Website Cookie Policy

We use cookies to give you the best possible online experience. If you continue, we’ll assume you are happy for your web browser to receive all cookies from our website.
See our cookie policy for more information.

Practice Areas

More Information

thepartners@wrigleys.co.uk

Leeds: 0113 244 6100

Sheffield: 0114 267 5588

FOLLOW WRIGLEYS:

Bakery did not discriminate when refusing to bake a cake bearing a slogan in support of gay marriage

October 2018

An in-depth look into the recent case of the Supreme Court overturning a decision made by the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland.

In Lee v Ashers Baking Company Limited and others, the Supreme Court has overturned a decision of the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland and held that a Christian-owned bakery had not directly discriminated on the ground of sexual orientation, religious belief or political opinion in refusing to prepare a cake with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage" for a gay customer.

Mr Lee, who is gay, ordered the cake for an event run by Queerspace, a Northern Irish  organisation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The owners of Ashers oppose same-sex marriage and believe that marriage must be between a man and a woman. They cancelled the order and gave Mr Lee a refund. Mr Lee brought proceedings for direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, and for direct discrimination on grounds of religious belief or political opinion under the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

The county court found that the bakery had discriminated against Mr Lee on the ground of sexual orientation. It found that the bakers had not cancelled the order because Mr Lee was gay, but the court came to this decision on the basis that support for gay marriage is indissociable from homosexuality. The Northern Irish Court of Appeal did not agree with this, commenting that heterosexuals may support gay marriage and homosexuals may oppose it. The Court of Appeal did however uphold the finding of discrimination, holding that this was a case of discrimination by association: Mr Lee had been less favourably treated not because of his own sexuality, but because of his association with gay people.

The Supreme Court overturned this decision and held that there had been no discrimination. Lady Hale commented that it was not enough for the less favourable treatment to have "something to do with the sexual orientation of some people". For discrimination by association to occur, there must be a closer connection than that. The Supreme Court noted that the facts showed that the order had not been cancelled because Mr Lee is gay. Indeed, a heterosexual person who had placed the same order would also have been refused. The county court had heard evidence that gay people worked in and were customers of the bakery. The reason for the cancellation was an objection to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

The Supreme Court held that obliging the bakers to prepare the cake could have been in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) right to freedom of religion and belief as they would have had to manifest a belief which they did not hold. It would also have contravened the ECHR right to freedom of expression, which includes the right not to express an opinion.

This is a case concerning potential discrimination in the provision of goods and services based on laws which apply in Northern Ireland. Lady Hale's comments on discrimination by association are perhaps the most interesting aspect of this judgment for employers. She deliberately avoided defining how close the association must be for discrimination by association to occur, but makes clear that in this case, there was not sufficient connection between the treatment and the protected characteristic of sexual orientation. In this case, it was the message on the cake which lay behind the less favourable treatment and not the sexuality of the person who ordered it or anyone associated with him.

 

If you would like to discuss any aspect of this article further, please contact Alacoque Marvin or any other member of the Employment team on 0113 244 6100.

You can also keep up to date by following Wrigleys Employment team on Twitter

The information in this article is necessarily of a general nature. Specific advice should be sought for specific situations. If you have any queries or need any legal advice please feel free to contact Wrigleys Solicitors

Alacoque Marvin View Biography

Alacoque Marvin

Solicitor
Leeds

19 Nov 2018

Private hire drivers were workers and entitled to NMW and holiday pay

Employment tribunal was right to take a "realistic and worldly-wise" approach as written contract did not reflect the reality of the arrangement

15 Nov 2018

Part-time airline worker was treated less favourably because of her part-time status

Court of Appeal holds purser paid 50% of full-time pay when available for work for more than 50% of full-time hours was less favourably treated.

14 Nov 2018

Don't ignore the signals – telecoms on school property

We highlight the statutory rights benefitting telecoms operators and how these could affect plans to carry out works to school property.