Report comment

It wasn’t because of freedom of expression that the orientation claim failed (that arose in the political discrimination claim). Rather 1) the reason wasn’t Lee’s orientation or association with the NI gay marriage campaign, they disagreed with the (political) message. 2) There was no less favourable treatment-anyone would have been treated equally. 3) They would have served him absent the message.
There are misgivings over 1) in that the prohibition on same sex relationships in the monotheistic religions inherently is (orientation) discriminatory. Just as Islamic beliefs requiring only women to wear the veil is sex discriminatory. As is the prohibition on free mixing of the sexes/segregation (see the Al Hijrah school CA case). This issue arose in the Ladele case but didn’t feature before the Supreme Court.
But whereas point 1 splits opinion, it’s surely the right result due to 2). Similarly a gay baker can refuse a “support heterosexual marriage” order. Or a law firm could have refused this case if they disagreed with its attempt to develop the law, in a way Lady Hale said went outside its proper scope. Presumably though the SRA would have something to say about it.