Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Lady Hale,Lord Mance,Lord Kerr,Lord Hodge,Lady Black |
| Judgment Date | 10 October 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKSC 49 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 10 October 2018 |
[2018] UKSC 49
Lady Hale, President
Lord Mance
Lord Kerr
Lord Hodge
Lady Black
Attorney General for Northern Ireland
John F Larkin QC
Attorney General for Northern Ireland
(Instructed by Office of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland)
Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others
David Scoffield QC
Sarah Crowther QC
Professor Christopher McCrudden
(Instructed by Hewitt & Gilpin)
Lee / Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
Robin Allen QC
Sinead Eastwood
(Instructed by The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland Legal Division)
Heard on 1 and 2 May 2018
(with whom Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge and Lady Black agree)
The substantive question in this case is whether it is unlawful discrimination, either on grounds of sexual orientation, or on grounds of religious belief or political opinion, for a bakery to refuse to supply a cake iced with the message “support gay marriage” because of the sincere religious belief of its owners that gay marriage is inconsistent with Biblical teaching and therefore unacceptable to God. If the prima facie answer to either question is “yes”, then questions arise as to the rights of the bakery and its owners to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, under articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and what difference, if any, those rights might make to that prima facie answer.
At first instance in the county court, the district judge held that there was direct discrimination, both on grounds of sexual orientation and on grounds of religious belief or political opinion, and that it was not necessary to read down the relevant legislation to make it compatible with the bakery owners' rights under articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. The bakery and its owners appealed by way of case stated, raising seven questions, to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal only found it necessary to answer two questions, holding that there was direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and that it was not necessary to read down the legislation to take account of the bakery owners' beliefs. The bakery and its owners wish to appeal to this court.
The Attorney General for Northern Ireland intervened in the proceedings in the Court of Appeal in order to challenge the validity of the relevant legislation. In Northern Ireland, discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities or services on the ground of religious belief or political opinion is prohibited by the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (SI 1998/3162 (NI 21)) (“FETO”), made by Her Majesty in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities or services on grounds of sexual orientation is prohibited by the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 ( SI 2006/439) (“SOR”), made by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland under the Equality Act 2006, an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. The Attorney General for Northern Ireland questions the validity of both of those prohibitions, insofar as they impose civil liability for the refusal to express a political opinion or express a view on a matter of public policy contrary to the religious belief of the person refusing to express that view.
However, this court can only answer the substantive questions if it has jurisdiction to entertain them, either by way of an appeal from the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal or by way of a reference made by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland. Issues arise in relation to both.
Appeals from the county court to the Court of Appeal are governed by the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 ( SI 1980/397 (NI 3)) and appeals from the Court of Appeal to this court in civil cases are governed by section 42 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. Put shortly, article 61(7) of the Order provides that the decision of the Court of Appeal on an appeal by way of case stated shall be final and section 42(6) of the 1978 Act precludes an appeal to this court in such cases; but section 42(6) contains an exception for cases which involve any question as to the validity of a provision made by or under an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament or Assembly. FETO is such a provision but the SORs, having been made under an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament, are not.
Under paragraph 33 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Attorney General has power to require any court or tribunal to refer to this court any devolution issue which has arisen in proceedings before it to which he is a party. The Attorney General gave such a notice after judgment had been handed down by the Court of Appeal but before its order had been drawn up. The Court of Appeal declined to make the reference on the ground that the proceedings were at an end. Under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10, the Attorney General also has power to refer to this court any devolution issue which is not the subject of proceedings. Accordingly, by his first reference, he has referred to us the questions outlined in para 3 above. However, by his second reference, he has also referred to us the question whether the Court of Appeal should have made the reference under paragraph 33 when required by him to do so. No problem arises as to the validity of the references under paragraph 34, but the answers given by this court would have no effect upon the outcome of the proceedings in Northern Ireland. The matter may be different, however, if the Court of Appeal should have made the reference but failed to do so, because this raises questions as to validity of that court's decision in the case.
For the reasons given in a judgment prepared by Lord Mance we have concluded that this Court does have jurisdiction to determine an appeal brought by the bakery and its owners, as well as the Attorney General's two references. Accordingly we give them permission to appeal as the substantive questions raised are undoubtedly of general public importance, not only in Northern Ireland but also in the rest of the United Kingdom.
This judgment is arranged as follows. Part I gives an account of the facts and the outcome of the proceedings so far. Part II discusses the claim for discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation under the SORs. Part III discusses the claim for discrimination on grounds of political opinion under FETO. Part IV discusses the impact of the Convention rights on such a claim.
Mr and Mrs McArthur have run a bakery business since 1992. Their son Daniel is now the general manager. They have six shops, a staff of about 65 people, and they also offer their products on-line throughout the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Since 2004, the business has been run through Ashers Baking Company Ltd. The name was derived from Genesis 49:20: “Bread from Asher shall be rich and he shall yield royal dainties”. The McArthurs are Christians, who hold the religious beliefs that:
(a) the only form of full sexual expression which is consistent with Biblical teaching (and therefore acceptable to God) is that between a man and a woman within marriage; and
(b) the only form of marriage consistent with Biblical teaching (and therefore acceptable to God) is that between a man and a woman.
