Bakery owners Daniel and Amy McArthur arrive at the Supreme Court in London today

The Christian owners of a bakery today won an appeal at Britain's highest court over a finding that they discriminated against a customer by refusing to make a £36.50 'Support Gay Marriage' cake.

Five Supreme Court justices allowed a challenge by the McArthur family in a unanimous ruling in London today in what is known as the 'gay cake case'.

The legal action was originally brought against the Ashers bakery in Belfast by gay rights activist Gareth Lee, who won his case in the county court and then at the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.

The legal battle has now lasted four-and-a-half years, costing around £500,000.

The Equality Commission of Northern Ireland has spent £251,000 of public money on this case, while the £250,000 of costs for the bakers has been paid by a charity called The Christian Institute.

Announcing the decision in favour of the family-run bakery, the court's president Lady Hale said: 'This conclusion is not in any way to diminish the need to protect gay people and people who support gay marriage from discrimination.

The Belfast bakers refused to make a cake decorated with the words 'Support Gay Marriage'

'It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person's race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief. But that is not what happened in this case.'

She went on: 'As to Mr Lee's claim based on sexual discrimination, the bakers did not refuse to fulfil his order because of his sexual orientation. They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation.'

The court also said Mr Lee had no claim against Ashers on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion.

Lady Hale added: 'The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage.

The legal action was originally brought against family-run Ashers bakery in Belfast by gay rights activist Gareth Lee (pictured speaking outside the Supreme Court this morning)

'But that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.'

Daniel and Amy McArthur, who have said the law risked 'extinguishing' their consciences, were in court for the ruling.

'A lot of people will be glad to hear this ruling today': Full statement by bakery manager Ashers general manager Daniel McArthur said outside court: 'I want to start by thanking God. He has been with us during the challenges of the last four years. Through the Bible and the support of Christians, He has comforted us and sustained us. He is our rock and all His ways are just. 'We're delighted and relieved at today's ruling. We always knew we hadn't done anything wrong in turning down this order. After more than four years, the Supreme Court has now recognised that and we're very grateful. Grateful to the judges and especially grateful to God. 'We're particularly pleased the Supreme Court emphatically accepted what we've said all along – we did not turn down this order because of the person who made it, but because of the message itself. 'The judges have given a clear signal today. In fact it couldn't be any clearer. Family businesses like ours are free to focus on giving all their customers the best service they can – without being forced to promote other people's campaigns. 'I know a lot of people will be glad to hear this ruling today, because this ruling protects freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for everyone. 'On behalf of my family can I say thank you to everyone who has supported us or prayed for us through all this. 'I do want to take this opportunity to thank our whole legal team for working so hard for us over the last four years. And also to thank the entire Christian Institute staff for their help and support from the very beginning. 'We want to move on from this now, and I'm sure Mr Lee does too. And let me just finish by saying that he will always be welcome at any of our shops. Thank you'. Advertisement

Mr Lee was also present for the latest ruling in a case which has attracted enormous attention.

The bakery's appeal against the finding of discrimination was heard at the Supreme Court sitting in Belfast in May.

During the hearing the justices were told that the owners were being forced to act against their religious beliefs.

David Scoffield QC, for Ashers, argued that the state was penalising the baking firm, with the courts effectively compelling or forcing them to make a cake bearing a message with which they disagree as a matter of religious conscience.

Speaking outside court, Mr McArthur said: 'We're delighted and relieved at today's ruling. We always knew we hadn't done anything wrong in turning down this order.

'After more than four years, the Supreme Court has now recognised that and we're very grateful. Grateful to the judges and especially grateful to God.

'We're particularly pleased the Supreme Court emphatically accepted what we've said all along – we did not turn down this order because of the person who made it, but because of the message itself.

'The judges have given a clear signal today. In fact it couldn't be any clearer. Family businesses like ours are free to focus on giving all their customers the best service they can – without being forced to promote other people's campaigns.

'I know a lot of people will be glad to hear this ruling today, because this ruling protects freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for everyone.

'On behalf of my family can I say thank you to everyone who has supported us or prayed for us through all this.'

The legal action against Ashers was taken by Mr Lee with support from Northern Ireland's Equality Commission.

Controversy first flared when Mr Lee, a member of the LGBT advocacy group QueerSpace, ordered a cake in 2014 featuring Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie for a private function marking International Day Against Homophobia.

His order was accepted and he paid in full but, two days later, the company called to say it could not proceed due to the message requested.

In the original court case, District Judge Isobel Brownlie ruled that religious beliefs could not dictate the law and ordered the firm to pay damages of £500.

Daniel McArthur said outside court that 'a lot of people will be glad to hear this ruling today'

Mounting an unsuccessful challenge at the Court of Appeal in Belfast in 2016, Ashers contended that it never had an issue with Mr Lee's sexuality, rather the message he was seeking to put on the cake.

Poll Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision on the 'gay cake case' today? Yes No Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision on the 'gay cake case' today? Yes 8017 votes

No 601 votes Now share your opinion





Mr Scoffield told the justices that the case, a simple transaction, raised an issue of principle since those with deeply-held religious or philosophical convictions could be compelled to act against their beliefs.

Robin Allen QC, for Mr Lee, said: 'This was a relatively small incident in his life which has become enormously significant and continues to be so. That is a heavy burden to bear for one individual.'

Speaking outside court, Mr Lee said: 'To me, this was never about a campaign or a statement. All I wanted was to order a cake in a shop that sold cakes to order.

'I paid my money, my money was taken and then a few days later it was refused. That made me feel like a second-class citizen.

'I'm concerned not just for the implications for myself and other gay people, but for every single one of us.'

Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK or Ireland where same-sex marriage is outlawed, with Prime Minister Theresa May's DUP allies staunch opponents of changing the law.

Following the ruling, DUP leader Arlene Foster said the judgment was 'historic and seminal', adding: 'This has been a long journey for everyone involved in the case.

'I commend Amy & Daniel McArthur for their grace and perseverance. This now provides clarity for people of all faiths and none.'

And DUP MP Ian Paisley tweeted: 'Legal bill £360,000 for a £30 cake. Forced by the pathetic Equality Commission. They should be sacked!'

He later added: 'Simple message is. There was no discrimination on the LGBT! A person has the right not be be obliged to express someone else's beliefs! This is common sense and the Equality Commission are still complaining.'

How the 'gay cake case' has been running for four-and-a-half years Timeline of the 'gay cake case' May 9, 2014 : Gareth Lee asks the Ashers bakery for a cake to be decorated with the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage'

: Gareth Lee asks the Ashers bakery for a cake to be decorated with the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage' May 12, 2014 : Owner Daniel McArthur calls Mr Lee to say that they would not print the cake because it goes against their beliefs. Mr Lee later gets another bakery to make the cake

: Owner Daniel McArthur calls Mr Lee to say that they would not print the cake because it goes against their beliefs. Mr Lee later gets another bakery to make the cake June 26, 2014 : The Equality Commission sends the bakers a letter, claiming they had acted unlawfully

: The Equality Commission sends the bakers a letter, claiming they had acted unlawfully October 27, 2014 : The Commission tells the the McArthurs they also breached political and religious discrimination laws

: The Commission tells the the McArthurs they also breached political and religious discrimination laws November 7, 2014 : Legal action against the bakers is begun

: Legal action against the bakers is begun March 26, 27 and 30, 2015 : Case is heard at Laganside Courts in Belfast

: Case is heard at Laganside Courts in Belfast May 19, 2015 : Court rules the bakery breached political and sexual orientation discrimination regulations and orders it to pay £500 damages.

: Court rules the bakery breached political and sexual orientation discrimination regulations and orders it to pay £500 damages. 9-12 May, 2015 : Appeal by the Ashers is heard at the Court of Appeal in Belfast

: Appeal by the Ashers is heard at the Court of Appeal in Belfast October 24, 2016 : Court of Appeal rules against the bakery

: Court of Appeal rules against the bakery May 1-2, 2018 : Hearing at the Supreme Court in Belfast

: Hearing at the Supreme Court in Belfast October 10, 2018 : Bakers win their appeal over discrimination claims Advertisement

Simon Calvert, the Christian Institute's deputy director for public affairs, said: 'Ashers is now free to go back to doing what it does best – serving all its customers, from every walk of life.

'Because of today's ruling Muslim printers cannot be forced to print cartoons of Mohammed. Lesbian T-shirt firms can refuse to produce T-shirts calling gay marriage 'an abomination'.

'Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience are both protected by this ruling. Equality law was never intended to be used in the way the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland tried to use it in this case.

'Concerns about the Equality Commission's impartiality were expressed by the Court of Appeal and now the Supreme Court has done the same. Serious questions need to be asked about their role in all of this.'

Dr Michael Wardlow, chief commissioner of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, said the judgment 'may raise uncertainty' about what businesses can do and what customers may expect.

It also raises the prospect that 'the beliefs of business owners may take precedence over a customer's equality rights, which in our view is contrary to what the legislature intended', he said.

But LGBT campaigner Peter Tatchell told Premier Christian Radio: 'Although I disagree with Ashers' opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they - nor anyone else - should be forced by law to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.

'What's significant about this ruling is that it doesn't permit anyone to discriminate against LGBT people - such discrimination would remain rightfully unlawful.

'But, in this case, Ashers did not discriminate against the customer because he was gay. They objected to the message he wanted on the cake.

Five Supreme Court justices allowed a challenge by the McArthurs (pictured today) in London

'I think that the court has rightly decided that Ashers were operating within the realm of freedom of expression and that their case should be upheld.'

The Rainbow Project, Northern Ireland's largest support organisation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, expressed its disappointment at the Supreme Court ruling.

Director John O'Doherty said: 'Ashers agreed to make the cake. They entered into a contractual agreement to make this cake and then changed their mind.

'While sympathetic as some may be to the position in which the company finds itself, this does not change the facts of the case.

'I feel like a second class citizen', says gay activist after defeat Gay activist Gareth Lee said: 'To me, this was never about a campaign or a statement. All I wanted was to order a cake in a shop that sold cakes to order. 'I paid my money, my money was taken and then a few days later it was refused. That made me feel like a second-class citizen. 'I'm concerned not just for the implications for myself and other gay people, but for every single one of us.' Advertisement

'We believe this is direct discrimination for which there can be no justification. We will however take time to study this judgment by the Supreme Court to understand fully its implications for the rights of LGBT people to access goods, facilities and services without discrimination.

'We do not believe that this matter should have been brought to court. We believe that Ashers bakery should have accepted the Equality Commission's invitation to engage in mediation, where a remedy could have been found without the expense and division surrounding this court case.

'However, most damaging of all has been the attempt by politicians to use this case to justify amending the law to allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT people with the so-called 'conscience clause.'

Yvonne Gallagher, Partner at Harbottle and Lewis, said: 'The tension between protection of religious beliefs and other rights has been profound and difficult. In resolving this dispute, the Supreme Court has adopted a rather pragmatic view, whilst successfully balancing the rights of the equality act.'

'In the Supreme Court's view, this case was not about discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation but rather one of freedom of thought, conscience and religion'

Whilst some aspects are specific to Northern Ireland, the Supreme Court have now set a precedent, providing a helpful guide of vital importance to future cases of this nature'

The 'gay cake' case gives us an important clarification of 'direct discrimination', legal expert DAVID SHEPPARD says

By DAVID SHEPPARD, associate and lawyer at Capital Law, for MailOnline

The UK Supreme Court has today released its judgment regarding the widely-reported 'gay cake' case.

In 2014, a gay man and activist, Gareth Lee, made an order to Ashers Bakery in Belfast for a cake to have a message 'Support Gay Marriage' in icing, together with an image of Sesame Street's Bert and Ernie.

The bakery refused to fulfil Mr Lee's order, explaining that they were a Christian business and could not print the message, and a full refund was given.

Mr Lee brought proceedings against Ashers for direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and the Belfast County Court awarded £500 as damages.

This decision was upheld by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.

Ashers appealed, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the bakery did not commit direct discrimination against Mr Lee.

In an important clarification of the concept of 'direct discrimination', it must be shown that an individual has been treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic, which in this case was Mr Lee's sexual orientation.

In this case, no evidence was shown that Mr Lee was treated less favourably because he was gay, and Ashers objected only to the message being requested.

Had Mr Lee not been gay but requested the same message, Ashers would have again refused, so there was no less favourable treatment linked to Mr Lee's sexual orientation.

Rather than the individual messenger, it was the message Ashers was found to have discriminated against, which was not unlawful.

Lady Hale stated that 'the bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.'

This judgment clarifies the narrow scope of direct discrimination.

There must be evidence that an individual's own protected characteristic was the reason for the less favourable treatment.

Interestingly, had Mr Lee been a disabled person, and been refused a cake with a message supporting disability rights, it is arguably this would amount to 'discrimination arising from disability' and would be unlawful under the Equality Act, as it would be unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of the individual's disability.

However, this broader concept of protection is only available to disabled persons.

Other protected characteristics, like sexual orientation, gender, race and age can only rely on the narrower concept of direct discrimination, the limits of which have been starkly highlighted by the Supreme Court.