court dismissed Lee's case as "inadmissible" as Lee had not invoked his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights "at any point in the domestic proceedings" in the British courts. [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBTQ rights that took place in the year 2003.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1973.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christian Institute</span>

The Christian Institute (CI) is a charity operating in the United Kingdom, promoting a conservative evangelical Christian viewpoint, founded on a belief in Biblical inerrancy. The CI is a registered charity. The group does not report numbers of staff, volunteers or members with only the former director, Colin Hart, listed as a representative. Hart died in March 2024, leaving the directorship vacant. According to the accounts and trustees annual report for the financial year ending 2017, the average head count of employees during the year was 48 (2016:46).

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBTQ rights that took place in the year 2005.

<i>Canada (AG) v Mossop</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada (AG) v Mossop, [1993] 1 SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. The case is also significant as one of Justice L'Heureux-Dube's most famous dissents where she proposes an evolving model of the "family".

Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile was a landmark Inter-American Court of Human Rights case on LGBT rights, which reviewed a Chilean court ruling that in 2005 awarded child custody to a father due to the mother's homosexual orientation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Northern Ireland</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in Northern Ireland enjoy most of the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. However, the advancement of LGBTQ rights has traditionally been slower than the rest of the United Kingdom, with the region having lagged behind England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland was the last part of the United Kingdom where same-sex sexual activity was decriminalised, the last to liberalise blood donation policy for men who have sex with men and, after intervention by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the last to allow same-sex marriage. Compared to the neighbouring Republic of Ireland, all major LGBT rights milestones had been reached earlier in Northern Ireland, with the exception of same-sex marriage. Homosexuality was decriminalised in Northern Ireland a decade earlier and civil partnerships were introduced six years earlier.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Northern Ireland since 13 January 2020, following the enactment of the Northern Ireland Act 2019. The first marriage ceremony took place on 11 February 2020. Civil partnerships have also been available for same-sex couples in Northern Ireland since their introduction by the Government of the United Kingdom in 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Bermuda</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Bermuda, a British Overseas Territory, face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Homosexuality is legal in Bermuda, but the territory has long held a reputation for being homophobic and intolerant. Since 2013, the Human Rights Act has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Belize</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) persons in Belize face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT citizens, although attitudes have been changing in recent years. Same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in Belize in 2016, when the Supreme Court declared Belize's anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. Belize's constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, which Belizean courts have interpreted to include sexual orientation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Washington (state)</span>

The state of Washington is seen as one of the most progressive states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) rights; with jurisprudence having evolved significantly since the late 20th century. Same-sex sexual activity was legalized in 1976. LGBTQ people are fully protected from discrimination in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations; the state enacting comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation regarding sexual orientation and gender identity in 2006. Same-sex marriage has been legal since 2012, and same-sex couples are allowed to adopt. Conversion therapy on minors has also been illegal since 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Colorado</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Colorado enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in Colorado since 1972. Same-sex marriage has been recognized since October 2014, and the state enacted civil unions in 2013, which provide some of the rights and benefits of marriage. State law also prohibits discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations and the use of conversion therapy on minors. In July 2020, Colorado became the 11th U.S. state to abolish the gay panic defense. In December 2024, it was reported that the building that conducted the first marriage license to a same-sex couple in the 1970s by Rorex a county clerk became officially a national monument.

This is a timeline of notable events in the history of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in South Africa.

Klein, dba Sweet Cakes by Melissa, v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries was a legal case against a cake shop in Gresham, Oregon, in the United States. The cake shop gained widespread press attention in January 2013 when it turned away customers who wanted cakes for a same-sex wedding, who then made a complaint to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, claiming their civil rights under the Oregon Equality Act had been infringed.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.

Compelled speech is a transmission of expression required by law. A related legal concept is protected speech. Just as freedom of speech protects free expression, in many cases it similarly protects an individual from being required to utter or otherwise express a thought with which that individual disagrees.

Events during the year 2018 in Northern Ireland.

<i>Bull v Hall</i> UK discrimination and freedom of religious expression legal case

Bull and another v Hall and another[2013] UKSC 73 was a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom discrimination case between Peter and Hazelmary Bull and Martin Hall and Steven Preddy. Hall and Preddy, a homosexual couple, brought the case after the Bulls refused to give them a double room in their guesthouse, citing their religious beliefs. Following appeals, the Supreme Court held the rulings of the lower courts in deciding for Hall and Preddy and against the Bulls. The court said that Preddy and Hall faced discrimination which could not be justified by the Bulls' right to religious belief. It was held that people in the United Kingdom could not justify discrimination against others on the basis of their sexual orientation due to their religious beliefs.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Ashers 'gay cake' row: Bakers win Supreme Court appeal". BBC News. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Lee (Respondent) v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others (Appellants) (Northern Ireland) and two references by the AG for NI of devolution issues to the Supreme Court pursuant to paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the NI Act 1998" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  3. 1 2 3 4 "Equality Commission boss defends £500,000 legal bill for Ashers "gay cake" case". Belfast Telegraph. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  4. ↑ "ECHR rule Belfast bakery "gay cake" case application inadmissible". RTÉ News. 7 January 2022. Retrieved 8 January 2022.
  5. 1 2 Tatchell, Peter. "I've changed my mind on the gay cake row. Here's why". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  6. ↑ "Lyra McKee's partner challenges UK government on same-sex marriage". The Guardian. 18 May 2019. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
  7. ↑ "Same-sex marriage now legal in Northern Ireland". BBC News. 13 January 2020. Retrieved 2 February 2020.
  8. ↑ "Sir Patrick Stewart: 'I'm on the side of Ashers'". Christian Institute. 14 June 2015. Archived from the original on 26 May 2022. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  9. ↑ Adeogun, Eno (10 October 2018). "Ashers bakery victory - the timeline". Premier Radio. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  10. ↑ "Attorney General John Larkin backs Ashers in gay cake appeal". Newsletter. 10 May 2016. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  11. ↑ "Northern Ireland Attorney General says treatment of Ashers over 'gay cake' order 'wrong'". Belfast Telegraph. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  12. ↑ "'Gay cake': Ashers Bakery case heard at Supreme Court". BBC News. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  13. 1 2 3 Bowcott, Owen (10 October 2018). "UK supreme court backs bakery that refused to make gay marriage cake". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  14. ↑ "'Gay cake' Supreme Court ruling reaction". BBC News. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  15. ↑ Independent Catholic News (10 October 2018). "C4M welcomes Supreme Court ruling in 'gay cake' case". ICN. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  16. ↑ "Ashers wins landmark Supreme Court 'gay cake' case". Christian.org.uk. 10 October 2018. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  17. ↑ McDonald, Henry (15 August 2019) on Guardian Online.Retrieved 15 August 2019
  18. ↑ "Lee v. UK (European Court of Human Rights)". hudoc.echr.coe.int. Retrieved 3 January 2022.
  19. ↑ Flanagan, Eimear (6 January 2022). "Ashers 'gay cake' case: European court rules case inadmissible". BBC News. Retrieved 6 January 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.