They have sought to run Ashers in accordance with their beliefs, but this, and the biblical connection of the name, has not been advertised or otherwise made known to the public.
Mr Lee is a gay man who volunteers with QueerSpace, an organisation for the LGBT community in Belfast. QueerSpace is not a campaigning organisation, but it supports the campaign in Northern Ireland to enable same sex couples to get married. A motion supporting this was narrowly rejected by the Northern Ireland Assembly on 29 April 2014. Mr Lee was invited to attend a private event organised by QueerSpace at Bangor Castle on Friday 17 May 2014 to mark the end of Northern Ireland anti-homophobia week and the political momentum towards same-sex marriage. He decided to take a cake to the party.
He had previously bought cakes from Ashers shop in Royal Avenue, Belfast, but he was not personally known to the staff or to Mr and Mrs McArthur. He did not know anything about the McArthurs' beliefs about marriage and neither they nor their staff knew of his sexual orientation. Ashers offered a “Build-a-Cake” service to customers. Customers could request particular images or inscriptions to be iced onto a cake. There was a leaflet advertising this service, with various examples of what could be done, but no religious or political restrictions were mentioned.
On 8 or 9 May 2014, Mr Lee went into the shop and placed an order for a cake to be iced with his design, a coloured picture of cartoon-like characters “Bert and Ernie”, the QueerSpace logo, and the headline “Support Gay Marriage”. Mrs McArthur took the order but raised no objection at the time because she wished to consider how to explain her objection and to spare Mr Lee any embarrassment. Mr Lee paid for the cake. Over the following weekend, the McArthurs decided that they could not in conscience produce a cake with that slogan and so should not fulfil the order. On Monday 12 May 2014, Mrs McArthur telephoned Mr Lee and explained that his order could not be fulfilled because they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sloan vs Ministry of Defence,Brian Millar,Ian Brain,Chris Ireland,Lynn Smith,Colonel Frankland,David Laight,Colonel Piggott
...EWCA [2014] EQLR 545 EAT 25. Carphone Warehouse v Martin [2013] UKEAT 0371/12 26. Ashers Baking Company Ltd and Others (Northern Ireland) [2018] UKSC49 30. Nagaranjan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 572 HL 31. Essop v UK Border Force [2017] IRLR 558 32. Nelson v Newry and Mourne Dis......
-
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association Against Scottish Event Campus Limited
...compatible mann er: Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] 2 AC 557 per Lord Rodger of Earlsferry at §§ 106-7; Lee v Ashers Baking Co Ltd [2018] UKSC 49 [2018] 3 WLR 1294 per Baron ess Hale at § 56. (2) Article 10 ECHR, which guarantees the freedom of expression, wh ich includes the freedom t o hol......
-
Forstater v CGD Europe and Others
...IRLR 481, EATIbragimov v Russia (Application Nos 1413/08 and 28621/11) (unreported) 4 February 2019, ECtHRLee v Ashers Baking Co Ltd [2018] UKSC 49; [2020] AC 413; [2018] 3 WLR 1294; [2019] 1 All ER 1, SC(NI)Lilliendahl v Iceland (Application No 29297/18) (unreported) 11 June 2020, ECtHRMet......
-
Ms C Waterloo v National Library of Scotland: S/4105348/17 and others
...treatment occurred. This was recently illustrated in the Supreme Court decision of Lee v Ashers Baking Company Limited and others (2018) UKSC49. In these proceedings the claimant claimed in respect of the respondents’ failure to provide him with a cake that was supportive of gay marriage. F......
-
Awakening the Law: Unmasking Free Exercise Exceptionalism
...legally protected rights, and thus the owner's actions were discriminatory and caused dignitary harms). But see Lee v. Ashers Bakery Co. [2018] UKSC 49 [55] (appeal taken from N. Ir.) (ruling there was no discrimination by Ashers Bakery, whose owners, based on their religious beliefs, refus......
-
Northern Ireland Dimensions to the First Decade of the United Kingdom Supreme Court
...A third reference made by the AGNIslightly outside our timeframeis noted, for completeness, at n 195 below.19 Lee vAshers Baking Co Ltd [2018] UKSC 49, [2018] 3 WLR 1294 (Ashers); see nn 202-208below, as well as para [90] of the judgment, where the Court found that an appeal could betaken t......
-
Popular Names Index to UK Cases and EU Legislation and Cases
...(OJ 1990 L185/16) Gay News Case R v Lemon [1979] 1 QB 10 Whitehouse v Lemon [1979] AC 617 Gay Cake Case Lee v Ashers Baking Co Ltd [2018] UKSC 49; [2018] 3 WLR 1294 GCHQ Case or Government Communications Headquarters Case Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [198......
-
THE POLITICS OF PROPORTIONALITY.
...they had discriminated on the basis of the message, not on the basis of the customer's identity. P. 153; see Lee v. Ashers Baking Co. [2018] UKSC 49, [2020] AC 413 (appeal taken from N. Ir.). The bakers would not have created that cake for any That makes Ashers distinguishable from Masterpi......