After refusing to bake a pro-gay marriage cake on the grounds it would have conflicted with their religious beliefs, the Christian owners of a bakery in Ireland were found guilty of discrimination. The owners have since lost their appeal in a ruling this week.
An appeals court in Belfast with a panel of three judges stood by a lower court's ruling that Daniel and Amy McArthur, the owners of Ashers Bakery in Belfast, were indeed guilty of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, Christian Post reports. The court stated that despite the family's religious beliefs, businesses are not allowed to deny services that they willingly offer to the general public.
The court wrote in its ruling, "Thus the supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. 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."
The course of events began in 2014, when gay activist Gareth Lee filed a case against them after they turned down a request to make a cake featuring the famous Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie with the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage' written on the top.
Following the ruling that the bakery had discriminated against Lee based on sexual orientation, the couple had to pay a small fine of a little over $600. The owners of the bakery went on to file an appeal in May this year. The appeals court went on to accept the family's defense that that they had not discriminated against Lee on account of his sexuality, but only refused the order because of the content of the message. However, the court did not consider it as a valid excuse.
The court's explanation read: "The benefit from the message or slogan on the cake could only accrue to gay or bisexual people. The appellants would not have objected to a cake carrying the message 'Support Heterosexual Marriage' or indeed 'Support Marriage.' We accept that it was the use of the word 'Gay' in the context of the message which prevented the order from being fulfilled. The reason that the order was cancelled was that the appellants would not provide a cake with a message supporting a right to marry for those of a particular sexual orientation. This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community. Accordingly, this was direct discrimination."
