header-logo header-logo

27 October 2016
Issue: 7720 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Great British Cake Off

Mixed reaction to ruling in bakery discrimination case

Lawyers and campaigners have served up a mixed reaction to a ruling that the owners of a Belfast bakery unlawfully discriminated against a customer by refusing to decorate a cake with the slogan, “Support Gay Marriage”.

The owners, who are devout Christians, oppose gay marriage due to their religious beliefs. They were found to have directly discriminated against the customer contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 and on the grounds of religious and political belief contrary to the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

Michael Wardlow, chief commissioner of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which acted for Gareth Lee, the customer, in Lee v Ashers [2016] MOR 10086, said the court had “ruled out a suggestion which had been made as part of the appeal, that anti-discrimination laws treat less favourably people who share a religious belief concerning the sinful nature of homosexual activity”.

Lord Chief Justice Morgan, delivering his judgment, said: “Anyone who applies a religious aspect or a political aspect to the provision of services may be caught by equality legislation, not because the legislation treats their religious belief or political opinion less favourably but because that person seeks to distinguish, on a basis that is prohibited, between those who will receive that service and those who will not.”

However, veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: “This verdict is a defeat for freedom of expression.

“As well as meaning that Ashers can be legally forced to aid the promotion of same-sex marriage, it also implies that gay bakers could be forced by law to decorate cakes with homophobic slogans.”

Issue: 7720 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll