Report comment

On further consideration (my post at 9.48) it is troubling on the comparator and therefore the direct discrimination decision. The CA said it was a straight customer seeking a cake “support heterosexual marriage”. Hence why they found direct discrimination. The Supreme Court didn’t comment on the comparator, which undermines their finding all would have been treated equally. On that basis a florist, whether for religious reasons or otherwise, could surely refuse a gay (or straight) customer flowers for a gay wedding if they disagree with it, on the basis anyone of any orientation would be refused. It's uncertain with the writer’s “support mixed-race marriage” example. Arguably if you would refuse everyone such order it couldn’t be direct race discrimination even if racist. A modern example of the "I treat everyone equally badly point" perhaps. There are contrary arguments though around inherently discriminatory reasons as I alluded. Or here the Court referred to "indisssociability." In any event the decision needed to engage with the comparator point. We now we have legal uncertainty.