The UAFC

A bakery owner who refused to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage because of his Christian beliefs has been threatened with legal action by anti-discrimination authorities unless he pays compensation.

Ashers Baking Company in Northern Ireland earlier this year declined to bake a cake with the image of Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie below the motto Support Gay Marriage.

In the wake of its refusal to provide the service, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, a state-funded watchdog body set up to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws, took on the case on behalf of the customer, a gay rights activist.

General manager of the family-run bakery, Daniel McArthur, said he had received a letter from the commission claiming his stance breached legislation.

He said the letter told the company that if it did not offer compensation within seven days it would face litigation.

McArthur said his family would not be forced to promote a cause that went against their views. “We feel that the Equality Commission are pursuing us because of our beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said.

“It feels like a David and Goliath battle because on one hand we have the Equality Commission who are a public body, they’re funded by taxpayers’ money, they have massive resources at their disposal whereas we are a small family business and we have limited resources at our disposal.

“We don’t want to be forced to promote a cause which is against our biblical beliefs. We’ve had a lot of support from people who disagree with our stance on same-sex marriage. They think that we should have the freedom to decline an order that conflicts with our conscience.”

Gay marriage is a highly divisive issue in Northern Ireland. The bakery’s decision was backed by Christian advocacy groups but criticised by gay rights organisations. Northern Ireland politicians have intervened on both sides of the debate.

A spokesman for the Equality Commission confirmed a letter had been sent to the bakery calling for “modest damages” to be paid to avoid litigation.

“The commission has now received a response from the company’s solicitors stating that their view remains unchanged that their clients have not acted unlawfully, confirming they have no further proposals to make on their clients behalf and that they will accept service of a civil bill in regard to this matter.

“The commission will be issuing a civil bill in this case and a decision as to whether or not discrimination has occurred will be a matter for the court. The commission will not be making further comment on the facts or issues in the case before a court hearing.”

Snipe Watson wrote:Why would we want to discuss this again since there is zero chance of consensus?

Kofi Annan wrote:

Snipe Watson wrote:Why would we want to discuss this again since there is zero chance of consensus?

snipe, your so cynical

damianmcr wrote:Wonder what they class as modest damages.

Russ wrote:Cake is unhealthy

Rooster wrote:

Russ wrote:Cake is unhealthy

Not if you would eat just a slice Russ, not the whole damned cake in one session.

Rooster wrote:

Russ wrote:Cake is unhealthy

Not if you would eat just a slice Russ, not the whole damned cake in one session.

Dave wrote:I view this as an over the top response to an over the top response. Why doesn't someone make them a bloody cake and move the feck on! I hate that stuff like this makes the news, and feckin curry my yoghurt, meanwhile the ravaging cuts proposed for the health service are attributed very few feckage.

BR wrote:I almost hope the EC take it to court. Then when they are told to feck aff it will set a legal precedent.