Ashers Bakery Owners Lodge Legal Appeal Over 'Gay Cake' Case

The owners of Ashers Bakery have taken the first steps in the legal appeal against the court judgment in the 'gay cake' case.

The firm was ordered to pay £500 for refusing to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage.

The bakery was asked by Gareth Lee to make a cake with Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie with a motto in support of gay marriage.

District Judge Isobel Brownlie said that Mr Lee had been discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation.

However, the firms legal team has lodged papers asking District Judge Isobel Brownlie to "state a case" for the opinion of the Court of Appeal.

The case will rest on legal arguments.

In papers lodged earlier this week, lawyers for Ashers who are applying for the appeal said: "We have identified the broad points of law with which the applicant is dissatisfied."

There are six main grounds for the appeal.

• Whether the Judge was correct as a matter of law to hold that Ashers had discriminated against Mr Lee directly on grounds of sexual orientation?

• Whether the Judge was correct as a matter of law to hold that Ashers had discriminated against Mr Lee directly on grounds of religious belief or political opinion?

• Whether the Judge was correct as a matter of law to hold that, had she not considered the case to give rise to direct discrimination on any of the above protected characteristics, alternatively she would have held that the same amounted to indirect discrimination which was not justified by Ashers?

• Whether the Judge was correct to hold as a matter of law that it was not necessary to read down or disapply the provisions of the Regulations or FETO (The Fair Employment and Treatment (NI) Order 1998) to take account of Ashers’ protected right to hold and manifest their genuinely-held religious belief that marriage is, according to God’s law, between one man and one woman, pursuant to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

• Whether the Judge was correct to hold as a matter of law that it was not necessary to read down or disapply the provisions of the Regulations or FETO to take account of Ashers’ protected right not to express a religious belief or political opinion which was contrary to their conscience, contrary to Article 10 of the ECHR.

• Whether the Judge was correct to hold as a matter of law that Ashers was not entitled to protection as a result of the rights under Articles 9 and/or 10 of the ECHR.

Simon Calvert of The Christian Institute said: "I believe that most people think that this is a ruling that should be overturned.

"There has been such extraordinary support from people from all walks of life who are appalled by what has happened to the McArthur family. There is huge public support for an appeal and it is vitally important that the higher courts consider this issue."

(CD)