Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others

Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others

The bakery's refusal was based on objection to the message, not to Mr Lee's sexual orientation or political opinion; compelling the bakery to produce the cake would violate their rights to freedom of expression and religion. No unlawful discrimination occurred under the relevant legislation.

Parties
Respondent: Mr Lee; Appellants: Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others; Intervener: Attorney General for Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Compelled Speech, Sexual Orientation, Political Opinion
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Administrative Law Discrimination Freedom of Expression Freedom of Religion Compelled Speech +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Lee

Respondent

Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others

Appellants

Attorney General for Northern Ireland

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to supply a cake with 'support gay marriage' message constitutes unlawful discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, religious belief, or political opinion
  2. 2 Whether relevant legislation is compatible with Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether discrimination law protects against compelled speech contrary to religious beliefs

Ratio Decidendi

The bakery's refusal was based on objection to the message, not to Mr Lee's sexual orientation or political opinion; compelling the bakery to produce the cake would violate their rights to freedom of expression and religion. No unlawful discrimination occurred under the relevant legislation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • No unlawful discrimination found under SORs or FETO
  • No civil liability imposed for refusal to express a message contrary to religious belief