Lee v Ashers Baking Company

Case Background

In May 2014, Gareth Lee, a gay rights activist, ordered a custom cake from Ashers Baking Co. in Belfast, Northern Ireland. He requested that the cake be decorated with an image of the cartoon characters Bert and Ernie and the slogan "Support Gay Marriage".

The bakery initially accepted the order but later canceled it, issuing a full refund. The bakery owners, Daniel and Amy McArthur, are devout Christians who stated that producing the cake would directly conflict with their religious beliefs regarding marriage. Backed by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, Mr Lee brought legal action, claiming unlawful discrimination based on his sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and political opinions. Lower courts originally ruled in Mr Lee’s favour.

The Supreme Court Ruling

On 10 October 2018, the UK Supreme Court unanimously overturned the lower court decisions. Led by Lady Hale, the court drew a critical distinction between the message and the messenger

• No Sexual Orientation Discrimination: The court found that the bakery did not refuse service because of Mr Lee's sexual orientation. They would have refused to bake a cake with that exact slogan for any customer, heterosexual or homosexual.

• The Message vs. The Person: The court ruled that equality laws are designed to protect people from being denied service due to their protected personal characteristics, not to protect specific ideas or political slogans.

• Protection Against Compelled Speech: Under Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), individuals cannot be forced by civil law to voice or manifest political opinions they do not hold. 

Subsequent Appeals

Mr Lee appealed the ruling to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In January 2022, the ECtHR ruled his case inadmissible because he had failed to explicitly raise his ECHR arguments within the domestic UK courts during the initial proceedings, closing the legal dispute. 

Legal Significance

The judgment sets a narrow but vital legal precedent in the UK: while a commercial business cannot refuse to serve a person based on identity (e.g., refusing to serve a gay customer), it possesses the right to refuse to create a bespoke product that explicitly displays a message contrary to the owners' deeply held beliefs. [1, 2]

If you are researching this for a specific reason, let me know if you would like me to unpack the difference between this case and US rulings like Masterpiece Cakeshop, or explain its impacts on UK employment and service provision law.