We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Daniel and Amy McArthur of Ashers Baking Company Niall Carson via PA Images

UK Supreme Court backs bakers who refused to make 'support gay marriage' cake

Bakery owners Daniel and Amy McArthur refused to bake the cake with a pro-same-sex marriage slogan on it.

LAST UPDATE | 10 Oct 2018

THE OWNERS OF a Belfast bakery have won their appeal over a finding that they discriminated against a customer over its refusal to make a wedding cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage. 

The row ignited after an order for the cake was placed at the Ashers’ city centre branch in May 2014 by gay rights activist Gareth Lee.

Bakery owners Daniel and Amy McArthur - both of whom are evangelical Christians - were caught up in the controversy after refusing to bake the cake with a pro-same-sex marriage slogan on it.

It was decided by the Northern Ireland Equality Commission that their decision breached laws against discrimination. This was backed up by the District Court and the High Court.

In 2015, a Belfast District Court ruled that the Ashers Bakery’s refusal to bake the cake amounted to “a clear case of discrimination”.

In late 2016, the bakery lost an appeal to that ruling, and last year launched an appeal in the UK Supreme Court.

The court heard the case on 1 and 2 May of this year. It was the first time it had sat in Northern Ireland.

This morning, the UK Supreme Court ruled in favour of the appeal. 

The judgement reads: “The Supreme Court unanimously holds that it has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against all aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgement, finding that the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to make a reference pursuant to the Attorney General’s notice under paragraph 33. 

It grants the appellants permission to appeal and allow their appeals. 

“The Court concludes that neither the SORs nor the FETO imposes civil liability on the appellants for the refusal to express a political opinion contrary to their religious beliefs.” 

Your Voice
Readers Comments
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic. Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy here before taking part.
Leave a Comment
    Submit a report
    Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
    Thank you for the feedback
    Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.

    Leave a commentcancel