The view expressed in your editorial (25 October), defending the right of the Belfast bakers to refuse to make a cake supporting gay marriage, simply does not hold water. Icing a cake for an Arsenal supporter does not make the baker an Arsenal supporter. Similarly, icing a cake supporting gay marriage is not an endorsement of those comments by the baker.

The equalities act was drafted for good reason. In a free and open democracy it is essential that there is one law for all and that religion can’t be used as a cloak for discrimination of any kind.

The judge stated the law quite simply: “In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.”

To go against this simple summary of the law would put us back to a time when landlords had signs in their windows saying “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”.

I am disappointed that a Guardian leader writer can seek to defend the indefensible with such a convoluted non-argument.

Dorothy Smith

Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire

• I am disappointed that the Guardian cannot see the difference between “Support gay marriage” and “Save Ulster from sodomy”. The first is a positive message which, whether you agree with it or not, oppresses no one. The second asserts falsely that the existence of a sexual minority threatens “Ulster”, implying that they must be discriminated against or suppressed. It was the slogan of a campaign to keep homosexuality illegal in Ulster and gave legitimacy to all sorts of attacks on gay people.

Secondly, the cake bakers were not having their freedom of expression infringed. No one was stopping them baking a cake with the message “Don’t support gay marriage”. Also, no one would have thought that the bakers supported gay marriage, any more than the message “Man U for the cup” would have meant that they supported Manchester United.

The gay couple had the right to express their views and the cake bakers offered a forum for this – until someone came along with a message they disagreed with. Freedom of speech means freedom for speech you disagree with, as long as it is not illegal.

Les Hearn

London

• Terence Glover (Letters, 26 October) asks on what grounds sexual minorities should be protected over religious ones. Because religious belief is a choice; you do not choose your sexuality.

Mandy Lane

Ulverston, Cumbria

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com